Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

T

999 replies

DonnaBe · 06/04/2018 07:41

Mumsnet has been invaded by a small group of people who are giving out wrong information about the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

They claim that women’s spaces are being invaded and women are being silenced. Please read this and make up your own minds!

A gender Self ID law – like the one proposed in the UK - was recently introduced in Ireland. To change your gender on government records, you need to sign a Statutory Declaration in front of a solicitor and declare that you are living in your acquired gender and intend to stay that way. This is a legal document.

Self ID has not caused problems in Ireland. This is the kind of thing that is being proposed in the UK. It's about making a statement under oath about your acquired gender.

It has been claimed that anyone will be able to claim to be the opposite gender whenever they want. Not true. Nobody is proposing that big blokes with beards can say “I am a woman today” and have legal protection to use women’s loos. If they were, I would be campaigning against it. That is absolutely not what is being proposed

The group behind this campaign are not new. They have been conducting anti-trans campaigns for many years. I don’t think their agenda is women’s welfare so much as expressing their hatred for trans people. The self id proposals have given them an opportunity to attack trans people. Again. They claim they are being silenced, but their views are regularly aired on TV and in the newspapers. And on Mumsnet. They have a right to speak, but I wish they’d tell the truth.

Believe it or not, this all starts with a discussion about marriage. Before 2004, trans people could not marry or stay married because there was no legal way to change the gender on their birth certificates. There was no same sex marriage back then.

The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 introduced the ability to stand in front of a Gender Recognition Panel (cost £140) and get a Gender Recognition Certificate which allowed you to change your birth certificate and get married! This is a bureaucratic arrangement that involves an element of body policing which is not nice.

The proposal now is to replace the GRP / GRC arrangement with a legally binding statutory declaration. Or something like that. That’s all. No whimsical notions like “It’s Friday. I’m a woman today.”

In fact, you can now get married if your transgendered under same sex marriage legislation. So getting a GRC is less relevant. I don’t know if there’s any research on this, but my feeling is most trans people don’t bother getting a GRC anyway.

So this is how things stand today:

There is no law banning men from women’s toilets and changing rooms. There’s only an unwritten rule. The recent Man Friday campaign where women invaded men’s toilets could have the contradictory effect of weakening this rule and end up harming women. The logical conclusion of their campaign is body policing with guards on women’s toilets and women will have to prove their gender before having a pee.

Trans women already use women’s toilets and changing rooms. I do. Nobody notices. I don’t make a song and dance about it. There is no slackening of the law defending women’s spaces because there is no such law. We get on fine without it.

The Gender Recognition Act makes exceptions for things like women’s refuges. These exceptions should be used where appropriate. Already law. Not changing.

You can live in your non-birth gender already. If you pass as that gender well enough, you just do it. You don’t need a law or certificate to do it. Thousands of people live this way and nobody is harmed by it.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
Winterlight · 06/04/2018 14:03

I think it’s worth remembering Donnabe that a lot of women on here are very well versed in dealing with teenagers who claim that their misunderstood uniqueness makes them the most oppressed people ever.

Being called a fascist if I disagree and ask them to show respect for others, threats to kill themselves if I won’t allow them to go to the party? Yep, all sounds familiar.

So you may wish to adapt your line of argument accordingly.

Fortunately my lot grew out of that stage.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 06/04/2018 14:04

A woman on twitter reported a 'girl' for masturbating his penis in a school changing room while he watched her daughter undress.

The police told her off for being transphobic

mobile.twitter.com/TracyXXs/status/975370664763895808

Terftastic · 06/04/2018 14:05

It's so much harder to argue your point when you can't block everyone who disagrees with you, eh OP? And call them liars. Here, there are women posting factual information about their safety and privacy. They're not liars.

I see the call out you've made on Twitter Hmm

SimonBridges · 06/04/2018 14:05

You had me going for a minute there Last.

Datun · 06/04/2018 14:06

Like a previous poster, I do wish they would make up their minds.

We're either a bunch of ineffectual women who don't know they're own mind, can't work the Internet, and wouldn't know critical thinking if it slapped them in the face, or we're an aggressive bunch who they are too scared to talk with.

I mean anyone, literally anyone can read through this thread. It seems crazy to me to post such an illogical position and then put it on a website for the whole world to read.

ZERF · 06/04/2018 14:08

Lol last!

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 06/04/2018 14:10

We're either a bunch of ineffectual women who don't know they're own mind, can't work the Internet, and wouldn't know critical thinking if it slapped them in the face, or we're an aggressive bunch who they are too scared to talk with

We're both I think datun. There's an invasive radicalising contingent of hate-filled alt-right radfems Hmm who are preying on the innocently stupid milch-cows of mumsnet. (Is this the latest version of Madonna/whore?)

