Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I am concerned to see the message below from MNHQ at the end of the T thread. Regarding posts that I consider "goady", I have a personal policy of not feeding them, not engaging and not rising to the bait. I ignore them. OPs looking for conflict as a way to feed themselves won't get it from me. Firstly, it's exhausting-they are not interested in dialogue, despite what they say, and secondly the best way to deal with them, imo, is to starve them of attention and not rise to the bait. Don't give them what they want i.e. a fight and conflict.

My concern is I predict there will be a lot more new threads and OPs looking for a fight, as the public becomes more aware of the issues and the tide starts to turn against TRAs. They will want to try and get this Place closed down for discussion, and none of us want that to happen.

Personally I have found it empowering to learn how not to engage and to turn it back on them if absolutely necessary, by the use of ridicule and short rebuttals of their nonsense. I am happy to share some techniques if it will help plus learn more from others. There's no point in trying to score points and win all the arguments they make as it's the engagement down their rabbit holes they want - they literally feed off conflict. They're anti-social remember, so any attention is better than none. They want to keep you coming back and arguing, so they can derail, prolong, provoke and generally make life difficult for MNHQ - to force them to take action. The negative attention "turns on" those looking for a fight….so please don't feed them, ignore them and lets keep this place open.

Message for MN:

Hi all

Since this thread is getting near its end, this seems like a good moment to make a really serious point.

We've just made some more deletions on this thread, and we're pretty exasperated tbh - we feel we're running out of ways to say 'please stick within the TGs or risk losing MN as a place to discuss this issue.'

We're really proud of our commitment to free speech, and we put a huge amount of time and resources to enabling this debate to take place - as many of you have pointed out, it's one of the few places left.

To those who haven't yet been able to stop and look at things from our end of the barrel - please understand that you're risking this space for everyone; if you really can't debate civilly with those you disagree with, it might be time to consider that MN is no longer the place for you. We're sorry to have to say this - we don't like it one bit - but tbh nothing else seems to have got through so far: we're at a point of last resort.

Thanks to all those who modify their first instincts and manage to make their points in a calm, considered and civilised manner - even in the face of goadiness. We appreciate it (and so would Michelle.)

Thanks all

MNHQ

this attitude of “we’re in a WAR and anyone who’s not 100% anti-trans is an evil invader who needs to be fought!” is just terrifying!

I’m not seeing this attitude.
Most women here seem to be against the idea that a transwoman is a woman. Not against transwomen as a whole. I don’t think anyone is ‘anti-trans’ just any having men claiming that they are women.

But apparently having an opinion is not allowed anymore. There is only one Right opinion and anyone else is considered an invader and part of the enemy

I don’t recognise this mn. I have seen diverse opinions debated and respected, and lots of reminders that we don’t want to get into a ‘this is the only way’ froth like the fervently, almost religious TRA’s.

I’ve also seen lots of pro trans posters completely ignore all actual transsexual posters in favour of berating women for their opinions. We seem to just get in the way of the magical thinking narrative.

sue

That report is to show that gender dysphoria is real and should be considered in health insurance.
It is not saying it is possible for a man to be in a woman’s body or vice versa just that gender dysphoria is real and can be caused by something biological.

I think you’d be be hard pushed to find someone who doesn’t agree with that on here.

Sorry ‘pro-trans’ was meant to be in quotation marks, as I don’t believe these posters are pro all trans, just the right ones.

Sue
Had a debate with someone about that report over the last couple of days.
As Teacuphiccup points out. It's fine. It states that there is good evevidence that gender dysphoria is biological. Not disputed.

How does it apply to the >95% of trans people not diagnosed with dysphoria?

I think a lot of the disconnect is because of the current broadness (uselessness) of the term ‘trans’.

Studies like the one Sue linked to above are about gender dysphoria, something very few of the current cohort of ‘trans’ actually have. So using them to insist that any man who says he is a woman, with no interaction with any health professional, no diagnosis of gender dysphoria, no hormones, no surgery, no intention of removing his very male genitalia, should be treated instantly by all as a woman.

Why?

I don’t just want a self selecting group of people being used for statistics.

I want a separation in the statistics being shown to people.

