what thread was talking about that new trans in schools booket

[Branleuse]

the one that all the TRA were losing their shit over. Im trying to find the thread. I can find the PDF of the leaflet, but i cant find the discussion about it

Conversion therapy wasn't advocated in the booklet.

It used the term conversation therapy.

I'm not sure if LM misread the text or was alluding to a notion that counselling for teens exploring their identity was a form of "conversion" as they presumably should be allowed to identify as they wish without exploring the ramifications, implications and underlying reasons for why they feel as they do.

In the instance someone gave it's like forcing everyone to call you a doctor when they know in fact that you are not one.

It was mistyping according to the tweet wasn't it?

I was on that thread, I always try to refer to trans people as their preferred gender. However I would insist that they extend me the same courtesy; I am a woman. I do not identify as ciswoman. If they insist on misgendering me I am quite willing to point out biology.

There were comments about imperfections of LM skin.

... which was mean. As were the limericks or whatnot. That wasn't okay!

Misgendering, OTOH? LM will get the courtesy of me referring to LM 'she' if and when the bullying and hounding everyone and anyone who disagrees with LM's stance ends!

I think it is really important that we don't make personal attacks on people. We have to maintain maturity and decency in this ongoing fight for women's rights. To comment on a person's appearance is not on. I found the comments about LM quite disgusting. I will not sink to the level of TRA or MRA and make comments about how a person looks. It makes our argument look weak.

And I agree with *Vaguely+ about misgendering. I will use their preferred pronouns and I would appreciate that they didn't use the word CIS. Thankfully that seems to be not something I encounter outside of mumsnet or twitter. I would be very surprised if someone at work called me CIS. If they did then I would explain why I don't want that term used.

It was pretty obvious that Lily misread it, not being the sharpest knife in the box, and jumped to a massive conclusion and went off on a rant. The personal comments about acne scars were too much.

If the twitter thread is gone (I haven’t looked), then that’s a shame, because it really proved that Lily isn’t able to pass a basic reading comprehension test. If you are going to throw your toys out of the cot, you should at least make sure you haven’t completely misread and jumped to a massive conclusion. Particularly if you are some sort of half-baked political mouthpiece.

It made Lily look pretty stupid.

Vaguely Same here. I use preferred pronouns out of courtesy. There is a shortening of my real name which I loathe so if someone uses it, I very gently ask them not to. It's just the basic manners I would extend to anyone.

'Cis' can fuck right off. And then fuck off some more.

I didn't see the thread later on, & hadn't realised people were making fun of LM's complexion. That's pretty low, IMHO. Lots of teens have rubbish skin & actually I don't think hers is that bad, especially considering the hormones she might be on.

There is a real problem imho in propagating the believe that "mis-gendering" is in and off itself offensive.

As pp's have already stated it's actually being used as a mechanism that confers your tacit acceptance of the notion of gender choice.

Importantly it also strips away the ability to accurately report, record and inform events.

Take recent examples of news articles about speakers corner for example.

There was a very clear implied bias in reporting where the sex of the accused was withheld. A story about two female protesters being in a scuffle vs a Male in their twenties lamping a 60 year old woman gives a very different slant in ostensibly the same incident.

In a similar vein, whilst reporting the campaigns of trans prisoners to be moved to the female estate, whilst withholding the names under which they were convicted (so as not to commit the "offence" of dead naming) means it's very difficult to verify the crimes for which they were convicted.

This manipulates public reaction. How empathic would people really feel about the rights of a man convicted of many sexual assaults to be put in a woman's prison?

Statics get equally manipulated by the same notion. How long before we see a sharp upturn in violent sexual crimes by women? How many future policies and legislation will be compromised by data that's factually incorrect?

That's a huge mistype, considering the topic being discussed.

On that thread I referred to LM as a 'spotty adolescent'. It was meant to reference the fact they were (IMO) far too young and inexperienced to hold the office they do.

However, after reading this thread, I realise my choice of words could have been better and for that I unreservedly apologise. It was never my intent to upset anyone who had or has any form of skin condition and for being so stupidly insensitive I truly am sorry.

We are doing the cause no favors by negatively attacking his appearance and mental health.

Important issues being brought up here imo about the manipulation of language. I've already seen news reports of violent "women" who when you look at the photos are clearly men. My friend who is in the police says it's now being seen as a way to get a more lenient sentence. A couple have got away with offences that men would have been jailed for.

Yes busy and it's also impacting the achievements of woman.

I read that Catelin Jenner is the first woman to have won an Olympic gold for decathlon

Equally news reports of a woman being the first female member of a mens club (can't remember which one now) - err no, they were already a member having joined the club as a man.

So on and so on....it's even bigger than mis representing the now, it's rewriting history.

Let's say Barak Obama decided to transition - you'd have a load of activists proclaiming "her" as the first black female president....

I totally agree with vaguely. Misgendering someone who is say a transwoman is saying you think they are a male if they were born male. That is the whole point of discussion in the debate. Forcing someone to accept that they should call someone he or she on that person's say so is setting the terms of the debate by beginning with a conclusion many challenge. I would be very worried if mumsnet pulled a thread for misgendering. It is not law at the moment that someone changes their sex or gender on their say so.

The whole point of this discussion is that many think a change in law that means this has huge implications for biological women. Why would mumsnet expect as to write as though this law has already happened? Why would they pull threads if we do so?

Personal attacks though are wrong on either side. So for example nasty comments about someone's skin not looking perfect, I absolutely agree aren't acceptable. Nor do they help win an argument, quite rightly.

Apparently California have brought in a law whereby you can get a stiffer jail sentence for misgendering someone than deliberately infecting them with AIDS.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california-bill-seeks-to-punish-misgendering-with-jail-time-39393

I think there are some good points made in this article:

“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” Burt asked members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee during his testimony.

“Compelled speech is not free speech. Can the government compel a newspaper to use certain pronouns that aren’t even in the dictionary? Of course not, or is that coming next?”

Burt also denounced the bill for lacking any religious exemptions for religiously-affiliated institutions.

“Those proposing this bill are saying, ‘If you disagree with me about my view of gender, you are discriminating against me',” Burt testified. “This is not tolerance. This is not love. This is not mutual respect… True tolerance, tolerates people with different views. We need to treat each other with respect, but respect is a two-way street. It is not respectful to threaten people with punishment for having sincerely held beliefs that differ from your own.”

No way am I going to click on that busyboysmum

What I find appalling is the name calling from both sides. A lesbian woman who looks less feminine is an appalling slur.

can we not make this into a thread about another thread that I wasnt even on, or else this thread will get pulled and id quite like people to see the link I posted.

This thread?

Apologies OP.

The booklet is excellent. A real breath of fresh air amongst all the muddy thoughts so far.

Why not Eldendon ? Is it a dodgy site? I'd just googled the law.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/09/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen.html

Fox news any better?

No. No better. Sorry but I'd much rather have a daily mail link.

Busy

OK I have no knowledge of American sites. Sorry. Id seen people refer to the new law on Twitter but it doesn't seem to have been noticed by the UK press.