Datun · 06/04/2018 14:11

TinyRick

I'm shocked that the reasonable sounding OP, who didn't seem to grasp our arguments, has now been shown following trans lesbian sites...said no feminist ever.

It's so predictable.

If Donna had stayed any longer, I guarantee the narcissistic rage would be the next thing.

Datun · 06/04/2018 14:12

Is this the latest version of Madonna/whore?)

Nailed it. But of course, it's not about stereotypes...

aRespectableBureaudeChange · 06/04/2018 14:15

Oh interesting I see - oh well I suppose some lurkers have got benefit from the thread - may have shot themselves in the foot. Aggressive, my arse Grin.

So true what someone above said - years of bringing kids up mean we understand the drama and how to talk it down, rather than add to it. So they really won't win by trying to pretend we're all aggressive anti-trans people.

We've been busy bring up the most tolerant generation ever, but we believe in fairness for all - not at the expense of women's safety and privacy.

WiggyPig · 06/04/2018 14:18

The GRP/GRC doesn't police anyone. A stat dec would be BETTER because you'd have to legally declare you intend to stay in your new gender. The GRC is much weaker on that. There's no sanction againts anyone misusing it. A stat dec would be a stronger instrument. That's my view. But get a legal opinion. I would be interested.

Okay. I won't even charge for it. Grin

A stat dec is not a stronger instrument. The GRA creates what is known as a "legal fiction" - a fiction that becomes a fact for legal purposes. Other legal fictions include: companies have legal personhood (although clearly they are not actual people), that adoptive parents are legal parents of a child, that a second mother is a parent, that man and wife are one person (this has been done away with but only recently).

A stat dec can say you intend to live as a woman / man forever but it cannot legally establish you as one. It's not capable of creating a legal fiction in the same way. It's superficial.

Abusing a stat dec may be perjury, but abusing a GRC would be fraud, and an offence under s.4(1) of the Identity Documents Act 2010.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 14:19

Thank goodness for the OP opening our eyes.

We play the long game! Grin

LangCleg · 06/04/2018 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

RedToothBrush · 06/04/2018 14:20

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group
1) Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2) No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3) No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4) Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5) There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6) Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7) There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group.
8) Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9) The group is always right.
10) The group is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group.
1) Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
2) Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group continues and deepens.
3) Whenever the group is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
4) Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
5) Dependency upon the group for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group involvement.
6) Hyperactivity centered on the group agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
7) A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
8) Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group.
9) Anything the group does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
10) Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.
www.culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/27/cults-definition-religion
The destructiveness of groups called cults varies by degree, from labour violations, child abuse, medical neglect to, in some extreme and isolated situations, calls for violence or mass suicide.

Social aspects of cult-like behaviour
For a group to be a cult in the social sense, many of the following characteristics would have to be present. For a group to be a cult in the doctrinal sense, essentials (in this case of the Christian faith) would have to be violated. Some of the characteristics are listed below.

Submission:
Complete, almost unquestioned trust in the leadership.
Leaders are often seen as prophets, apostles, or special individuals with unusual connections to God. This helps a person give themselves over psychologically to trusting someone else for their spiritual welfare.
Increased submission to the leadership is rewarded with additional responsibilities and/or roles, and/or praises, increasing the importance of the person within the group.

Exclusivity
Their group is the only true religious system, or one of the few true remnants of God's people.

Persecution complex
Us against them mentality. Therefore, when someone (inside or outside of the group) corrects the group in doctrine and/or behavior, it is interpreted as persecution, which then is interpreted as validation.

Control
Control of members' actions and thinking through repeated indoctrination and/or threats of loss of salvation, or a place to live, or receiving curses from God, etc.

Isolation
Minimizing contact of church members with those outside the group. This facilitates a further control over the thinking and practices of the members by the leadership.

Love Bombing
Showing great attention and love to a person in the group by others in the group, to help transfer emotional dependence to the group.

Special Knowledge
Instructions and/or knowledge are sometimes said to be received by a leader(s) from God. This leader then informs the members.
The Special Knowledge can be received through visions, dreams, or new interpretations of sacred scriptures such as the Bible.

Indoctrination
The teachings of the group are repeatedly drilled into the members, but the indoctrination usually occurs around Special Knowledge.

Salvation
Salvation from the judgment of God is maintained through association and/or submission with the group, its authority, and/or its Special Knowledge.

Group Think
The group's coherence is maintained by the observance to policies handed down from those in authority.
There is an internal enforcement of policies by members who reward "proper" behavior, and those who perform properly are rewarded with further inclusion and acceptance by the group.

Cognitive Dissonance
Avoidance of critical thinking and/or maintaining logically impossible beliefs and/or beliefs that are inconsistent with other beliefs held by the group.
Avoidance of and/or denial of any facts that might contradict the group's belief system.

