Why were trans threads hidden?

[ImConfusedDotComHelp]

Since the ruling that biological sex matters I've been reading more and more. Every day.

To my shame, I didn't really follow the issue or consider it before. The more I read, the more horrified I am at how women who've been campaigning have been treated by society, by TRA activists, by other women and even on mumsnet hidden in a corner in sex and feminism.

JK Rowling having rape and death threats for sharing her concerns. Women being cancelled. This is an every women and every girl issue.

With the rise in toxic masculinity and misogyny in schools and society we all need to talk about this more.

Well done to those that did the talking and campaigning for the safety of all women.

[(Edit)
Sorry.
This was in reply to @SleeplessInWherever s post the quoting of which MN dumped during a crash ]

I’m sure we all agree that there is no threshold of rape that’s acceptable.

(Just a FYI you dont need to actually answer any of the questions in this post if you dont want to.)

Can you define the word "we"

You and the poster?
You and me and the poster?
You and TRA who have said its ok if some women get raped once the sub-class of males get to use female SSS ?

And can you define what a rape is?

Because the Scottish government was going to pass legislation which would have given an employee a "get out of jail and keep your job card" until women made it clear it could be a career killer vote. Most opted not to 'crash and burn.'

This is what that poster typed and uploaded on to MN
( I think was the second (?) poster on this thread to bring up rape and provision of services.)

Let’s be honest here, how many women are being raped by trans women?

So Asked a question

There is a "number" and each and every woman raped becomes a debate.

Now this is a TRA point.

If a male is a sex offender and said he is a transwoman he can not really be a transwoman as sex offenders can not be transwomen.

And also per the TRA point of view.

its transphopic of anybody to debate that a transwoman is not who he says he is.

Genuinely?

I will kindy say this is re-asking a question for a number of women raped.
And not using the word to say
• that women were not raped or
• that the offender could not have raped because he was in a sub-class of men and that sub-class of men do not rape women or
• the offender could not be in the sub-class of men because he raped.

Because it certainly isn’t anything near a large number,

Here imo the poster recognises that there is a number but it has to be a "large" number of women who were raped before each and every woman raped becomes a debate.

To me this is setting a benchmark at one or more.

You and others are free and able to have other opinions on what it may mean.

And the "yes well men rape anyway so why have SSS which are designed to keep men out" argument is setting a threshold because more attacks happen in mixed sex spaces when there is extra access.

Canada played that whole " word game " with the women facing fines (up to $10k ) from the State of Canada for refusing to be sexually assaulted by a man who had a "female" penis etc demanding that the women as service providers to women wax the area as he was a woman.

And the women were refused and were rejected by a large number of legal firms who win or loose would be paid to argue a legal point. And when the women did get legal representation not one single person who earned a living reporting news turned up to report it. That was left to one woman and her twitter account.

In Ireland it was a hair cut and the staff member was found to have discriminated. So the Irish politicians will have a problem if some bloke who gets a GRC to abuse the loophole in the EA which was enacted to prevent that type of sexual abuse. The deer in the headlights look can be benchmarked against Keir Starmer.

And just because :

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5321013-rosie-duffields-face-when-starmer-is-speaking

Now in the UK Tribunal Tweets if given permission provides live reporting of ongoing court cases where one persons rights are debated and sometimes that one persons rights apply to the whole community.

And MN allows users to discuss it

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Which resulted in women organisng to see what the tax funded mangers need to undo

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5291237-nhs-policy-audit-working-party

But near large number of rapes

but as soon as it happens once the whole trans community is blamed.

Not all men and women are like that so ..

But how do we as a society deal with the clash of rights if we are not allowed to look at harms and ask if they can be prevented?

Anyway you asked

But I would say that repeatedly replying to other posters asking them their view on this particular comment,

Which bit?
The split between transphobes and non-transphobes or that the poster has a number?
Bigots and single sex spaces?
Rape and a number?
Tone of post?

when their post or question had nothing to do with it,

Please quote my actual post and we can discuss it in context.

could be seen as encouraging a “pile on.”

The post has been engaged with before on various points by myself and other posters and these engagements were i believe all ignored

(At the moment MN click to see old posts is kicking me out when I scroll so I am totally open to correction on that)

And a "pile on"

That would be true if I believed that the poster has not hit the ignore button after calling out the 'transphobic bigots'.

This is imo a reasonably held belief as I cant see any way to walk back the words "Because it certainly isn’t anything near a large number"

But the poster may suprise me.

That exchange was 3 days ago now (according to those timestamps), I’m not sure every person on this thread needs to individually tell this person off.

Was I actually asking individuals to tell the person off?
or
Was I actually asking them if they held the same view?
or
Was I actually asking if the post set a tone which differed from " I’ve hidden them all because they’re dull as fuck " ?

