Permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’

[RumAndReisling]

Following ten years uneventful membership of a major social media site I have been permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’.

Never again will I be able to participate on that site.

My crime? Saying that if you had given birth to a child, there was no way you could literally change sex and produce semen to father one.

Is this not a statement of fact, or is this now unacceptable to say?

AIBU to say that my husband isn’t able to give birth?

I am pro women’s rights and probably would be classed as holding gender critical beliefs

But also

with good reasoning behind it (not just the blanket “but they are menz and I might get raped”

interesting interpretation of pro women’s rights

That wasn’t an interpretation of women’s rights, but you’ve just backed up exactly the point that I was making in my post.

”I have serious concerns for my physical safety in an intimate setting around a biological male that still has a penis and who hasn’t undergone reassignment surgery” is rather different to “all trans people in these spaces must be rapists”.

One is a reasonable position to take, the other is not. One helps the cause, the other does not.

Hold and express an educated, rational and reasonable view and maybe we will be listened to.

all trans people in these spaces must be rapists

I've literally never heard anyone say this. On here or anywhere else.

I don't use social media as a platform for political (or other) rants and the like.

It's a shame that, whatever hobby space you go to, there is always someone who wants to get into politics or whatever soap box they have.

Protected from facts?

To paraphrase George Orwell, “Every book rewritten, every picture repainted”. We are being forced to believe the unbelievable and to accept it as a fact

What if the trans man is the parent who didn't give birth? Is he a mother or a father?

Obviously not the father, as a female can never become a father. The birth certificate belongs to/is about the child, not the parents. The parents are essentially just there to provide context.

If you really must collude with the government to retrospectively falsify your own birth certificate, that's one thing; but how extremely arrogant to believe that you should be allowed to falsify somebody else's official record of their birth.

Subsequent adoption certificates may of course vary; but again, as the focus is on the child and not the adults, it is grossly arrogant to expect to use that child's official record to validate yourself as any kind of actual/in loco mother (if you are male) or as any kind of actual/in loco father (if you are female).

When I asked that question I meant socially, not legally. I can't find anything online about what would go on a birth certificate in that situation.

But yeah if a woman had a baby and she had a husband who was a trans man, and everyone around him saw him as a man generally then would it be fine for him to be called dad by his children or should he have to be called mum?

”I have serious concerns for my physical safety in an intimate setting around a biological male that still has a penis and who hasn’t undergone reassignment surgery” is rather different to “all trans people in these spaces must be rapists”.

The only people I have ever heard say the latter are TRAs wilfully misrepresenting women's arguments.

When I asked that question I meant socially, not legally. I can't find anything online about what would go on a birth certificate in that situation.

But yeah if a woman had a baby and she had a husband who was a trans man, and everyone around him saw him as a man generally then would it be fine for him to be called dad by his children or should he have to be called mum?

Ah, sorry - I see. But I would still answer largely the same, socially speaking. When a same-sex couple seek to become parents, they know very well that there are going to be two mums or two dads in the child's upbringing from the very beginning.

If you were previously known as one biological sex and are seeking to become known by the parent word that refers to the other biological sex, not only is it deliberately confusing to all concerned, but it detracts from the person of the sex who is (or naturally expects to be) known as the that-sex parent, and thus also the child's understanding of the world and their place in it.

It seems to be 'A Thing' for some transwomen - who transition when they are older - to then declare themselves as their children's mother. Of course, they already have an actual mother - who is not in a lesbian relationship and therefore expects the right to be acknowledged as their only one.

It's just another way for certain biological males to forcefully appropriate women's identities; the actual mother is then pressured to take on an additional qualifier (as with the hideous 'cis' slur) - so she has to become 'Mum Louise', to be distinguished from 'Mum Phyllis' - when just 'Mum' should always have been enough within her family, when she 'signed up' right from the start to take that unique role, alongside Philip, known just as 'Dad'.

Some stood cunt from Brighton reported me to Facebook for quoting the dictionary definition of woman which apparently was bullying. I had my account restricted.

if people cannot see the problem with this they’re blind and stupid. Just because the restrictions currently accord with your world view (most likely created by social
media) doesn’t mean that one day the thought police won’t come for you.

@OMG12

I quoted a dictionary definition of a biological female on this thread and was accused of 'picking ridiculous fights with people' even though I'm also gender critical.

Both sides have absolutely lost their minds on this issue.

In the hypothetical situation I'm talking about the child has a mum who gave birth, who they would call mum, and the other parent is a trans man. Everyone, including the child, would be confused if the child was calling him mum, because everyone considers him to be a man.
I don't see why it would be different for families with two mums one of whom is a trans woman. Yes they'd have to add a qualifier or give them slightly different names (mummy and mama) but all lesbian parents have to do that. And nobody is particularly concerned in daily life which parent gave birth to them. Certainly not what type of genitals each parent has. Children shouldn't really have anything to do with their parents genitals after conception and birth is done.

Indeed it's hate to women to pretend that men can become one. That sort of hate is OK though.

