MN needs a closer watch of FWR

[BodegaSushi]

There is a concerning growth of posts with racist undertones cropping up on these boards, all under the guise of being proudly 'anti-woke'.

Apparently diversity is 'woke' and worthy of derision.

This is the thread I'm referring to here.

Disney went woke now they're going broke www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4836570-disney-went-woke-now-theyre-going-broke

Mumsnet needs to looks at why that board draws such types of posts, and why posters feel so comfortable openly airing their racism.

Oh Lord won't you link to the Telegraph Thread
My friends all read the Guardian I must make amends...

I used to read the guardian but I don't any more because I find the anti woman stance too triggering.

Just look how it treated Suzanne Moore.

You know actually it's really rather off to even imply that all right wing people are automatically wrong, despicable or evil

To my mind it's extremists who are basically more likely to be wrong or evil
And extreme left and extreme right in practise seem to meet at the same place ( a few elite dominating everyone else )

I admit I strongly suspect I would have more in common with a mildly right wing person than a leftie extremist

I find anyone who is willing to dismiss whole groups of people like that , well that's the very definition of not taking people as individuals, stereotyping ....

And also some people actually read newspapers where they don't agree with the overall philosophy simply to broaden their minds and understanding and challenge themselves

Agreeing with a single solitary thing written or said by extreme right-wing misogynists is as painful for me as it is for those of you who think it means I/we must agree with everything else they say. Isn’t that rather a, um, binary way of thinking? I mean, Julie Burchill, FFS! Last time I agreed with her attention-seeking word-count was decades ago when she wrote about her father’s mesothelioma. Spiked! Brendan O’Neill! JHB! Matt Walsh! There just aren’t enough exclamation marks for how dirty it feels to agree with these people on even one issue.

Believing in single sex spaces - Not transphobic

Transphobic:

Treating trans people as a homogenous group
Asserting the notion that being transgender is solely a kink or fetish
Asserting the notion that being trans is a by choice identity that can be ascribed to for all trans people
Holding the belief that trans people are only trans due to predatory intent
Transmedicalism
Refusing to use preferred pronouns in every day life
Mockery and ridicule of trans peoples physical appearance
Mockery or ridicule of fem presenting peoples' physical appearance and doing so on the assumption that they are trans
Only ever basing ideas of trans people and their thoughts and beliefs on TRA twitter trolls or convicted predators not representative of non offending trans people
Callousness and general disregard for another person solely based on their gender identity that you wouldn't otherwise have if they were not trans
Offering support to groups of individuals who call for the active exclusion of trans people from society (and not just in specific situations e.g. DV shelters)

I don't really get how it's hard to see transphobia to be honest. Anything going above and beyond the acknowledgement that people who are bio males can abuse the rights of trans people is surely obviously encroaching into "we just don't like trans people". Because if you actively view trans people as human beings with rights of expression and identity, the only concern is the legislative/legal concern? And as we already do have those protections in place for single sex spaces, what benefit do any of those other things have? How are they not just demonstrating distrust of or distaste in trans people? Please do enlighten me.

Please please please can people realise that if they want people to KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT they need to BE SPECIFIC AND NOT VAGUE

That means: don't assume when you say 'the telegraph thread' or 'what it means to be trans' or 'the constant assertion' etc etc people will magically know what you are referencing. If you want it to change BE SPECIFIC.
Quote.
Don't change words.
Use the words and phrases people actually used so we know those are the posts you are talking about.

And if you want us to actually believe you are here to actually engage rather than just fling out insults then: engage.

It's all very well to come on and post 'oh well when you said the racist thing you were being racist, can't believe you didn't realise the racist thing and you all let it stand' but anyone can say that about anything and it doesn't achieve a single thing if you don't actually specify WHAT YOU MEAN.

The only other possibility is the regular comments from ex Guardian readers that they had to abandon their Guardian subs because of their silencing of women's views and took out subs to the Times because of their commitment to free speech? Again these are ex Guardian readers.
I know that the Telegraph has recently adopted a similar approach to exposing silencing of women and the transitioning of children by trans activist groups and now articles are regularly shared. But I'm really not aware of hordes of Telegraph readers abandoning their "forums" for FWR?

Refusing to use preferred pronouns - not transphobic

Forcing people to use gender based pronouns is like forcing someone to pray

No one is implying that right wing people are evil or bigoted automatically. But whether its born of ignorance, indifference or active hate, the result if the same for the targeted demographic.

