Are we allowed to talk about women and/or lesbians?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I'm referring to the deleted thread from Chat today. It was started to discuss issues arising from some of the statements made by Edinburgh University's ex-LGBT rep, which were anti-semitic, misogynistic and lesbophobic (amongst other things.

This rep identifies as trans. Various posters (both trans and not) were either ignorant of their preferred pronouns, or didn't use them consistently. I can believe some people also deliberately misgendered them; I didn't see. The debate, so far as I understand it, ended with the claim that we should not use 'they' in statements of the form 'This group, they are like this' or 'This group, they do that'.

This may be a valid debate. I don't know. But it seemed to me it was a complete derail of the original debate, and one that replicates the exact type of erasure that LGBT students at Edinburgh were experiencing when they were being made to feel unwelcome.

MNHQ's deletion message included this: We understand folks will want to talk more about pronouns and trans issues in general on another thread perhaps - but we would ask that you do so in way that doesn't rehash or repeat this thread.

HQ, could you please let us know why you think everything has to be dominated by discussions like this? Can't there be some way of restricting them, so they don't take over every attempt to discuss misogyny or lesbianism or bisexuality?

There were posters on that thread sharing very personal experiences, and to delete the thread with the claim that we've discussed pronouns in the wrong way seems insulting.

Again, an Islamist wants Islam to be integrated with politics. It's not just an Muslim person who talks openly about Islam. No matter how moderate, that is incompatible with secular society. Transactivism is no different, it is incompatible with a society where (until feminism wins, long in the future) people are separated by sex.

Why are people who acknowledge that Ada is at the most extreme end of the spectrum demanding details of more moderate activists? Surely that acknowledgement of necessity involves acceptance that most activists are more moderate?

I interpret that differently. I think most people think that all transactivists are extremists. This is why people are asking for evidence of moderate trans-activists from those who say moderate transactivists exist, and that moderate transactivists are in the majority.

See ... I'm frustrated, again.

I really do believe the Stefonknee bullshit is the utter delusions of someone who bears about as much resemblance to my trans friends as Bluebeard does to a good and loving husband. Likewise, clearly Ada Wells is either extremely frighteningly bigoted, or seriously mentally unwell, and quite possibly both.

I also believe that it is not easy to find out about this stuff on the internet (as ego is currently acknowledging on another thread).

But now we are discussing the outliers, and the debate is, once again, going down the plughole.

So any attempt to convince MNHQ that, actually, we might have wanted to talk about student politics and its effect on women, or lesbians, or Jewish students, falls by the wayside. And posters who are conflicted and upset, or worried about their daughters, or worried about their students, don't get to have conversations that MN used to be good at hosting, conversations that could really give women a space where we could learn useful things and change each others' views.

I wasn't asking, it was a statement.

Surely that is exactly the point Ego is making?

No, as I understand it, Ego is advocating using 'most' in preference to 'they'. I am arguing that we need both, as they serve different grammatical and semantic purposes.

Again, apologies if I am misremembering this Ego but didn't you say you were trans on the other thread. Therefore I am talking with one of 'them'. I am asking a reasonable question to understand your point of view, because at the moment my idea of transactivists is exactly represented by Ada. If you're saying this isn't the case I really don't understand why you won't answer.
Maybe it's just easier to call people ignorant, huh?

Yes, I am responding to a direct question, ego.

You have been claiming for some hours that you never 'derail', you just respond to questions.

So which is it?

Are you now admitting that you knew you were derailing all along, when you responded?

HQ, could you please let us know why you think everything has to be dominated by discussions like this? Can't there be some way of restricting them, so they don't take over every attempt to discuss misogyny or lesbianism or bisexuality?

I would suggest that posting three times in five minutes that people are derailing is also derailing. It also comes across as rather petty and foot-stampy.

Five times in five minutes and a few seconds...

I can be petty too.

Now shall be get back on topic?

I am arguing that we need both, as they serve different grammatical and semantic purposes.

Indeed. Although I believe (?) ego has argued that it is not "they" that is problematic, but the context eg (very clumsily)

Transfolk are scary, they all want to rape and burn women. (Not OK)

Transfolk are people too, they just want to get on and live their lives (Ok)

Using they to refer to an individual is always going to be a problem though as "they referred to women as cuntscum" is correct when referring to the individual "they" of Ada, but not the group "they".

Oh what's the point. You are your own worst enemy here Ego.

I posted this on the other thread but it bears repeating here:

It's worth repeating that Ada is not some extreme outlier within the transgender movement, but, as this site makes clearly, actually representative of a very vocal section who think death threats are reasonable and proportionate responses to women, particularly lesbians, who do not want to have sex with them and those who believe gender is a form of oppression.

Some feminists have had rape and death threats directed at their children. Considering how important the 'We Believe You' campaigns was for members, it's a somewhat hypocritical stance to ban women from talking about male entitlement, violence and hyper masculinity as it pertains to MtF trans people, particularly since research makes it clear they have the same rate of criminality as other men. And that the current surge in numbers of violent women in prisons, particularly in the US & Canada, has a significant statistical correlation to the number of violent men, particularly racists, who transition in prison and then demand to be housed in women's prisons. These are the kinds of conversations that need to be had because misgendering might not be polite but it is simply not an act of violence like death threats and rape. It simply isn't and immediately lying that misgendering is worse than committing acts of violence once again privileges men at the expense of women's safety.

Oh good christ. It's like reasoning with a toddler. Could we try a policy of ignore? Just actually ignore the derail and act as if the derailer wasn't present?

(That should say rapists not racists.)

Can we report for persistent derailing?

A clear example of the type of bullying that concerned me on the other thread. One poster gets attacked, defends her position, gets told off because that is perceived as derailing - time and again. There is, I'm afraid, a bit of a flavour of a minority of people trying to exclude opinions that don't accord precisely with their own.