If all the suicide stats, studies etc. are about people with genuine gender dysphoria then why are cross dressers and those that have sexual fetishes to do with this also demanding to be treated as those with a diagnosed medical condition are, without showing any sign of commitment, suffering or intention of changing their body.

You may not see what koyaanisqatsi sees, but there are frequent threads started by people who express the same concerns.

These threads are quickly colonised by same group of posters who all agree on the points and the debate is stifled.

The tone of the debate is them and us. You are either with us or against us. Many people realise the messy reality of life. We are not going to solve the issues that arise quickly and debate is needed but there is room for a spectrum of opinions.

You might not feel there is an issue with tone and content but when a number of posters mention it, when MNHQ mention it, just saying "I don't see it" is missing the point by a mile.

Sue from the radical feminist perspective it isn't possible to be a woman in a man's body (or vice versa) because woman is a description of the body not the brain. The dictionary definition (and the most commonly accepted definition) of woman is adult human female, ie a person with a female reproductive system, so unless you change the deinition of woman a man cannot be a woman. A woman is not a person who likes wearing dresses, nurturing children etc. those are gender stereotypes. A woman could be a lesbian with a crew cut who shops in menswear departments and works as a plumber, but they are as much a woman as any other because they have a female reproductive system.

Men and women do not have different brains, neuroscientist Gina Rippon explains in this video -

Also, no one here hates transpeople. Everyone one should be free to express gender in whichever way they wish without judgement or prejudice. The idea that men must all be brave, macho and stoic and all woman must be gentle, kind and feminine is damaging.

notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2017/11/26/when-womens-rights-are-notadebate/

This is a good paper to understand the place many mumsnetters are.

It’s sometimes difficult to remember, amongst all the arguments, exactly what women stand to lose here. The sex category ‘female’ is being asked to absorb the sex category ‘male’. What women are being forced to accept could literally not be any more extreme.

So, that’s the point we’re at. Changes to the Gender Recognition Act are due for consultation in Spring 2018. Grassroots groups of women are springing up everywhere as more and more women realise what’s happening. On Facebook, on Twitter and on Mumsnet, increasing numbers of women are finding groups where they are allowed to debate, and real-life groups are forming off the back of these. Unfunded and voluntary for the main part, ordinary but extraordinary women are working together to protect the rights of all women. Our voice is finally being heard in the mainstream media. There will be a tipping point where the number of women refusing to be silenced will overtake the number of women too scared to speak up.

If you want to find out more, or join in, go and look at Fair Play for Women, Transgender Trend, A Woman’s Place, Mayday for Women, Youth Trans Critical Professionals, the Lesbian Rights Alliance, Socialist Feminist Network and more. Come and join us. Remember, as a clever feminist recently coined it, what TERF really stands for is Telling Everyone Real Facts. And someone’s got to do it.

Sue, I can't read the articles referenced in that article. But the summary of the main article cited reads:
"Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves (1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development (DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2) neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity."

If you have access to the full text, I 'd be glad for some expansion. Patients with DSD are a whole different kettle of fish to patients suffering from gender dysphoria. The neuroanatomical differences are perhaps that one study that showed older transsexuals (born male but ling transitioned) having a small area of the brain that looked like a born females?

That is a far cry from saying that the cause of gender identity difficulties is biological. I accept that for some people, their internal sense of gender identity is intractably misaligned with the physical reality of their own body, causing enormous distress.

But it also takes no account of the huge upturn in adolescents and young adults who had no distress until after puberty, now seeking medical treatment for something which is highly unlikely to have a biological basis.

Another point - the endocrine society is concerned with hormones, not psychology. To a hammer, everything is a nail.

I'm a sometime lurker on these boards, occasional poster on other boards, and just want to say that I do recognise what Koyaani describes. Bear in mind i just dip in and out. But, having seen the proliferation of trans threads in "Active convos" I have wandered into a few and had a look around. I do get why feelings are running high, however, just look at a lot of the usernames on this threads, and others like them - I'm sure a lot of them are in-jokes among the hardcore posters, but for those of us wandering in going "so what's this all about then?" it does come across as Koyaani describes.