We know from the history of other persecuted groups that while a small proportion of people actively pursued them, for most people it was simply the status quo that those people were in one way or another just not on par with the ruling class (as said, usually white heteronormative people)

The whole "oh my look they read ghe telegraph " is basically writing off everyone who reads one newspaper because it's right wing

And I think you will find that many people who persecute others are left wing - look what happens in China and the minority groups there !

I should have perhaps put - deliberately misgendering people. I don't see a non transphobic reason for not using preferred pronouns even for GC people but I suppose you could at least just not using pronouns at all.

Don't see how there is any way to argue that misgendering is not transphobic but I'm sure I'll see some colourful explanations coming along.

Treating trans people as a homogenous group
Half my posts on here are about how they are NOT a homogenous group. In my recent post I asked you which of several interpretations you thought it meant. You did not answer. I find it interesting that 'trans' includes people of contradicting beliefs - the 'true trans' and the more gendery. This has been the topic of LOADS of threads.

Holding the belief that trans people are only trans due to predatory intent
Again - what do you mean by trans? Pretty much every poster has said they know trans people that just want to get on with their lives.

Mockery and ridicule of trans peoples physical appearance This occasionally happens and it gets pushback. From me and others. Again - this assumes you believe we know who is trans from appearance - I think this is a problematic view.

Offering support to groups of individuals who call for the active exclusion of trans people from society (and not just in specific situations e.g. DV shelters)

You know as well as I do that it's based on people's sex, not whether they are trans or not. I think this has outed you as dishonest, or at least not reading any threads properly, if I'm being charitable.

Now mocking appearance is interesting

If the trans person in question mocks a woman's appearance ( eg for not shaving their legs ) would you then agree that the transgender person was being mysogenistic?

Do you agree transgender people can be mysogenistic?
Do you recognise that women may not be a minority group but are nevertheless a group that needs protection against discrimination ?

"No one should be comfortable participating in a hate movement."

I don't believe we are participating in a hate movement.

Do you honestly believe that people should remain silent because their cause may loosely resemble other people's desired outcomes?

"Many of the posts on FWR are openly trans phobic. You may not feel they fit your definition of transphobia but the very process of reducing a trans person's existence down to "transgender ideology" as if it is possible to ascribe to being trans is in itself transphobic."

I am glad that you acknowledge that you are judging the board purely by your own definition of transphobia.

It is a great thing that we don't have to live up to your personal standards. And honestly, if you go and report posts and threads, an independent person will make that judgement. How great is that! That we get moderated by someone who is completely unconnected to the movement.

"Bizarrely (or perhaps not) such open bigotry has found a comfortable home amongst other regressive groups that reject anyone who is not heteronormative and white. It's literally playing out in front of our eyes. And trust me, far from being "silenced", this discussion is being had. More and more people like me are seeing how awful it is, yet the anti trans movement is growing stronger each day, to the point where we have US politicians coming out and saying only the full eradication of "transgenderism"."

And again, if you are not able to reconcile that other groups will generally believe in what you might believe but that doesn't mean you are aligned with them OR responsible for their beliefs and their actions, that is an issue that you have to deal with.

I am really not sure how you deal with society on a daily basis if you really think this way.

"Any acknowledgement of how persecuted anti trans activism is making trans people is dismissed as "oh shut up with your be kind" etc etc, hugely minimising the issue this entire demographic of people is facing."

I can only assume that you mean that women discussing their needs and the conflicts with another group is 'anti trans activism'. Can you tell us why as feminists, we need to centre any male person?

You do understand that female trans people exist and that they still need rights that are based on their sexed bodies? And do you understand just how many posters on the board you seek to disparage have trans people they love in their lives?

"The irony is I don't even agree with not preserving single sex spaces. The point is, "protecting women from trans people" is going many, many degrees further than actually achieving that goal, and it's all based on disingenuous bullshit. A deliberate and pervasive failure to treat human beings as such. And all the while, despite the rapid success of the TERF/GC rhetoric, the constant bemoaning that women are being "silenced" when actually all it is is other women like me, vehemently disagreeing with your point of view."

So, you agree with preserving single sex spaces, you just hate the way the people who are actively campaigning for it speak? That we are blunt? That we point out logical fallacies and point to data and fact?

There is no 'rapid success'. Socialist feminists have been raising the alarm for more than a decade. You seem very ill informed about all this.

Do you think that women being protested, intimidated and assaulted and their words drowned out is not 'being silenced' then?

