To ask if anyone else on MN is not anti-trans?

[Lilieee]

I'm not interested in someone 'debunking the trans agenda' or how no one on here is like that, all I'm interested in is if any pro-trans Mumsnetters could pop up so I don't feel alone

as ever, the TRA posts are simplistic, without nuance. And they never, ever respond to counter arguments. Because they can't.

It’s not Misgendering to call a man he and a woman she. The fact that some people ditch reality and linguistic convention is neither here nor there to me, I don’t subscribe to the trans ideology - simple. Same way the Arch Bishop of Canterbury isn’t going to start praying to Allah in his Sunday morning sermon.

transwomen can already use the women’s toilets and get the world has continues to turn and we remain largely unbothered by it.

Women and girls are very much bothered by it. You just don’t give a shit.

Girls in school end up with UTIs due to avoiding the toilets all day, for example.

Flights of fancy? Very sympathetic. Thanks. You're not actually bothered about people being violated as long as it suits your agenda then?

There's posts up thread that refer to "your brother ... She...", that's transphobic and no one will fall for disingenuous protestations that it isn't.

One more example because I posted on the thread so I could easily find it. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5088328-friends-child-and-gender-change?page=2&reply=135743956 Posters saying they would end a friendship with someone who had a trans child.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

But they do have the experience that as a boy/man their wants/needs are prioritised. And boy don't we see it!

No mention of toilets there

Because all they have is soundbites they think are magic spells to cut out debate, they’ve never applied critical thinking (because then the whole thing collapses) so can’t debate - they soon run out of soundbites.

In your parallel universe you have. In this one, not so much.

Not legally they can't.

I’m really really sorry that happened to you. And yes you should have a space where you feel safe, as should everyone.

but, and respectfully, I’m not really talking about the way things are now. We’re all far too deep into gender to get out! But it might not be that way forever and I think that’s a good thing.

eg my point about spaces, those spaces exist because we’ve categorised ‘men’ and ‘women’ and ‘men’ are the ones who commit violence against ‘women’. That means, as a ‘woman’ I am a person who male violence is done to, and socially we’ve decided there are protections needed from that. Which, yes, gives us a certain power. It’s a bit of a shit kind of power but it is power of a sort. A power defined by what men will do to us. Personally, I don’t really care to have a power defined by bad things that could happen to me, I just recognise that annoyingly it needs to exist. But I don’t believe it’s fundamental, I don’t believe men are just born to be shit. I believe it’s culture.

But so, recategorise. People who do violence to others. What do we do about stopping that if it doesn’t look so gendered? What if the sex classes of ‘victim’ and ‘aggressor’ don’t exist in the way we currently know them? What if, as a really general example, people who look like ‘women’ were NOT neccessarily going to be physically weaker than a ‘man’ who attacks them. What if when you were choosing people for promotions, you had no idea of knowing whether they were born male or female? What if we didn’t put an arbitrary barrier in sporting competitions that meant a woman could never compete against men?

It doesn’t say that though/- I guess you’re not used to reading and interpreting legislation

100% correct.

Thanks for the stats in this post, I've saved your post.

And yes, there are so many tells. The gait. Voice, adams apple, lack of hips, square male jaw, limb size, philtrum width etc etc.

But so, recategorise. People who do violence to others. What do we do about stopping that if it doesn’t look so gendered? What if the sex classes of ‘victim’ and ‘aggressor’ don’t exist in the way we currently know them? What if, as a really general example, people who look like ‘women’ were NOT neccessarily going to be physically weaker than a ‘man’ who attacks them. What if when you were choosing people for promotions, you had no idea of knowing whether they were born male or female? What if we didn’t put an arbitrary barrier in sporting competitions that meant a woman could never compete against men?

Are you suggesting the above as a good idea? I can't quite tell.

Why do "words fail you"?

Yeah, SMH at that post.

What if pigs could fly?

What if the Pope were actually a Buddhist?

Abso bloody lutely I am

Abso bloody lutely I am

So you suggest we ignore all statistics that give a clear idea of what needs there are, and what safeguarding is required? Why? It's a shockingly bad idea.

Why? It has no basis in reality. We live in the real world.

You go tell men, all men, to stop committing acts of violence against women, and once that's done, let's talk.

They absolutely should seek care. They deserve care every bit as much as a natal woman who has been raped.

So do natal male rape victims. They deserve equal care and support.

That care and support though doesn't need to exist in the same room as the care and support for natal women.

Unless you don't think any rape crisis centres should be single sex at all? That they should be unisex so natal men (who identify as such) should be present in the same meetings too?

in response to the original post, there's a very clear reason why MN is predominantly gender critical. It's an anonymous board. In the real world, TRAs will bully, dox, abuse and intimidate anyone who has the temerity to state uncontroversial facts, such as the fact that trans women are male, or the fact that lesbians can't have penises, or the fact that humans can't ever change sex.

On MN they can state how they really feel, without the fear that an angry MRA will email their employer. This has happened many times and despite the fact that many many women have won their cases against TRAs because the Forstater case determined that GC views are protected by law, they know that through threat and intimidation they can silence many more women.

It's basic misogyny.

We need to cut through the hyperbole and address conflicts of interests. Seeking to ignore, shout over or shut down conversation about competing interests simply sustains the conflict.

Firstly, claims about what constitutes transphobia and 'anti woman' needs addressing.

Wanting or recognising that, in some circumstances, natal sex is important, irrespective of identity does, not constitute transphobia. Whilst many trans allies agree with this, once it is applied to real life situations (such as domestic violence refuges), they suggest this is transphobic.

Using preferred pronouns and accepting that some people have a gender identity that is important to them is not anti woman and isn't necessarily a gateway to eradicating sex being a classification in its own right.

There are many, many posters who are compassionate, thoughtful and recognise the competing needs and interests. Their posts tend to get overshadowed by the more hyperbolic ones that provoke knee jerk reactions. This is understandable as lots of us have lots of 'skin in the game'.

Mumsnet, thankfully, have a reasoned and considered approach to determining what is and isn't transphobic or anti woman. My recommendation to posters is that when they are 'shocked' by examples of 'hatred' and 'bigotry' that haven't been deleted, try and think about alternative motivations, beyond 'hatred' that might underpin those posts

Exactly.