Feel free to quote my posts and we can discuss/debate it.

And if I missed a post from the individuals who dont like the tone of some posters stating that individual post lowered the tone of the "pro-trans" side of "both" sides please quote or time date/reference and I will say "thank you" to them directly on this thread.

I think what that poster actually meant was

You have formed an opinion on what the poster was thinking but can you explain why and how you reached that opinion about that poster?

if you looked at the specifics of being a trans woman, and committing sexual offence, the rates are probably quite low, and that trans women are blamed for the actions of all biological males.

First the specifics transwomen are biological males who have a self identity which society has decided is not typically masculine sometimes called "women gender".

Under "No Debate" any male who says he has a woman gender has a womans gender so there are any number of sub-groups eg trasvestites and transsexuals and plain old fashioned rapists who only self ID to game the system and etc. who become transwomen.

I have yet to see anybody saying that all male rapists are transwomen.

Have you seen this type of statement anywhere?

If so what was the context of such a crazy idea?

And that idea and type comment would be
• 100% transphobic and
• imo justifiable described as a hate crime against all and any who fall with in the classification

But lets look at sex offending rates.

Can the UK provide data for sex crimes and for prison data of sex offenders who offended to meet the threshold of being deprived of liberty?

It can

Is the data broken down
• by sex ?
• by gender identity?
• by having a GRC?
• by sex placed in the other sexes prisons?

Yes to all this.

And the data set includes both female and male sex offenders

And the official data recorded and published and quoted on MN shows that this :

the rates are probably quite low,

• When looking at men as a whole group
and
• When looking as the sub-group "transwomen"

is not a factual statement for the UK.

And when benchmarked against females

The data shows that females as a whole sex offend as much lower rates than any male group or sub-group.

And that while males are held in womens prisons no female prisoners are held in mens prisons.

You may note I have not provided the data nor links as @Helleofabore and other posters regularly provide it on threads where the "this sub-group of males are safer than males in general because I said and I dont have to explain nor justify why what I believe has to be true" argument is made.

If you want the data you can find it by searching or ask here and I will try link/quote the UKs official reports posts.

Do you think that the poster could have provided data to support the position that sex offending rates were lower?

You don’t have to agree with that point,

Which point?
That some posters are choosing to tone police?
That some poster think if I or others adjusted our tone that more MN users would ask ask about who should have what rights?
Or that large number was at least one rape?

but repeatedly asking us/this thread to disagree with it

That is a called confirmation bias.

People could agree with any point I or other posters have made or say that they with point A but totally reject point B

Eg the "both sides" point

and targeting responses specifically towards that person does nothing to convince anyone that the GC debate isn’t toxic and doesn’t involve bullying people don’t agree with you.

You could have opened with " I think that you look as if you are bullying that specific poster using that post because "
or
Ask just me why I keep referencing that post.

Now i know that option 1 could be classed as being abusive but I would have replied (in great detail) if I liked your 'becauses'.

Eg from @Anewdawnanewname

Anewdawnanewname · 20/04/2025 21:17
Honestly, I don’t know why you’re tagging me in this, but I can’t make head nor tail of what you’re asking, and it’s posts like this that makes me want to ignore these threads with the tone of “you’ll maybe be interested in this as it’s a men’s rights issue.” It’s not the issue that’s the problem for me, it’s the tone of the posts.

About my post:

AnSolas · 20/04/2025 20:52
You may be ok with this its Mens Right question..
So you as a jury member for a criminal trial ( or a civil case for damages) and have to decide if a man was assaulted in an A&E.

Judge tell you that assault is the
•act of unwanted physical contact to another person or
• the threat of unwanted physical contact to another person or
• attempt to do so.

A man came into A&E and told the admission/nursing staff member he want a man doctor and another man chaperone for any medical provision including any examinations

There are 4 doctors on staff :
A) female who classes herself as a woman
B) female who classes herself as a transman
C) male who classes himself as a man
D) male who classes himself as a transwoman.

The there are 4 chaperones on staff :
E) female who classes herself as a woman
F) female who classes herself as a transman
G) male who classes himself as a man
H) male who classes himself as a transwoman.

Its a such a quiet night that all 8 individuals are having a teabreak together when the admissions staff member comes in and says one man doctor and one man chaperone is needed as the man said he wanted a man doctor and a man chaperone.

Question 1
Would you agree or disagree that the individual doctor (A, B, C, D) is carrying out an assault if they carried out the exam?
A) female who classes herself as a woman
B) female who classes herself as a transman
C) male who classes himself as a man
D) male who classes himself as a transwoman.

Question 2
Would you agree or disagree that individual chaperones (E, F, G, H) if they act as chaperones for a doctor (A, B, C, D) are witnessing an assault or are participating in an assault?
E) female who classes herself as a woman
F) female who classes herself as a transman
G) male who classes himself as a man
H) male who classes himself as a transwoman.