Do you think that feminists trying to meet to discuss their needs and being protested, intimidated and assaulted is not 'being silenced' then?

Do you think that female athletes being abused, losing sponsorship and being assaulted is 'not being silenced' then?

Do you think that lesbians meeting to discuss their specific requirements, as we have been assured they should be able to do freely, being protested and intimidated and their words drowned out is not 'being silenced'?

Do you think that a video screening being cancelled repeatedly is not 'being silenced'?

I suspect that if it was merely people like you vehemently disagreeing, that it would not be being 'silenced'. But it is not just 'other women vehemently disagreeing'. How bizarre to say so.

"I point blank refuse to be part of a hate movement. It's completely shameful what this FWR board has become."

Yeah. Ok.

Colourful explanations?

Nicely dismissive already

The stress on British born is because I was giving context to my lived experience. We talking about racism on British based site as a female born woman who is still frequently shown, and has been for as long as she can remember, that she is not welcome in the land of her birth. My experience is not unique and not as bad as some, but its still pretty shit. But you keep twisting and trying to divert from the real issue. The is exactly what we are talking about. Have you both only just become racists or were you born that way? its was in response to a poster who highly that the forum in questions for for female born women...

The point being that even women who were born here, whose parents fought to defend or helped rebuild the country after various wars, and whose ancestors were brutalised to make the Great British Empire, are not welcome in the land of their birth. This is not ancient history and it is not getting better, don't take my work for it, ask the Windrush families. But again a perfect example of misconstruing and twisting dance people like you expect ethnic women to do. about. Lets ignore the fact that I have deliberately used ethnic rather than black or Aisan or BAME.

'creating a safe space where white and ethnic voices carry the same weight and respect. That cannot happen when one group consistent tells another their experiences are invalid' Big fat Zero points for you. Men are not the only threat to ethnic women.

Can you tell me what I got specifically wrong please?

What points were wrong, please?

Misgendering ?

If you use sex based pronouns you can't misgender

If someone on wants to force you to use gender pronouns that's forced belief - illegal surely ?

If someone wants to force gender pronouns they force you have chose a gender . Denying someone's autonomy over their own identify

And WTF has this to do with racism ?

Or is the original intent of the OP being made very clear ?

Treating trans people as a homogenous group

But trans women are a homogenous group, they are all male. It is not the fact that they are trans that is the issue for feminists it is the fact that they are male and are insisting that they should be able to use spaces reserved for females.

Bullshit.

Not sure why your individual rebuttles are needed. Someone asked me to define what I consider transphobic.

Your last point makes no sense. I am talking about people and groups who target trans people so your "You know was well as I do that it's based on peoples' sex" doesn't mean anything. I added the distinction in because there are, as acknowledged in law, sometimes valid reasons to exclude trans people. I am talking about anything and everything else - including people calling for the eradication of transgenderism.

It's very juvenile to try and explain away any and all transphobia in existence on the FWR and within wider society with a couple of lines about how "i don't do that".

And acknowledging that lots of trans people are just people trying to get on with their lives makes the whole thing worse. Perhaps you are not one of the posters who are willingly transphobic and have just got caught up in the vitriolic whirlwind of FWR's attitude towards trans people, but the fact that you would try and defend and deny any of the things I listed being transphobic suggests otherwise.

"they" are, are they? All of them?

OK, so your position is females can be trans women too? That's great but it's never been very clear. I have asked a lot on this subject and just.... get... ignored.........

Please post the thread where a female transitioner has been 'openly mocked'.

And now you are complaining that you cannot use a word that many women find offensive 'cis'? While the list of words feminists cannot use on FWR is rather long?

So, you want special privileges above any one else?

And What are "outdated and inaccurate, offensive takes on what it is to be trans is".

It's very juvenile to try and explain away any and all transphobia in existence on the FWR and within wider society with a couple of lines about how "i don't do that".

It is. I'm not doing that.

I'm trying to point out how your sweeping statements have exceptions, often quite big ones.

Your last point makes no sense. I am talking about people and groups who target trans people so your "You know was well as I do that it's based on peoples' sex" doesn't mean anything. I added the distinction in because there are, as acknowledged in law, sometimes valid reasons to exclude trans people. I am talking about anything and everything else - including people calling for the eradication of transgenderism.

Which people and groups? I thought you were talking about the ones we talk about on FWR - because - again - you refuse to be specific, and that is the topic of this thread.