To say that just because someone is opposed to " Trans Acceptance Without Exception" it doesn't mean that they are GC or Feminist.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

And it's important to understand the difference?

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Radical Feminist POV. Gender is abstract. A societal construct that can be accepted, rejected or adapted throughout life. Gender is different to biological sex which is scientifically binary and immutable so Gender is not really important and not a stable basis for law.

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Feminist POV. Gender might have a biological component. Fine with gender ideology long as biological women's rights, security and single sex spaces are safe with no encroachment from males.

Some oppose Trans Activism because it goes against their religious beliefs. It does not make them GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because they believe in stereotypical gender roles. Men should be men and women should be women. This is not GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because of misogyny. They hate women. They hate men pretending to be women because it debases men. This is not GC or feminist.

Am i being Unreasonable to say that just because someone is opposed to TRA "acceptance without exception", it doesnt mean they are Gender Critical or feminists. And we need to understand the difference.

Well. Yes. We were absolutely clear who had policies that supported putting male people in prison with female people. I don't think you will find anyone denying what the government allowed.

And many of us supported the brave group of women who worked with the current government to make these changes.

If people are not honest and forthright about where policies need to be changed, official or potential, we are going to get nowhere.

Kemi Badenoch's views on having a specific law on menopause are a red herring when it is already covered, as stated upthread, by the protected characteristic of Sex (and possibly disability) under the Equality Act.

If she were seeking to specifically exempt menopause from those protected characteristics or to removed the sex PC altogether you would have a point.

Well i'm not trying to say it is ALL Labours fault. All I said was that the Acts of parliament that enabled rapists to enter women's prison's (and all of the other invasions of single sex spaces) came about because they were enacted by the Labour Party.

I would be interested to know how you think Labour will prevent a 'legal woman' who has F as the sex marker in their passport from being in women's single sex spaces. I would also be interested to know how the Tories will solve this. This is a key issue now if we are to claw back women's rights.

No offence but I wasn't asking you. I'm asking that question of @lifeturnsonadime, as she seems to think that anyone criticising Tory government policy should also have to criticise past government's policies.

I didn't see either of you explaining this to the poster who mention Nandy upthread.

I didn't see the Nandy post, but it's an odd question. The fact that rapists were in women's prisons until recently makes it clear that it has happened under a Tory government, I'm not sure why that needs spelling out when we have had a conservative government for the last 13 years. I think everyone in this country knows we are under a Tory government!

It is perhaps not so obvious that the laws that enabled this were introduced prior to the Tories getting into power. Some people genuinely don't know that that the Labour Party introduced the GRC and others are ignoring the fact that rapists are in women's prisons due to a number of factors combined which are these laws and the fact that the Tory party didn't prevent it and seemed to follow Stonewall advice.

As far as I know Nandy hasn't backtracked on her views that rapists should be in women's prisons if they identify as trans.

JKRowling tweeted her directly about this last year (after the Isla Bryson issue).

She is likely to be front bench in a Labour government. Her views are genuinely frightening.

No offence but I wasn't asking you. I'm asking that question of @lifeturnsonadime, as she seems to think that anyone criticising Tory government policy should also have to criticise past government's policies.

I'm not talking about policies I'm talking about an Act of parliament that was introduced by Labour which allows men to have the sex marker of Female.

That's pretty fucking key to this issue no matter how much you try to deny it.

I haven't denied it.

I can’t believe we’re still here, many posts later, agreeing that:
To say that just because someone is opposed to " Trans Acceptance Without Exception" it doesn't mean that they are GC or Feminist.

Yes, I have no disagreement with the statement as it is.

And the majority of Mnetters who clicked on the thread agree. I hope it follows on that there will be less labelling of sexists and those who believe in gender stereotypes as GC.

This is the same mumsnet that is supposedly so anti-trans because of “gender critical feminism”. 🤔

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4991715-to-buy-this-when-i-dont-know-if-baby-is-a-girl-or-boy?page=3

Not sure what your point is?

Thank goodness i thought it was just me

i have a had a long day so may be missing something but i don’t get it either

This is a large site with a lot users. Try not to take labels so literally.

I'm going to guess - is it because the fleece is sort of rainbow-coloured or pink/blue, which are sometimes associated with LGBTQ flag or trans flag*, so it's ironic that MN is called anti-trans because there is a post on the site (of millions of users) with rainbow baby clothes?
(remember, being trans is nothing to do with sex stereotypes; it's just some weird coincidence that the flag is nothing but blue and pink which happen to be stereotypes for boys and girls!)

I think we are asking a bit much of some posters in requesting a clear chain of logic to be set out to make some sort of coherent point, so I'm going to be kind and not.

I think we are asking a bit much of some posters in requesting a clear chain of logic to be set out to make some sort of coherent point, so I'm going to be kind and not.

Quite!

Absolutely ridiculous that my previous, post was deleted: the transphobia that is allowed unchallenged all over this site, and I point out the simple truth, that gender stereotyping (not critical thinking about gender) is what causes people to fear/ feel hatred/ disgust towards trans people (hatred and disgust which is manifest all over this site) , my post is deleted? How is that anyway against talk guidelines? It’s not a personal attack against anyone, it’s a simple commentary on what typically drives transphobia. Honestly the moderation on this site is getting worse and worse.

No idea what you mean 🤷🏼‍♀️

Just maybe it was because you picked a random woman's thread about clothes for her baby and dragged it into an argument she is not involved in. Whilst linking it to alleged fear and disgust of trans people to try and make a point.

This is a one thread. That is another. I haven't read it, but if you see anyone incorrectly using the term GC on it, feel free to send them the link to this one.

Yes, TAATs have always been against MN talk guidelines so I imagine that it was considered NITS. It was completely irrelevant to this thread.

Yet it appears to be absolutely fine for some posters to drag in material from a completely different forum and make derogatory remarks about people posting there.

is it because the fleece is sort of rainbow-coloured or pink/blue, which are sometimes associated with LGBTQ flag or trans flag… so it's ironic that MN is called anti-trans because there is a post on the site (of millions of users) with rainbow baby clothes?

errrr what? No.

As I tried to explain in my previous post (which was for some incomprehensible reason deleted) mumsnet is full of anti-trans sentiment. It’s also full of people who fully embrace, support gender stereotypes (as evidenced by that thread where a cardigan is being widely declared unsuitable for baby boys). Is this a coincidence? No. Being trans exclusionary has nothing to do with thinking critically about gender and nothing to do with feminism, despite what a lot of loud (self-professed) “gender critical feminists” on this site like to claim.