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.

So are we agreed that there aren't certain personality traits, preferences, attitudes, appearance preferences or skills that "match" either sex, suggestions?

The moment a male walks into a female toilet it becomes mixed sex/gender neutral whatever you want to call it.

One male recently called 'gender neutral' toilets a 'ghetto'...not understanding that the moment he walked into a female space, he made it the thing he avoided because it was now a 'ghetto'.

The moment a male walks into a female space, the risk to all females in that space is multiplied. Even worse now as if we raise an alarm, we'd be the ones carted off to the cells.

Well there can be group level trends that may originate from a biological basis or social contexts & learning, or a combination of the two, but these of course will not say anything about any one individual.

You can only believe that TW walking into women's spaces doesn't affect them if you believe that they are fully and entirely women.

Which you are free to believe, you do you.

However I and many other women do not believe that, and not all of us have the freedom to believe that even if we wanted to. So those male people are enforcing their belief at our expense and forcing many females to lose access to all spaces so that they can exercise their choice and self expression.

Now I can respect your belief that TW are women.

I cannot respect anyone, TW or not, who feels that it is right and ok and 'inclusive' to deny female people any access to give male people more personal freedoms and self actualisation. I expect a decent person to be willing to look at solutions that meet all needs.

Yeah that one's been unpicked with you a number of times as well.

You can only believe that TW walking into women's spaces doesn't affect them if you believe that they are fully and entirely women

How on earth can you assert that to be true? Literally how do you think you can declare that only that combination of thoughts is possible?

I think what you mean to say is "I can only believe that TW walking into women's spaces doesn't affect them if I believe they are fully and entirely women".

Terrible for the butch lesbians having a bad time, but butch lesbians didn't exist in the past. 'Butch' was a term applied to a certain sort of little boy. Lesbians were women who dressed any way they wanted. I'm old. Sex wasn't identified by clothing or hair length twenty years ago. That it is now is a product of genderism and the advertising industry. If you want to stop women being 'attacked' for being 'butch', maybe resist the preposterous notion that women and men should present in one specific way.

Virtually all the women my age have short hair (cutting our hair short was a standard 'I'm an adult not a little girl' move in our later teens), and for everyday out-and-about wear flat shoes, trousers, loose tops and jackets, little or no makeup. No-one looking at us would read us as other than aging females.

Genderism is complicit in establishing and imposing a sex role binary that extends to clothes and physical appearance - in that it's just like the extreme right - think of all those MAGA women with their long blonde hair at trump rallies.

If you don't like the effect, change the root cause. Or accept the consequences of pushing sex stereotypes. But don't pretend that genderism is about anything other the enforcement of the binary, and the silencing of diversity.

I expect a decent person to be willing to look at solutions that meet all needs.

Yes absolutely. The conversation can be had but if one of both sides are asserting that the needs of the other side doesn't matter, it will obviously cause conflict and no solution.

FWR claim that TRAs are the only ones doing that yet when it comes down to it even the nicest most compassionate line is "I do have sympathy but their needs are not as important". It's not productive.

When you have accessible third spaces, and well known TW public figures like India Willoughby are tee heeing all over twitter about intentionally walking all the way to the female only facility in order to make clear that they are going to take that space from women who need accessibility, quite literally peeing on territory to make the point?

At that point my patience is gone. Male people are going to have to find some reciprocity of the tolerance and inclusion they demand.

What is your solution to the safety of girls in female toilets in schools?

And what would you do with all the women excluded from the women's facilities in order to provide male people with more choice?

So if someone said their sex matched their personality, or was in opposition to it, you would reasonably assume they view these things as having a corresponding sex?

I have no idea if I'm considered cis, trans, whatever because I don't understand the (stonewall) definition - it relies on something to do with your personality "matching" your sex, whereas I believe a person of either sex can have any personality.

Or is "trans" wanting to be the opposite sex, regardless of personality?

I do have sympathy but their needs are not as more important than those of women

Fixed it for you @CandlelightGlow

I'm saying we need to go where the evidence leads us.

It may become mixed sex but clearly there is a difference in perception between gender neutral spaces and spaces marked as for females. It seems to be straight non trans males perpetrating most of the crimes in gender neutral spaces which is surely as expected.

These males seemingly do not, from the studies, see toilets that remain marked as for women as a target in the same way.

There are studies that directly contradict what you say there about the risk to all females being multiplied in specifically self ID allowing toilets.

I personally do not like gender neutral spaces as it seems logical to me that they are more risky

It's really not though, I don't know where this idea is coming from but the LGBTQ community is incredibly diverse and welcoming of differing expressions of gender, sexuality and appearance.

There is no binary, there is no expectation on others to be anything other than who they want to be, and to express themselves however they see fit for them. And there is a desire that their wish to do the same is respected. It's really that simple.

Studies.

Anyone can study something and ask questions that get them the answers they want.

Of course the risk to females increases the moment a male walks in because males commit 99% of sexual crimes.

The studies are not needed when decades of evidence shows this.

And that's when you consider only 1-2% of rapes are even investigated.

It seems to me time and again, that TRAs who only care about males getting access to spaces as and when they want, can never admit that single sex facilities are the biggest mitigation to lower female exposure to make violence.

There is no binary what?

Studies matter a lot when FWR provides them. Does this mean studies and surveys done by bias orgs like fair play for women should be discounted because anyone can throw a study together?

I used to think the bathroom issue was a bit of a red herring despite having had a colleague who was cornered and groped by a creepy man who had got a job as janitor so that he could access women's loos - 30 years ago. Luckily the cleaning woman had been watching him and intervened before worse happened.

But it's clear there are too many XY people wanting to exploit any gap in women's protections.

What is the solution for XX women who want be safe from the XY people who want to expose themselves to non-consenting females? The ones who used to be flashers?

What is the solution for XX women who want to be safe from XY people who want to ogle non-consenting females in a state of undress? The ones who used to be peeping toms?

What is the solution for XX women who don't want to have to share loos with XY people who fetishise urination?

What is the solution for religious XX women?

Also the decades of evidence you speak of shows the vast, vast majority of harm women come to comes from males known to them, partners and family members mainly.

I'm just saying if we are going to talk about evidence to inform policy at a societal level we should talk about what it actually shows and not just what we would like it to show based on our own assumptions and biases.

There's a total binary. Genderists are so convinced that people's appearance and behavior must conform to a 'gender' norm that they think it a good idea for people to take drugs or even surgery to adapt their actual biological sex to match their outfit.

For the 1-2% of rapes, but the vast vast majority are even fucking worth investigating. Because women and girls don't matter.

So how do you know who committed what?

This is a complete misapprehension of the individual internal struggles trans people endure and the pathway they take to try to achieve happiness for themselves.

Where does the pathway lead @suggestionsplease1?

Studies matter a lot when FWR provides them. Does this mean studies and surveys done by bias orgs like fair play for women should be discounted because anyone can throw a study together?

As if TRAs don't already do that