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=

We're gonna need a bigger hill

This is why I think we should stay

I agree lang

If a whole load of eloquent, clever and insightful posters leave because of this there will be a group of complete twats who think its all down to them...and that its a 'win'.

There are already some no hope twatters who are taking the 'blame' for this

If a whole load of eloquent, clever and insightful posters leave because of this there will be a group of complete twats who think its all down to them...and that its a 'win'.

More to the point, nothing of use for opinion formers to read. Would James Kirkup have written those articles if he hadn't been lurking here? Perhaps. But perhaps not.

(Hi James!)

It has been many years since the noun transwoman was acceptable to the transgender advocates. They are adamant that trans is an adjective that modifies the noun woman. They want people to say trans woman, two words, insisting they are a subset of the female sex just like black woman or white woman.
This claim has been made repeatedly on this website by transgender advocates.
GC women and Feminists as well as other members of the reality based community assert that transwomen are males, not a subset of females.

@LaSqrrl
Don't fret, I am fine. Thank you.

At what point do the guidelines which state "I’m afraid you need to accept that Mumsnet isn’t the right place for you" apply to those people who claim to find the idea of debate about sex distressing? And yet turn up here mob-handed every single day in order to be further distressed?

This is such a good point. No-one is forcing them to read any of the threads here.

I've left forums before because I didn't like the content; I wouldn't have dreamed of complaining to admin. I don't use Twitter, because I don't like the aggressive/banal posting there. And I rarely use FB as I prefer to keep my personal life private.

I'm probably one of the older posters here, but social media seems to have reared a new generation of permanently offended victims. Jeez, they should have tried growing up in the 60s when Alf Garnett, Danny la Rue and the Black & White Minstrels were regarded as entertainment. The 'Call the Midwife' era was my childhood.

If they really really want to identify as women, maybe they need to grow the backbone that natal women seem to have been born with just to get though day to day. I caught an episode of this earlier today

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b5sqk2

^Masih Alinejad is a journalist and activist from a small village in Iran. In 2014 she sparked a social media movement when she posted a picture of her curly hair blowing in the wind without her veil or hijab.
Across Iran, women started sharing pictures of their uncovered hair on Masih's Facebook page in open defiance of the strict religious beliefs of their country - and often, their families.^

...that woman and many more like her have real-world problems of 'living as a woman' that our transgendered friends even can't begin to imagine.

I'm furious that we're pandering to a tiny % of self-centred people who can't accept they'll always be biologically male. I respectfully agree that they should be asked if MN is the 'right place for them'.

.

I'll be amazed if any journalists can find this thread.

Joining you on the hill.

I agree about safe spaces being eroded. When I first started questioning my marriage, I read relationships and feminism on here. I saw the life beyond where I was and that I was not wrong to want to get to there. If I was looking now, I would see thread after thread trying to defend women’s right to assert biological reality. I see women compelled to resort to linguistic contortions to express what they mean and work out how to articulate their perceptions and experiences. I see women’s freedoms to describe their views and to discuss freely curtailed by men. I see women’s posts deleted for not using the required linguistic contortions. It reminds me of how my sense of self was eroded in my marriage. It would not help me find a way out.

How do we, as women, describe the power nexus which traps us if we have to call biologically male people our name? It reminds me of my husband silencing my protests about domestic inequalities by saying we were under the same pressure. We were not. It made my experience his, so he did not have to acknowledge (and work to close) the yawning gap.

I really do not care what people wear, how they present, or what they want to be called. I do care about the policing of speech and the erosion of women’s rights, and protections which comes with the policing of women’s spaces and words.

I am beyond distressed that there are forces I do not understand eroding women’s gains in this way. I do not understand why. I do not understand why my husband abused me, instead of supporting me. I do not understand why women, who bear and raise children, who are discriminated against because of this, cannot lay claim to the words which describe female reality. Why do other people (men) need those words? Language is rich.

I am tired beyond measure.

It takes a big (wo)man to admit they've made a mistake, MN.

It's not too late to rectify those guidelines.

GibbertyFlibbert: Saying no without offering any constructive alternative is rarely successful.
No, is not the beginning of a negotiation. The fact that you think it is speaks volumes.
People who refuse to take no for an answer are not safe to be around.

I notice MN has slapped all our hands but not come back to clarify anything. This is a bigger shambles than Brexit!

But I will never use words appropriated from the female sex to apply to the male sex. I will die on this hill. I will not have my speech compelled

Me too.

No, is not the beginning of a negotiation. The fact that you think it is speaks volumes.

Doesn't it?

I am only back to page 12 but I see and I think I understand what the mods are saying now.
There will be no class analysis permitted regarding the class of natal males described as protected under the "gender reassignment" designation of the EA 2010.

@KateMumsnet, is this correct?

I was reporting personal attacks for a while, explaining that I felt targeted, but since the response was that the mod was sorry I felt that way I now only report the over tho top personal attacks.
Being told that reporting the wrong things too often will get us banned certainly is an about face from the encouragement to report questionable posts that was the previous position on the matter.

GibbertyFlibbert: Saying no without offering any constructive alternative is rarely successful

No, is not the beginning of a negotiation

Completely this. Solve your problem a different way. Don't push it on to us to solve.

Transgender males who want into women's spaces need to back the fuck off.

My post about legal implications, tra fraud and self Id being illegal has been deleted

The reason given? Someone found the use of Madigans given name offensive. Strike one one for silly little me.

I'm surprised that the use of a given name, a legal name BTW, is now deemed offensive. Poor show mnhq poor show

We do, though, think it's right to be civil when we refer to other people. Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level - so let's not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex

In light of this statement I wanted to say that i find people of the xy bioligical sex appropriating the words commonly used to describe the xx biological sex (the sex of myself and my children) very distressing. My children find it very distressing if they feel they are forced to lie (forcing children to lie is also a huge safeguarding red flag ), but if I am forced to lie, what will my children make of that? Surely they will assume that if I, an adult woman, cannot speak honestly then they cannot too. Does my distress or that of my female children matter?

This statement from MN is only ok if we're not expected to use "woman" or any language commonly used for females for trans xy.

Not only can we not use natal sex but we cannot use a person's legal name either, because facts are transphobic and offensive to males?
Criminy?
If MNHQ is trying to flush out Emma's partners in crime this is certainly a destructive way to do it.

I know right. They can't find it that upsetting or they'd all bugger off. QED.

Don't have time to read through everything... do we get an email if we have a post deleted? Otherwise I can imagine a lot of people suddenly finding they've been banned when they never realised anything was up!

I'm surprised that the use of a given name, a legal name BTW, is now deemed offensive. Poor show mnhq poor show

I don't think that is their legal name now. IIRC LM had some issues because they had a passport with a feminine name that was not Lily on it, from before they settled on Lily.

I think MN have been deleting 'deadname' posts for a while now haven't they? Or is this a new development?

You get an email, with an explanation. The explanation given to me for my deletion, was so frankly bizarre, that I don't feel I can go into details without getting deleted again. I may even get deleted for writing this.

“Trans people find their bio sex distressing on some level, so let’s not have a collective expression for them which insistently defines them by their bio sex “
So why do we have to have a collective term for them which insistently defines them by our bio sex instead ? Because I certainly find that distressing. As a victim of male violence I find the deception sinister, and the appropriation of MY bio sex both frightening and disturbing. Does my distress not count because I am female ? Does it not count because I’m not threatening suicide or telling my MP that Mumsnet has damaged my mental health ?