Question 3
How about the other doctors if they see the other doctors carry out the exam should they have a duty to speak out or stop the other doctor?
.
Question 4
How about the other doctors if they see the chaperones chaperone should they have a duty to speak out or stop the chaperone?
Question 5
How about the other chaperones if they see the doctor carry out the exam should they have a duty to speak out or stop the doctor?
.
Question 6
How about the other chaperones if they see the other chaperones chaperone should they have a duty to speak out or stop the chaperone?
Any one willing to cast a vote in the jury room

Anewdawnanewname engaged to I think estabilish if an assault or court case had been reported?

I got one reply which offered opinion

Kinkyroots · 21/04/2025 01:48
You missed the option ‘would I piss around like this if I genuinely needed a hcp’

Anyway

The poster sees this as a "trans right" debate not a "GC debate" and feminist topics = transphobia topics and the title is "trans" not GC

Yet you use the term "GC debate" and "toxic".

You dont need to answer this one either but do you see the debate as a
• trans right debate
• womens right debate
• GC "rights" debate

Helleofabore explained why iho MN moves/moved most related post from AIBU

Helleofabore · 20/04/2025 19:22
You are right in that too many times many threads in the past that were started in AIBU were moved to the feminism chat board. Usually with no discussion with the OP, just because some posters lacked the ability to control their impulses and clicked on threads that they, personally, did not want to see.
In effect, some posters convinced MNHQ to curate AIBU to suit their preferences.
It gets even better though. Because it used to be one Feminism board. Then a group of posters decided that they also couldn't scroll past threads they didn't want to interact with and demanded that MNHQ create a separate Sex & Gender board. And MNHQ did, maybe thinking that it would make the threads more free flowing without the constant complaints from those posters who demanded that the boards be split. But those posters who demanded the split still stayed on the S&G board and berated feminists. They still do it.
Then came the accusations from people that feminism board was only about 'trans' issues (they never quite work out that it is about the many issues facing women and children from a female centred perspective) because some people never bothered to look to see the hardly ever used Feminism Chat board.
So, you are not wrong OP.

And as for "doesn’t involve bullying people don’t agree with you." and my conduct on this thread.

Do you think that I just dont agree with the poster on the whole issue or that I could have formed an opinion that the post and specific section about rape was totally obnoxious.

Anyway if you have managed to read this far and have noticed a line stops midway that was MN reloading and eating it to save you the time reading

Now will this max out the word count??

Don’t worry, I knew it was to me.

The “we” I referred to was really just anyone with a semblance of reasonableness about them. There is nobody who reasonably believes that rape is acceptable and there’s a threshold of it we should accept.

If anyone does believe that, they’re obviously not a reasonable or adjusted human being in any way, and personally I wouldn’t engage in a debate with someone so clearly deranged. I don’t believe that was the poster’s view or motive. Maybe that’s idealistic.

Regardless, that conversation was a few days ago, and you’re right - they’re not coming back. It makes little sense to me to rehash that same point to/about someone who has clearly.. gone.

If I may, I think the reason your posts on the subject keep getting ignored or missed, is because they’re long.

Are you typing and linking all that on a phone?! I’d applaud the effort if I didn’t also wonder how you were finding the time and inclination!

There was a account I spotted on twitter around 19/00 who said they posted transphobic sound bites to bait other posters into doing the same so sometimes it involved 2 or more MN accounts if not 2 or more people. So I am sure there are screenshots.

I have reported nasty personal abuse on "have a nice day" threads.

And I had a poster on a thread about CSA who was implying is was supporting CSA for a number of posts and then said it directly which when I reported MN took down.

With me not at me 👀 🦧🤞

But...... 7.6m 😬 - what ever NW paid to NF

Thats almost a sweet deal for NW

Admission

I got deleted once (that I know of) and 100% should have been because while I did not mean to be obnoxious I actually was.

So I said sorry on the thread because I was obnoxious on the thread.

I have been deleted a handful of times

twice i appealed because i honestly hadn’t meant anything mean, i try hard not to be mean 😀 they reinstated one post and the other one they left deleted as they said it didn’t matter what my intention was it still broke the guidelines

one time i said something as a joke and it was deleted and i apologised to that poster on the thread as i could see that even if my post was misconstrued it was still my fault for not being clear

and one time i posted after a few drinks while on holiday and it was deleted and i have absolutely no idea what I said 😀

there have been a few more times 😳

big handful….or maybe two small ones 🤔

With you. Of course.

I haven’t said anything about Trans reddits apart from FWR discourse is a separate issue from what goes on there. Of course I don’t support trans reddits.

@SleeplessInWherever

Ok so this was you...

• Balanced
• Tantrums
• Pandering
• Transwomen
• “right to exist”
• Empathy.