Usernames, for instance - I'm picking a few at random, with no personal knowledge of their posting history other than what I've scanned on this thread, but for example, "Truscum" is quite an aggressive username, and I honestly don't know if you're using it seriously or ironically. "HomeTerf", "Freshlylaidterf" and all the others with terfs in the username (there seems a lot of you), are you actually saying you are trans-exclusionary? Because if you are, you're not for me. And yes, I do have problems/questions/concerns around self-ID. But I also think trans people should not be excluded. So that is one of the things which contributes to the feeling which Koyaanisquatsi mentions.

I use this username as this is what I am being called by some ‘pro-trans’ people and TRA’s.

It hurt for a long time but I have reclaimed it, as a way of differentiating myself from those who I believe should not be under the ‘trans’ umbrella, such as cross dressers/transvestites.

I am a transsexual who believe that the term trans should have remained a descriptor for people with diagnoses gender dysphoria, who have transitioned with hormones/surgery.

And obviously I can’t speak for other posters but I believe they are using ‘terf’ in the same way.

They have been threatened and abused under that term for expressing opinions. They are going to be called it anyway, why not reclaim it?

But the thing is Truscum, I have no way of knowing that unless you explain that every time. It comes across perhaps differently than you intend.

But that is the only way this word is used, to describe people like me. It doesn’t mean anything else.

"HomeTerf", "Freshlylaidterf" and all the others with terfs in the username (there seems a lot of you), are you actually saying you are trans-exclusionary?

I believe that the users with TERF in their names are using them as they are called terf anyway so its an attempt to reclaim the term. Also, FWR regulars say TERF is actually Telling Everyone Real Facts, or similar. Its ridiculous to claim radfems are trans exclusionary when they include transmen (who are female) in their feminism.

Playdohnut

By using terf it takes the sting out of the insult, especially it's turned it into a pun. I think a lot of usernames are puns here, none of the terf ones are serious, humour can help defuse a situation, but also it is also an in joke. I used terflonnonstickpan for a while when I was appalled at women being insulted for asking questions on this, but I don't anymore.

We characterise ourselves as penis-exclusionary Playdohnut, definitely not trans-exclusionary. We have no problem at all with trans-identified females in female spaces, we are broadly concerned about self-iding males in our spaces, rather than transsexuals, and we are delighted that trans-identified males such as Truscum feel welcome here and contribute to our debates.

I recognise "the WE ARE AT WAR tone" too, and agree that the hard line doesn't always allow for the messiness and shades of grey in real life

I don't know about the TERF thing. I guess at the end of the day, I don't want men being included as women. However, if my son grew up saying he wanted to be a woman, would I want him excluded? I don't know. I wouldn't believe he was really a woman but when it's someone you love it must be more nuanced surely.
I do know I really wouldn't want him taking hormones in his teens, so the stuff aimed at children is the stuff I can draw a really clear line on. I do think that all serious points of view should be talked about.

playdohnut I know what you mean about possible interpretations of some usernames at first glance. If you stick around and chat (relative newbie myself to these boards) it becomes clear the spirit in which they are being used. I quite like them now tbh, i'm embarrassed by the lack of imagination in mine

flowersonthepiano

yes, I wish I had more imagination. The extent of my username creativitity is some swear words, or stuff from threads I find funny. I have been batshite, thegoalistostayoutofthehole, WankingMonkey and MarrowWang. And more, but those spring to mind to start with

Why not reclaim it? Because, coming in from the "outside" it is not clear whether those using Terf in their usernames are are reclaiming it or endorsing it - it is coming across that they actually are trans-exclusionary to the casual lurker.

I was trying to expand on why there is the feeling Koyaani described that the impression is created to the casual reader that "anyone who’s not 100% anti-trans is an evil invader" - the usernames, in my opinion, are part of that.

You can believe that many of the Terf usernames are using it ironically, but I'm not entirely sure of that. Anyway, it was just an observation. I'll scuttle back to Chat now.

‘However, if my son grew up saying he wanted to be a woman, would I want him excluded? I don't know. I wouldn't believe he was really a woman but when it's someone you love it must be more nuanced surely. ’

Of course it is, but why should we include your son as a woman just because he’s your son.

Don't scuttle. That's a helpful observation.