I would argue the insanity of one side on this has been the cause. Where is anyone going to go when someone has lost a grip on reality to such an extent they think someone with a penis, male chromosomes who produces male gametes is actually a woman. I can’t even. Begin to understand how anyone can reach this conclusion with a straight face!

It's not the case that everybody considers a trans man a man at all. Most look just like every other woman. And it's not about genitals ffs. Trans ideologists are the ones obsessed with genitals hence all the surgery. It's about whole bodies and social oppression.

@OMG12 yes, I think you're probably right there.

Still, I think being drawn into heated online discussions about specific (ridiculous) scenarios doesn't really help. Why engage with the delusion at all?

I'm not the first gender critical poster on this thread to comment on the antagonistic tone of posters towards them/ each other. This doesn't really help the cause.

There is currently a police report out asking for information about a teenaged male who was horrendously sexually assaulted over the weekend. The sketchy report seems that this poor teenager woke up on a floor with head and other body injuries and the attack was described as a sexual assault.

The police report calls the two suspects women, aged between 18-20 years old and uses female pronouns. There is a rough description given.

Are we to look for female teenagers? Will this lead to the public giving useful information?

In the hypothetical situation the trans man looks just like a man and you wouldn't know unless you were told. Trans people who pass obviously do exist.

In the hypothetical situation I'm talking about the child has a mum who gave birth, who they would call mum, and the other parent is a trans man. Everyone, including the child, would be confused if the child was calling him mum, because everyone considers him to be a man.
I don't see why it would be different for families with two mums one of whom is a trans woman. Yes they'd have to add a qualifier or give them slightly different names (mummy and mama) but all lesbian parents have to do that. And nobody is particularly concerned in daily life which parent gave birth to them. Certainly not what type of genitals each parent has. Children shouldn't really have anything to do with their parents genitals after conception and birth is done.

In that case, if the actual mother is truly happy for her partner to use a female title, then I suppose it might be a case of what works for them. I suppose the child would need to be told at a later stage that 'Dad' isn't their biological father, just like with all cases of sperm donation, if they are too young yet for it to be obvious to them.

However, as PP says, the vast majority of trans people do not look like the opposite sex at all. Some may refer to them as their appropriated 'gender' and pronouns, but it's done as a twee social nicety, validating their beliefs, rather than from any kind of conviction. It's done with the kindest of intentions, but as we've all seen at length on these forums, it isn't really a kindness to anybody really - not to the deluded person who genuinely thinks that they 'pass' and most certainly not to the women whose rights and protected spaces are taken by biological males.

In the hypothetical situation the trans man looks just like a man and you wouldn't know unless you were told. Trans people who pass obviously do exist.

Maybe a very, very tiny minority. It's often less obvious in (carefully-taken) photos, but when you see a transman in amongst a group of (biological) men, it's almost always blatantly obvious. Possibly less so if it were a group of 13/14yo boys - but the mannerisms and comportment are clearly very different between young teenagers and adults.

Then if a trans woman second parent 1. Looked like a woman i.e passed and everyone assumed they were a woman, and 2. The birth mother was also very happy for her partner to be another "mum" and referred as such (no abuse or coercion involved and she is supportive of their gender identity) do you still think the children should have to call that second parent "dad"?

not just the blanket “but they are menz and I might get raped”**

what’s wrong with this? It’s true and it’s the reason separate spaces for women exist - along with the increased risk of murder, assault, harassment, intimidation, leering, flashing etc. it literally is the reason - alongside privacy and religious beliefs etc, but it’s the most important reason.

when we’re talking about women’s safety generally, aside from the trans issue, everyone understands this. Protection for women in the form of singe sex toilets, hospital wards, prisons etc is there to save women from the vastly higher likelihood of being raped and similar, if men are there.

add to that that we know trans-identifying men are MORE likely to be sex offenders than the average man. That doesn’t mean they all are, of course not. It means more of them are than the background level of men who are not allowed into women’s spaces.

that’s not surprising at all when self-Id policies mean any man can say he’s a woman and get access to women’s spaces. Who wants that? Sex offenders. And saying you’re a woman gets male offenders access to women’s prisons. Who wants that - sex offenders. And we know many TW, even if they are not deliberately lying just to get access, have a fetish about being in women’s spaces and find it a turn-on - many openly say so themselves.

so the reason for women’s safe single-sex spaces becomes even more pressing when it’s TW we don’t want there, not less. And that reason is sexual assault and flashing (and btw flashing is known typical precursor to more serious sex crimes).

I actually also am a GC person who doesn’t go along with attacking trans people on the basis of how they look or how deluded they may seem. One reason for that is because I know there are often MH issues involved and people often struggle a lot with the disappointment of transition and need to convince themselves. I don’t think jeering at them is a good idea and I don’t.

But facts are facts and my approach is that policy should not be based on ideas that have no evidence to support them. We need to stay in touch with the evidenced facts, statistics and material reality when marking policies. Banning talking about facts is extremely dangerous ground.

Same here.

My eyebrow has been raised a few times by posters claiming to be “pro women’s rights and actually gender critical but…”