Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Follow on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3276551-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues?pg=40&order=

GibbertyFlibbert.

Why on earth would "male trans person" be a problem with regards to MN rules?

Any objective truthful person can see that it is a biologically and scientifically accurate way to talk about those persons known colloquially as "transwomen".

I really see no issue. It is a politically neutral, inoffensive and scientifically valid observation.

I wonder how long the actual mods will put up with GibbertyFlibbert posing as a mod on all the threads.

Why on earth would "male trans person" be a problem with regards to MN rules?

Because Gibb doesn't like it and believes that the rules ought to reflect their preferences.

I've said this a million times - there is a group of trans activists that will not accept any distinction being made between the group of people who were born with a uterus and the group of people who wish they had been. Any concession made in an attempt to spare their feelings will immediately be followed by demands to move the line further in their preferred direction and place further restrictions on the words that women are allowed to use. This pattern has played itself out multiple times, and I'm baffled as to why MNHQ haven't realized yet that it's going to keep happening.

Coercive control starts and ends with policing a woman's sense of autonomy and being. When behaviour changes are forced because they don't confirm to the dominators rules, what happens next is thinking and feeling distortions follow. This is the mind control that takes away a woman's sense and self and sees her trapped in abusive relationships because her being is being controlled, drop by drop, by another.

I will not be party to harming women. @MNHQ I have highlighted before how your moderation and thought policing, by not allowing woman to say what they see without sanction, causes real harm, especially to those who have already been victimised through male violence.

Irrespective of how you rationalise your actions, what you are now doing is harming woman. That is totally unacceptable and illegal.

Why on earth would "male trans person" be a problem with regards to MN rules?

My take is that if applied to a woman (eg a trans woman) it is transphobic and clearly against the spirit of the policy. Justine said biology could be discussed. She didn't say that it was OK to engage in sophistry to claim a biological content (which isn't even stated) to carry on misgendering and mis-sexing trans people. That's obviously against the policy in my view.

"I wonder how long the actual mods will put up with GibbertyFlibbert posing as a mod on all the threads."

GC members are posting what they think is and is acceptable. I am only doing the same thing. You just don't like my views.

I'll never refer to a male as any sort of female, girl or woman. It's the slippery slope we already slid way too far down.

Exactly PTSS- this my my Poland as well. Look how well appeasement of the aggressor worked in WW2 or when Mao started thought policing what was the truth and what wasn't

Surely, despite all this “transwomen are men” is still permissible to say?

mis-sexing trans people

Now that is showing your MRA hand.

I've asked multiple times when in the transition process a person's sex changes and what the mechanism is by which the change happens. Still no answer.

Gibb, are you objecting to 'misgendering', or 'missexing' or both?

Would you say there's a difference between the two?

GC members are posting what they think is and is acceptable. I am only doing the same thing. You just don't like my views.

Wong again. It is your authoritarianism I despise.

@thebewilderness

I imagine it will be for using the term 'transgender identified males'.

Here are the guidelines Justine posted today

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

The term will now be like a red rag to a herd of bulls (biologically male bovines)

Surely, despite all this “transwomen are men” is still permissible to say?

My recorded objection to TIM was that it referred to trans women as male. I know others had the same objection. Unpacking it and badly saying transwomen are men is retrograde.

*to carry on misgendering and mis-sexing trans people.^

Gib until you get your head around the difference between sex and gender, and around the meaning of “sex”, you’re not going to make any sense, even in defending a TRA position (which is presumably your intent).

Baldly saying - typo sorry

"Gib until you get your head around the difference between sex and gender, and around the meaning of “sex”, you’re not going to make any sense, even in defending a TRA position (which is presumably your intent)."

There isn't a difference in either the Gender Recognition Act or Equality Act as I read them. That's what I believe we have to go by

A man cannot be a woman, and a woman cannot be a man. Because it impossible.

Why are we having to put up with this bollocks?

as I read them

My recorded objection to TIM was that it referred to trans women as male. I know others had the same objection. Unpacking it and badly saying transwomen are men is retrograde.

But it’s biological reality that transwomen are people who were born male, and continue to be biologically Male, whilst now presenting socially as female, according to whatever gender stereotypes they subscribe to.

Dancing around finding the acceptable short-form way of saying that is an exercise in semantics, whether that be to satisfy new MN talk guidelines, to minimise offence or for any other reason. You’re not going to be able to erase the facts just because the facts are uncomfortable to you.

There isn't a difference in either the Gender Recognition Act or Equality Act as I read them. That's what I believe we have to go by

We have to go by your “reading” of the legislation?

Err, no we don’t.

Out of interest gib who do you have more sympathetic leanings - F4J, ATH, Class War, MGTOW or Mermaids?

woman with male biology
No such thing

"But it’s biological reality that transwomen are people who were born male, and continue to be biologically Male, whilst now presenting socially as female, according to whatever gender stereotypes they subscribe to."

Of the people who have attempted to set out the GC position today in a fair way, I think that is far and away the best I have seen

"F4J, ATH, Class War, MGTOW or Mermaids?" I have only heard of Mermaids so hard to answer