Shunning
Those who do not keep in step with group policies are shunned and/or expelled.

Gender Roles
Control of gender roles and definitions.
Severe control of gender roles sometimes leads to sexual exploitation.

Appearance Standards
Often a common appearance is required and maintained. For instance, women might wear prairie dresses, and/or their hair in buns, and/or no makeup, and/or the men might all wear white short-sleeved shirts, and/or without beards, or all wear beards.
carm.org/signs-practices-of-a-cult

Not all cults are religious. Some cults can be political or social.

There is nothing to see here. Nothing.

LanaKanesTerfyVagina · 06/04/2018 14:21

So the person who came on to call us all liars has been proven by the magic of the internet to be......

A LIAR!!

Well blow me down with a feather.

There's an invasive radicalising contingent of hate-filled alt-right radfems who are preying on the innocently stupid milch-cows of mumsnet

Cos mum's couldn't possibly also be radfems, right??

How could our tiny pink brains possibly cope with both??

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 14:21

Ohhhh...judging by their Twitter, OP was just lying when they feigned ignorance on the cotton ceiling and how TRAs are...

I knew I'd come across the OP before! I recognised the name.

FlangePlacket · 06/04/2018 14:22

"civilians" ? if by that the OP means non Twitter using, average mums who've used this site for years but have no particular political feminist affiliations, that probably refers to MNers like me.

Women aren't one big homogenous club who are told what to think about this, or any other, issue by a few highly motivated women in the feminist section of Mumsnet, although they are at the sharp end and extremely good at what they do, and have my appreciation and respect. We are all capable of calling a lie a lie when we see one. And transwomen are women is a lie, however much you don't want to accept it. Civilians indeed.

Biological males have quite enough privilege thank you very much. Trying to win a flawed argument by force, then wailing aggression when your needs aren't met is not the behaviour of a woman either. It's not an argument you can win anyway, we have biological fact and reality on our side. So yah boo sucks.

I'm not aggressive, my earlier post wasn't aggressive, I just don't agree with you OP.

SurfnTerfFantasticmissfoxy · 06/04/2018 14:24

Reality has summed up beautifully my exact feelings on this whole subject

LanaKanesTerfyVagina · 06/04/2018 14:24

RedToothBrush

Thanks for that fascinating checklist.

I shall save it for future reference.

It all sounds rather familiar, doesn't it??

Noqonterf · 06/04/2018 14:24

There's an invasive radicalising contingent of hate-filled alt-right radfems who are preying on the innocently stupid milch-cows of mumsnet

No that's not true Donna you big liar.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 06/04/2018 14:27

Bugger me RTB

An actual cult has captured our entire political establishment Shock

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 06/04/2018 14:30

There's an invasive radicalising contingent of hate-filled alt-right radfems who are preying on the innocently stupid milch-cows of mumsnet

To be fair to Donna this was me paraphrasing what seems to be an emerging transactivist position rather than something they actually said

spontaneousgiventime · 06/04/2018 14:30

Funny isn't it OP, the truth always outs in the end.

RedToothBrush · 06/04/2018 14:30

Just google signs of a cult. you get loads of hits. No need to really bookmark. Incredibly easy to find dozens of sites saying the same.

Lemonjello · 06/04/2018 14:32

Donna

**

I really don't mean this to sound rude, but we live in a changing world.
We have the internet, electricity, anti-biotics. And social change.

I'm not into doing things the old way myself. The old way they taught girls at school? When you grow up you can be a secratary or a man's wife? That was the teacher's attitude whan I went to school in the 1960s.

Thank god that's changed. Although there's still a long way to go.

Let me explain this slowly.

A man is an adult human male. A woman is an adult human female.
This was true in the 1960’s, when you went to school. It is still true now. It will remain true for as long as there are humans with reproductive systems.

In the 1960’s, when you went to school, it was gender that dictated girls should grow up to be wives or secretaries. Gender is the bit that is a social construct. Gender is the thing that feminists have been fighting against all these years. Gender varies across time and cultures. Gender is edifying to you.
Gender is oppressive to women.

From what you have written above, you seem to believe that the definition of woman relies on the gender stereotypes that are applied in her particular time and culture. So in the 1960’s, for you, a woman was someone who was a wife or a secretary.

Now, I imagine your definition of woman is much broader, as women today are not as restricted as they were in the 1960’s.

If gender stereotypes are truly the basis for your definition of what a woman is, I wonder if you can answer a question.

If you lived in a time where the gender stereotypes assigned to women were less than desirable, where women were the property of men, and kept by them as ‘brood mares’ (your words from earlier), would you still identify as one?