Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

835 replies

womanformallyknownaswoman · 07/04/2018 17:37

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
LangCleg · 09/04/2018 12:04

No we're lovely

Teehee! Honestly though, the first thing I really noticed while I was lurking was the endless repetition of threads as women would come and say This can't possibly be true, can it? Please explain! and regulars would painstakingly and patiently lay it out in careful detail. Nobody was told they were stupid. Nobody was told they were lazy or to educate themselves by reading yesterday's thread or the day before's thread or the day before that's thread.

There are arguments on here and strong or stroppy opinions expressed, of course. But to characterise this as peculiar to FWR is just nonsense. And to put higher standards on FWR because we are women who must mind other people all the time? Not fair. Not feminist.

Ereshkigal · 09/04/2018 12:08

There are arguments on here and strong or stroppy opinions expressed, of course. But to characterise this as peculiar to FWR is just nonsense. And to put higher standards on FWR because we are women who must mind other people all the time? Not fair. Not feminist.

This.

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 09/04/2018 12:09

..but lots of people will have a transsexual colleague or family member who bears no resemblance to these lunatics and won't recognise some of the nightmarish situations that get referenced on here as being possibilities.

Yes lot's of us do. I do.

Its about the right to retain single sex. Which is hard when the government is about to legally obliterate sex. Female will mean male and female legally.

totallywired · 09/04/2018 12:24

LangCleg, the pp who discussed the use of TERF in user names didn't ask people to stop using the term, she just explained that to her as an occasional lurker that the fact many regular contributors have TERF as part of their username comes across as aggressive. There's nothing wrong with expressing that view.

LangCleg · 09/04/2018 12:26

Yes lot's of us do. I do.

I've had a good trans friend since the 1980s - sigh, that's longer than most TRAs have even been alive. I'm probably a candidate for Logan's Run or something!

Decades of supporting a friend has not meant sacrificing women's rights, services or spaces, or destroying safeguarding protocols for children. Until the last couple of years. It's not me that's changed.

IfNot · 09/04/2018 13:19

OK. Again, I agree. Sex not gender based provision, protection of female only spaces. Yep. I'm on board.
I still think that ( and this is relevant to the thread title) if you want to win you have to be political. Being right doesn't get you any points in politics. Being persuasive does. Being charming does. Being accessible does. You can be right and still lose.
This forum is a very valuable resource at the moment; if it sets an example of reasoned debate and factual information that's simply going to make it more likely to be able to continue.
Yeah, maybe women are held to a higher standard. Whatever. Set the standard of discourse, don't get dragged down into the mud (or bogged down in Twitter fights).
You won't convert every woman into a radical feminist but you will get the attention of the right people.
I'm saying this because as pp have said FWR is currently a lot more public than just any old Internet chat room.

Winewinewinegin · 09/04/2018 13:29

I've had a good trans friend since the 1980s - sigh, that's longer than most TRAs have even been alive. I'm probably a candidate for Logan's Run or something!

Decades of supporting a friend has not meant sacrificing women's rights, services or spaces, or destroying safeguarding protocols for children. Until the last couple of years. It's not me that's changed.

You know that, long-term posters and readers will be aware of the difference between people like your friend and extreme TRAs. And know which you are talking about.

But newer posters and lurkers won't and may easily assume the comments about TRAs are meant universally.

Winewinewinegin · 09/04/2018 13:35

This in general is an excellent point:

I still think that ( and this is relevant to the thread title) if you want to win you have to be political. Being right doesn't get you any points in politics. Being persuasive does. Being charming does. Being accessible does. You can be right and still lose.

This might seem counter intuitive to those who have been aware of the issues here for a long time and shouting louder and louder to get a response. And I am not suggesting stopping shouting to be heard.

But as more people in politics are listening now, we should be thinking about how we sound to them. How might lobbyists have painted us? How do we get across that we have reasonable, considered, valid points that need to be heard? That we are reasonable people, that it is possible to be pro trans and concerned with women's rights. Etc.

Moussemoose · 09/04/2018 13:38

Not fair. Not feminist.

And as every parent tells every child at some point, life's not fair.

Yes we are being held to higher standards, it is, as it has always been, no change there then.

So we can descend to the level of others and risk getting banned or step up and argue in a way that will enable the message to be discussed, and spread. The tide is turning, so the debate will get more nasty. When more gender critical articles appear and the debate shifts, it will get a lot worse. MN will be held to a higher standard.

It's not like there aren't posters who can't win the argument. We have the tools, the skills, the posters and the arguments so why shoot ourselves in the foot ( feet?) because we want the right to be rude?

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 09/04/2018 13:39

I also think it's reasonable to point out that we are being held to a far higher standard of discourse than others involved in this debate.

Moussemoose · 09/04/2018 13:40

OMG nastier - not more nasty.

What was I thinking!

BeUpStanding · 09/04/2018 13:43

Considering the increasing amount of new visitors to FWR, a pinned thread at the top in the form of an FAQ might be helpful?

