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

It is very relevant that if gender identity is "a feeling in someone's head" - and they are prepared to sign a legal declaration - then no court could prove perjury, because how do you challenge a person's own feeling?

That is why legislation needs to be based on evidence-based fact - ie. biological sex, not gender identity.

@Sur0001
@somethingweird

I’ve read the report from the Endocrine Society and the evidence they referred to in the first footnote.

The evidence is a literature review looking at:

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

The first set of literature reviewed only deals with people with diagnosed DSD (intersex conditions). These studies say nothing about the transgender umbrella including middle aged TIMs who have gathered children, cross dressers or gender fluid types who we are now expected to accept as women.

The second part of the review looks at neuroanatomical differences that assume there are differences between male and female brains which is a far from settled issue.

If, however, good evidence were found that there is a biological basis for a person feeling that their personality is at odds with the socially constructed roles and behaviours associated with members of that person’s sex classification that doesn’t mean the person is actually a member of the opposite sex. However if we are better be asked to treat that person as a member of the opposite sex, would it not make sense to test whether any individual seeking to be treated as a member of the opposite sex exhibits those biological markers?

Yes Sue what about Philip Bunce? He does exactly that-a man one day a "woman" the next. It seems to me more and more that the issue of self id is actually a bit of a red herring, because if a man can win Woman of the Year, and a man can win an "all female" Big Brother in the Year of the Woman, and men are taking jobs set aside for women in the Labour party, and no one is allowed to question any of this without being called a bigot, then we are already in a situation whereby men can self identify, aren't we?

The inability, or unwillingness, to distinguish between something parading as personal freedom for adults to do what they like against the right of women and children to not be abused is the heart of the issue here. Unless any discussion is predicated on doing no harm to women and children then the conditions are not in place for respect of their rights and safety. Hence common sense tells us there is not yet the basis for a fair mediation and hearing.

Predatory men come in many guises - they don't declare they are wolves but present as Grandma. The men who insist they are women and that women must cede space and rights for them are the deluded ones. Reasonable transsexuals don't demand that - they understand the need for women to have their own spaces, as we respect theirs. So the issue is to do with the demands of the "Trans Rights Activists" (sic) not with women. The TRAs do not represent all of the trans community we are advised here, yet continue to assert that they do. Women are predictably being victim blamed for saying no to any erosion of their rights plus making a stand for children's safety - yet these are already being compromised daily, without their consent nor involvement in any transparent, widespread, comprehensive public consultation - that would be expected in any proposed large change to a fundamental foundation of law - that of the definition of sex.

No medical or surgical procedure can actually change people’s sex, but can only alter their bodies to more or less resemble it. So reports to the contrary, normally quoting statistics that don't meet the normal, professional, academic research standards, are reinforcing the dogma that with one simple, unsubstantiable claim, any man can magically override all biology, observation and common sense.

Until safeguarding issues for women and girls are taken seriously and centred in any "discussion" - the rift will continue. What I don't hear from many "concerned" in the trans community at large is a recognition and deferring to that principle. Some, such as the regulars here, do and I welcome their contribution. However many don't and continue to rationalise, obfuscate, ignore or downplay this very serious issue. Until this is addressed - there can be no meeting in the middle. We will have to continue to agree to disagree, respectfully.

It's what isn't said and isn't done that surrounds the elephant in the room.

Never once have I heard anyone say on MN that they want transexuals to have rights taken away - but that is what is being forced on women and children all of the time now. Coercive control is against the UK law. Until the legal upholding of a coercive free existence for women and children is recognised, plus the retention of their legal rights for single sex environments is guaranteed, which they aren't at present, then resistance and fight back is needed.

It's not personal, as any reasonable person recognises. It's a matter of principle to stop liberty crimes being perpetrated against women and children.

I took a quote from this blog for my comment above: lascapigliata8.wordpress.com/2018/04/06/speculation-about-mass-shooters-sex-isnt-sexism-its-a-result-of-systematic-gaslighting-about-biological-sex-of-trans-identified-perperators/

Getting back to the OP…

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. [my italics]

Yes. To me many people seem sincere but quite defensive on here and I'd like an objective definition of "inflammatory" so I know you're not using it and "goady" and "TGLWGH" to shut down awkward posts.

I know you think "But WE'RE the ones being shut down!" but in my experience, notwithstanding DARVO, ideological opponents tend to start mirroring each other.

I’ve had the misfortune of having to use a refuge and have had counselling for major trauma. I know what it means to fear men and anyone looking masculine including predatory men and women but that is what it is fear. I’m over my fear and I wish to share nothing but love to the world.

The vast majority of people are inherently good. We shouldn’t make law based on predjudice and fear.

Laws and policies are in place to protect us now. How can anyone police an individual’s identity? Why would anyone wish to force another to live an inauthentic life?

