Important to remember there are people on BOTH sides of the debate

[Winewinewinegin]

I totally appreciate that people are getting very cross about the way some people are acting.

I also think it is important to remember that there are plenty of very decent and also some very vulnerable and targeted trans-identified individuals in the U.K. And across the world.

We do them, us, humanity and the rational compassionate debate sorely needed in this area NO FAVOURS by making generalisations about trans people that are sparked by irritation at some people's actions and goading.

Let's say what we need to say, but with respect, understanding and consideration for the wider picture.

Actually, I'd rather not tone police women on one of the internet's few remaining places where they can speak freely (within reasonable limits).

Why are you so invested in telling other women how they must speak, Wine? Why are you so intent on pouncing on everything women say and then exaggerating the intent behind it? Why does criticising Shon Faye for his misogyny or not rushing to congratulate Brian Paddick mean that women here don't give a shit about vulnerable people? Who is making the generalisations? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems to be you.

Why don't YOU say what you want to say and let other women say what THEY want to say instead of trying to control the debate?

So, to sum up then, Women be nice?

What's the context for this wine ?

I assume you’re making this point on transactivistsnet too, wine ?

You know there are some very vulnerable women being put at risk or abused by the actions of the TRAs? We stand up against the transactivists for women’s rights, and what people fail to realise is that by ensuring that the difference between trans-identified-men and women is retained in law and practice we actually protect those vulnerable and decent transpeople too.

Why are you policing our tone/anger? You do realise this is a reactive movement don’t you?

LangCleg I am honestly not trying to tone police. I am watching the way the debate is being manipulated - very successfully - at a lot of levels and how this is playing out in the political arena.

I see a lot of parallels between the way some very influential people are manipulating women's voices and coercive control techniques. I don't think this is a coincidence given the way self-Id could be misused by the type of men who would use these.

I think there is a deliberate attempt by some TRAs to dehumanise people on both sides of the debate, to demonise and complain about women's comments and use this to take away spaces we could discuss and credibility.

No.

Most platforms are being censored.
Debate is being shut down in the name of inclusivity.
People are being banned and blocked from websites for speaking the truth.

If you speak the truth anywhere else you're a very ignorant bigoted transphobic bitch.

Fuck that. I'm sick and tired of the thought police.

Facts don't have feelings.

Context is what is being retweeted from the site and who to. Have a look at daffodil's posts.

Also context is the wider political understanding of this and how to make a difference.

I am not engaging with TRAs as no point.

I think it is so, so important to speak the truth and preserve mumsnet as a safe space to do that. And to create more space too.

100% agree OP. Some of the posts on here have complete lack of compassion and humanity towards our fellow human beings. No wonder feminists are getting a bad name.

I think most women (and men who share our concerns) involved in this debate make a clear distinction between trans activists and transgender people.
The TAs are throwing transgender people under the bus by cutting them off from medical support, counselling, etc. The 'professional' transwomen media commentators are only interested in furthering their own careers.
TAs make death threats, rape threats, calls to diaf, etc. Let's hold them accountable first before we try to police women's language.

I don't disagree with you in principle wine, I reported a post yesterday because it was really not ok and mnhq deleted it in about 5 mins flat. But I don't see a problem with people expressing forthright opinions. Part of the reason the debate has become so skewed is because our end of the dialectic started off from a position of euphemism and restraint.

I think it's important we start / keep saying what we think, before not being allowed to do so becomes normalised.

" by making generalisations about trans people"

You know what? Every trans person believes that 'female' is a psychological state.

As an actual, biological female, I find the ENTIRE ideology insulting, sexist, false, regressive, unscientific and damaging.
Every trans person, by definition, is perpetuating a false idea about women.
So, whilst a trans person may be 'nice' as a person, their beliefs about sex are about as sexist and damaging as can be, and I do not need to respect their position in regards to this issue and how it pertains to me and all females.

Facts don't have feelings. But people do. If we are going to make a convincing political argument we need to take those into account when lobbying and persuading.