You said " “right to exist” god knows why that needs quotations" and I gave you a post showing imo context on the ideology of "exist".

And empathy and the ideology which included "it certainly isn’t anything near a large number" are imo mutually exclusive.

Drunk posting after a "few" 👀 drinks?

Few = Twas not the booze twas the lack of ice and a sunny day

I am now at 2 👀 🙈

You can giggle now and again

Tbh im posting a test gif to lift the mood of the thread 🤷‍♀️

I laughed because pretzeling your words to avoid deletion becomes an art form. Well done.

The “we” I referred to was really just anyone with a semblance of reasonableness about them.

Hummmm......

There is a poster arguing on AIBU for a mum to allow a convicted sex offender (CSA images and grooming) around her four year old child to aid his rehabilitation into the "community".

Where would you place that poster
on a scale of 1 to 10 if
• 1 is 100% reasonable and
• 10 is 100% unreasonable?

There is nobody who reasonably believes that rape is acceptable and there’s a threshold of it we should accept.

• rapists

• gang rapes

• pornhub users
• "corrective" homophobic rapes
• ethnic cleansing rapes
• war crime rape camps
• Oxfam senior staff
• anybody who turned a blind eye to UK rape gangs
• anybody supporting male rapists in women prisons

I don’t believe that was the poster’s view or motive. Maybe that’s idealistic.

You have provided no data to explain how you came to any conclusion re: view/motive

So I would only be guessing how you came to hold that belief.

Regardless, that conversation was a few days ago, and you’re right - they’re not coming back. It makes little sense to me to rehash that same point to/about someone who has clearly.. gone.

You fail to provide any context of how I was using a post so I cant explore what you can understand or can not understand and can not aid your data processing.

If I may, I think the reason your posts on the subject keep getting ignored or missed, is because they’re long.

Thats confirmation bias again using "ignored" or "missed" is your interpretion.

But some are long as this can be a complex topic.

Do I expect that posters who think any trans related threads are transphonic or dull as fuck etc would be willing to be a good jury member ?

What do you think? can they be?

The real conundrum is can the NHS or Doctors and Nursing professional bodies be good jury members?

What do you think? can they be?

And my reply to your post was long because you may be a new to the topic poster or not.

And the meaning of words and the misuse of words and general manipulation of language leads to misunderstandings.

So if I ask a question you get the option to provide an answer.

Thanks ☺️🥂

I find it also allows me to look at how the words/language is used so I am less likely to misread something.

Pretzel🥨. ...... hungry .👁👁... where did I hide that easter egg chocie 🍫???

I do hate the term pile on, its used a lot

9 times out of 10 its used to stop posters engaging with that particular post, but im telling you now that if people didn’t engage with it it would be used as evidence that everyone else agreed with it

it puts people off engaging with the poster using it

its only a pile on if people are disagreeing with you

pile on suggests a coordinated attack, who the fuck has the time to coordinate an attack 😳

i also hate it when people use it in their very first post, together with ‘i know i am going to get flamed for this’ look at me throwing myself into the fray, i am such a brave little soul…..usually they haven’t even said anything contentious

oh and while i am here ‘am i the only one who thinks….’ Obviously not you plonker

Totally agree with this @RufustheFactuaIReindeer- if you say something factually wrong or otherwise objectionable people are naturally going to post to counter it. It’s not “coordinated”.

Exactly Rufus.

For some people, they wish to be able to post their opinion and not have anyone challenge it at all. They seem to just want to put it out and not have to answer any questions.

Or they demand that people use what I call ‘gentle arguing’. Often it is inferred that this is a ‘feminine’ trait and that should be doing it. You know, like the posts ‘you are so rude that I am going to ignore you’.

So, some people do find multiple posters asking to be an act of aggression. But the reality is, if they need a heavily moderated space where people only support and not challenge, then MN is not likely for them.

Because none of us are acting as one, we are not co-ordinated despite the accusations. Occams Razor would say that if a group of people who don’t know each other, live in different parts of the world, and post relating to different aspects of the topic raised in the post, it is that many people either want to clarify what was said or disagree with it. I have seen Facebook groups moderated where nothing negative is allowed to be posted, and I expect that those posters expecting ‘gentle arguing’ have come from there.

Sometimes though, it is someone trying out their argument and they are not prepared for the questions to defend it. I guess some people believe they don’t need to defend it for some reason.

Too often though, I have seen those demanding gentle arguing to be some of the most name calling posters who get deleted because they have called people bigots, transphobe, racist, etc. So I also wonder if there is another more obvious motivation driving this behaviour.

Yes, or “no I don’t have to be kind to you even while I’m telling you to be kind”.

Yes. It isn't just hypocrisy, I think there could be something else behind some of those tactics.

Like what, for example?