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 09/04/2018 13:44

The antithesis is that as women we have been socialised to be polite and empathetic while the male people with whom we are mostly arguing have been socialised to think our views are unimportant and to shout us down. This dynamic, pragmatically, poses more of a risk to our ability to be heard than turning some people off by shouting 'too' loudly.

There's an important balance to be kep here.

Teacuphiccup · 09/04/2018 13:45

Considering the increasing amount of new visitors to FWR, a pinned thread at the top in the form of an FAQ might be helpful?

I don’t think Mumsnet can be looking to endorse any particular view.
If there was going to be a pinned post it would probably have to say the chat guidelines.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 09/04/2018 13:45

*kept

Teacuphiccup · 09/04/2018 13:49

It works the other way as well.
Someone flounced the other day because I pulled them up on speculating on whether a particular person has had genital surgery or not in quite a crude way.
We’ve been accused of not standing up to transphobia and then people flounce when we do.
It sometimes makes me wince when I see things that I know could backfire if they were put on twitter out of context.

AbsintheFriends · 09/04/2018 13:51

Yes to IfNot's post. Especially the point that FWR is currently a lot more public than just any old Internet chat room.

flowersonthepiano · 09/04/2018 13:54

Being right doesn't get you any points in politics. Being persuasive does. Being charming does. Being accessible does. You can be right and still lose.

Can I third, fourth, and fifth this statement please?
I'm not sure if I am any good at getting my point across non-confrontationally, but I am very aware of the sympathetic narrative that trans people are excluded and oppressed. 'Nice' people feel sorry for them. 'Nice' people want to be on the right side of history and not like those nasty bigots who opposed section 28.

The nearest i've seen to sympathetic narrative from this side of the argument is instances like the one where a male nurse arrived to do a smear test for a woman who asked for a female.

I'm guessing you guys have had this conversation a thousand times before, right?

LangCleg · 09/04/2018 14:04

This dynamic, pragmatically, poses more of a risk to our ability to be heard than turning some people off by shouting 'too' loudly.

Yes, it does. And I maintain that good faith new members and/or lurkers will be doing FWR the courtesy of paying enough attention to work out that TRA means transactivist and person who isn't necessarily trans themselves, for example. It's what I did - not knowing what women posting here meant by TRA before I joined. It's what people new to internet communities do if they are there in good faith. If people are here in bad faith, it doesn't matter how we say anything, fault will be found.

James Kirkup clearly spent some time reading here in good faith and he managed to work out the thrust of what was being said and to write articles that acknowledged what both sides were saying without taking a side himself. It's not hard. It just requires a little bit of time and familiarity.

We are being asked by MNHQ to avoid direct and personal antagonism towards gender-affirmative posters that come here. I can do that as a gender critical person. We are being asked by MNHQ to abide by the site's talk guidelines. I can do that, too.

I don't see why we should mediate genuinely held opinions because people reading might not like them, or dilute the community spirit by censoring out shared jokes and understandings because people reading don't want to read enough to understand them. That is not what MNHQ has asked us to do at all.

IfNot · 09/04/2018 14:10

I hear you Talulah you don't want to be shushed, who does? What's that expression-Speak softly and carry a big stick?
I can't pretend to be a politician, but I am involved in local politics in a small way, and I have learned that to get the right people to do the right things you need to first speak in their language, second make them like you, and third show them what you want in terms of what they will gain (votes etc). It also helps if there is some kind of veiled allusion to the
PR disaster that may befall an MP /councillor etc who fails to recognise the pitfalls of not doing what you propose. Saying the right things is actually more effective than shouting loudly.

IfNot · 09/04/2018 14:14

X posted with a bunch of people there...its only my opinion, and I'm not a longstanding FWR bod so I can see why I'm being annoying Grin Anyway, I must finish some work so I can go outside! Sun for once!

Moussemoose · 09/04/2018 14:15

Don't want to get off topic, but there has been research recently in the light of Trump/Brexit indicating that being right doesn't matter that much to some sections of the population.

They are happy to overlook factual inaccuracies and 'the truth' if they support the message or the messenger.

Very worrying on a wider political level but in relation to MN we need to become the tone police and retain the high ground.

merrymouse · 09/04/2018 14:18

They are happy to overlook factual inaccuracies and 'the truth' if they support the message or the messenger.

I think few people aren't vulnerable to confirmation bias.

Teacuphiccup · 09/04/2018 14:25

Too many mousses I’m getting confused! Grin

Floisme · 09/04/2018 14:48

I first put my head over the parapet just before Christmas and what pushed me into picking a side was a thread started by someone who was clearly not in good faith. Yet people debated courteously and respectfully and dismantled the arguments rather than the poster. I was very impressed.

If that same poster appeared now I think she would provoke a very different reaction (or at least would have done prior to this thread). That is a great shame. I understand why tempers are rising but it's still very damaging.

But the change in tone is recent so I'm sure things are retrievable.