I absolutely 100% agree with this:

I think it's important we start / keep saying what we think, before not being allowed to do so becomes normalised.

But I also think certain people have been deliberately stoking our anger and will use this against us in the way the debate is framed and we need to be wary of that. Someone posted something about dealing with narcissists a while ago which is worth a read.

Wine, I don’t think you’re wrong as such, but given MNHQ will already delete posts that are genuinely transphobic I think we’ve already got that covered.

There are of course a lot of vulnerable and decent trans people in the UK, nobody disputes that.

Wine, what specifically are you objecting to?

Discussions on here have had huge success in getting the message about self-ID out into the mainstream.

3 months ago, most people didn't even know what it was. I have learned loads.

I think we're doing okay on here.

I agree with this:

I think most women (and men who share our concerns) involved in this debate make a clear distinction between trans activists and transgender people.

I think the danger is that because people are angry and frightened by what they can see, this gets lost when trying to communicate to other groups (like MPs) who have been told repeatedly by people who may seem credible that the opposite is true.

I'm not sure where you think the arguments made by feminists are somehow getting this wrong - what did you have in mind?

Feelings are inevitably going to get hurt.

In a choice between lying to spare someone's feelings and being truthful and hurting them I will be choosing the latter.

Which is why I use correct pronouns not 'preferred ones' etc.

I actually think the reason we got here so fast was the inclination to spare the feelings of men who wanted us to pretend they were women. I'm not sure that there IS a way to make a convincing political argument if we have to continue to moderate its truthfulness to be nicer to men.

Facts don't have feelings. But people do. If we are going to make a convincing political argument we need to take those into account when lobbying and persuading.

Because that's worked brilliantly for the last five years, hasn't it Wine? All that reasonableness achieved what, exactly? The voice that says Women, be nicer. Women, mind everyone's feelings but your own. Women, mince your words. is the voice of the patriarchy.

If you want to be polite and go with euphemisms or say anything except something that might be retweeted by some extremist TRA on Twitter, be my guest. I don't. If I go over the line (not happened yet) then MNHQ will censor me. I don't need you trying to redraw the lines and censor me, thank you very much. I'll say what I want (within the rules).

Is there a nicer way to say 'woman' is a material reality not a concept or feeling?

It might be a bit blunt and unpleasant for some people to hear I suppose.

There are indeed people on both sides of the debate, and the problem is that some of those people are narcissistic shitheads who can and will use your female socialization against you. For example by manipulating you into not saying what you really think because doing so would be "unkind".

After you've engaged with TRAs for long enough it dawns on you that it's the content of what you're saying that they object to, rather than the tone, and there is no way to point out that biological sex exists and has a meaningful impact on how a person's life turns out that they won't try to spin as evil, hateful, etc.

I think mumsnet is doing an amazing job creating a space for this debate. I think the brave women on here who are speaking out are incredible. I think the challenge to women's rights and silencing is crazy.

Let's say what we need to say, but with respect, understanding and consideration for the wider picture.

Think we've got that covered. Although really quite bored with other people thinking they can tell the wimmin what to say. They can't. Fuck that. Go spread your message to the group of trans women who want us erased, who want our women's short list places, our toilets, our safe places. You know, the ones that want to throw acid in our faces, to beat us up, to kill us. Because those are the people who have a fucking problem. Not us. In the mean time I will carry on and say what the fuck I want about this.

Assuming that women must have a unified view or must agree with a particular agenda or response, is way more an silencing of women than the OP pointing out that the debate should be more nuanced.

I think I see what you're trying to say but I disagree with it.
From a marketing pov, you're saying we need to think about optics.
The problem is that can't be controlled when a large part of the debate occurs on social media under pseudonyms. TAs pretend to be gc feminists and then make posts and threads as inflammatory and abusive as possible.It happens on here. MNers spot it, report it and MNHQ deletes. But you can't stop it happening elsewhere.
Organisations representing our concerns can manage their optics (and they do so very well imo). But we can't manage everyone who cares about this cause.