Why so much trans bashing on MN?

[leighdinglady]

I just don't get it at all.

Why do I see threads every day on MN which spout hatred and fear about the trans community. What's everyone so scared of??? Literally hundreds of posts of people talking like trans women are somehow a threat to biological women.

For a social platform which is meant to be friendly and approachable, this really stinks.

I struggle a bit with the sea lion thing. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish sealioning from a legitimate request for supporting evidence.

If you are thinking about the FWR boards, I think the persistence and faux dunderheaded, wide-eyed naivety is a giveaway.

Time and time again I see people saying they don't understand the "transphobia" on MN (this very thread is a perfect example); and then when posters try to explain what the problem is with transactivist ideology (and not trans people in general), backed up with rational arguments and a great deal of supporting evidence, the original poster just... disappears.

Which makes me think they never had the slightest interest in understanding any of the issues or in wanting to see anyone else's perspective; they just wanted to engage in a bit of TERF bashing.

Not sure where that fits in with the whole sealioning thing, but a genuine desire to enter into reasonable debate it isn't.

but a genuine desire to enter into reasonable debate it isn't.

I have yet to see a debate of any description, to be honest.

'Don't go off talking about endangered savannah animals, like lions, cheetahs, elephants and giraffes, now.'

Those Savannah based animals do nothing but whine while flaunting their privilege. They aren't endangered in this country, there are loads living in zoos, and no one is hunting them. Meanwhile, the poor sea lions are ostracised, forced to live in soggy enclosures that smell of herring, and constantly hassled by seals. Why don't the sea lions get a nice, dry Savannah based environment!?

I have been accused of sea-lioning whilst "debating" with trans activists. I was genuinely trying to understand their point of view, because whilst we would never agree it seemed important to define terms before continuing much further.

The terms were:
Gender
Woman
Female

Never got a response, let alone a satisfactory one. They don't want to respond because they know it won't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

In fact, from now on I demand that sea lions are known as lions, and those privileged, entitled lions are known as cis lions, or SLERFs - sea lion excluding radical felines.

I struggle a bit with the sea lion thing. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish sealioning from a legitimate request for supporting evidence

Yes- if you follow through the links someone makes that point; plus once it is thrown out it is difficult for the "sea- lion" to refute.

I thought the cartoon was dreadful. The premise of the first square is misguided- if you actually said "I don't mind all sea mammals except sea-lions" you'd be a bit of a bigoted prat. It would hardly be unreasonable for a talking sea-lion to challenge your bigotry.

That is not to say "the honest enquirers" with an ulterior motive don't exist- just that cartoon is a poor way of explaining the phenomenon.

Yes, I'm afraid I was on the sea lion's side in the cartoon!

Another problem with it is that TRAs might say that about TERFs with the persistent "define woman" request. To them it is irrelevant as "woman" is CLEARLY a feeling you hateful bigot

I've been accused of sealioning when I am genuinely trying to comprehend where someone is coming from. It's difficult sometimes to engage properly with someone if their definitions of things are flabby or they start bringing up strawman after strawman.

I've had a bit of a light bulb moment on another thread today.

Without making this a TAAT, there's a thread running about an OP whose MiL insists on serving her and the other women much smaller portions than the men at the meal. Leaving aside the family dynamic and other issues, I have been gobsmacked how many MNers seem to be unaware that basic biology means that men need more calories than women because of their different physiological make up. I sort of assumed that everyone knew that men have more muscle than women, pound for pound, so are stronger than women and burn more calories, but apparently not. One pp even argued that because her DD could do more chin ups than all the lads in her class, it didn't mean that women were weaker than men.

If women think that men really are just the same as them but with a penis stuck on, it's not that surprising that they don't object to MTT competing in women's sports or accessing other women-only spaces.

Perhaps this is something everyone else on here had already realised

Perhaps this is something everyone else on here had already realised

It always comes as a bit of a shock to me. But I realise people simply don't do any analysing.

I'm not sure if it was this thread, but a poster said when she sees murderers in the paper, in her head she just hears 'people', not men.

When I first read the statistic that 98% of sexual crimes are committed by men, I admit, I was shocked. I was just as guilty as anyone else of being fairly blind.

One good thing that has come out of transactivism is that people are talking about women's rights. Explaining it. Analysing it. Giving the history.

Many, many women don't want men in their bathrooms. Without really articulating the concept of why. They just know they don't.

And suddenly a whole bunch of feminists are explaining exactly why.

And it makes perfect sense.

Sudden women are asking why, really why do men sit at the head of the table and carve the joint?

Don't get tangled in your parachute on the way out NotCarylChurchill ... you must be spread pretty thin as the 'only feminist'.

Caryl, that is a disgusting comparison. I am staggered that you made it.

Don't be ridiculous Caryl. Trans women are men, and therefore as likely to rape as the rest of the male population. It's not scaremongering to state statistical facts. Most posters on here respect all gender identities and are quite happy to extend the courtesy of playing along and using the pronoun of the Transwoman's choice, as long as that Transwoman respects them back and doesn't set up one of many websites demanding that lesbians must sleep with them, and all that gender critical women should die painful deaths. No-one on here thinks All trans women think think this way, we know most are just trying to get on with their lives. But sticking our heads in the sand and blithely accepting derogatory labels like 'cis' 3and 'terf' basically takes us back to a pre-feminist state. Is that what you want?

Seriously, gender critical feminists are just like Nazis?

Seriously?

Thanks for showing your hand, Caryl. I think we can see the level of your debate now.

As for deluges of PMs from people who are too afraid to post a few words on an anonymous message board, if that did happen- what weight should we give to the opinions of people who are too spineless to say what they think, but are happy to snipe behind the scenes? not much, IMO.

Please would nobody report Caryl's godwinning? I think we should let the disgusting comparisons that are being made stand, so people can judge the debate on its own merits, and see for themselves what either side are bringing to the table.

Half a slice of bacon, a sausage, an egg, and a slice of toast.

But why let facts get in the way?

In the beginning, MNHQ deleted tonnes of gender critical posts. However, I think the fact that these threads are now allowed to stand shows just how much the debate has moved on. Perhaps Jenni Murray was the turning point. Get with the programme, Caryl.

@NotCarylChurchill

Can you please give a simple definition of the word 'woman'?

"Gosh it's lonely being the only feminist!... Whenever I've posted against the Transphobic Hegemony I'm inevitably deluged with supportive PMs"

Ahahahhahahaa!

"Inevitably deluged", you say? As the only feminist on the Feminism board should rightly be, of course