Let’s show respect and dignity to all people and not expect gender equality for us then try to deny to another.

Love one another and we might build a better world.

womanformallyknownaswoman, thank you for such an eloquent post. There's a significant difference, I think, between identifying with women rather that identifying as a woman.

Sue
I’m sorry you had to use a refuge, it’s an awful position to be in. I’m glad you managed to find some help.

Would you be kind enough to read my first post on this thread where I talk about being in a refuge as a child?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3160220-to-write-to-Women-s-Aid-and-ask-you-to-do-the-same-if-you-value-their-services

I’ve had the misfortune of having to use a refuge and have had counselling for major trauma. I know what it means to fear men and anyone looking masculine including predatory men and women but that is what it is fear. I’m over my fear and I wish to share nothing but love to the world.

The vast majority of people are inherently good. We shouldn’t make law based on predjudice and fear.

Do you know what? I have just come to this thread from reading an article about the verdict of that man who walked into the travel agents and slit the throat of the new lesbian girlfriend of his ex girlfriend. He did this in front of the family who were booking a holiday with the victim, including a child, plus all the victims colleagues. He had been threatening suicide and apparently said 'it was either kill me or kill her, so I killed her'. He had also being harassing his ex for a while in the lead up to the murder.

Women need protection from men. There is a reason we have laws to reduce to the risk of women being in vulnerable positions around men, and to reduce the risk of trauma for women from being in certain situations with men. The reason for this is that men commit crimes against women at such a high rate that women stood up and said 'actually, we want spaces away from men for our dignity and safety and we want this enshrined in law' , and eventually those things were granted.

So your line about 'not making laws based on prejudice and fear' seems a little..... trite, to me.

Laws and policies are in place to protect us now. How can anyone police an individual’s identity? Why would anyone wish to force another to live an inauthentic life?

It's a consent issue Sue. Women have the right to object to the presence of male people in female spaces. We have rights to privacy and dignity. We have boundaries. Our rights have already been eroded because no one respects the feelings of women. I will not stand by while they are further eroded. I will continue to speak out.

Let’s show respect and dignity to all people and not expect gender equality for us then try to deny to another.

But gender and sex are two different thing that are being conflated. Denying that men are women is not denying equality. People posting here are not opposed to options like a third space for trans people, but transactivists are insisting that transwomen literally are women, that can only be the case if you change the meaning of the word women. How would you define woman?

I feel gaslighted by Sue's post. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself" type rhetoric.

Women do have to fear men - because we are subjected to physical and sexual violence from them all the time. We are weaker than men, and we are targeted for sexual attacks, and harassment. All the time. Which is why we have spaces on the basis of biological sex in the first place.

Plus, just maybe, I don't a transwoman who has done nothing to transition, so is still male bodied with stubble, to do my smear test. Perhaps I would like this done by a person who was born with a cervix, and perhaps I would like to be able to say that, without being called a transphobe.

On the subject of usernames I spoke with a teenage relative recently. Although he thinks trans-identity politics is madness it was also apparent that he thinks TERFs are a quite scary highly radical very organised underground movement. A bit like the ALF or something. And when I told him that wasn't the case he cited Twitter usernames as proof...

Plus, just maybe, I don't a transwoman who has done nothing to transition, so is still male bodied with stubble, to do my smear test. Perhaps I would like this done by a person who was born with a cervix, and perhaps I would like to be able to say that, without being called a transphobe.

This is the point. The majority of policy makers don't respect your feelings enough as a woman to make politically difficult choices. They expect you to concede and get over it.

Surely people recognize the irony of the United Nations promoting sex segregated spaces for women and girls in developing nations in the name of equality while in the developed nations the political parties seek to eradicate sex segregated spaces for women and girls in the name of equality.
Surely that should give them pause and yet it seems to give them impetus instead.

Yet we are forced to constantly bear in mind and prioritise the "authentic lives" of others.

What it boils down to for me is women being told to 'be nice'.
Be nice, be understanding, don't be mean. Put others' needs above your own. Move over, budge up. Deny your instincts, don't question things that make no logical sense.

Oh, and allow others to tell you what you are

Yes, it was obvious Sue had come along to gaslight at 2.30 am this morning when Sue arrived. (I had to get up for a snack, there was chocolate). I did report it on that basis but hey ho.

Sue did link a handy paper of Stephens that is very long.......

The only thing the trans community is asking for is to self declare via a statutory declaration punishable with two years in jail for perjury for falsely claiming they are living full time in their gender

That’s not actually true. Yetanothertranswoman has set out the Women & Equalities Committee’s recommendations (and linked to the actual report) is the OP of this FWR thread and the recommendations are broader, with far reaching implications for single-sex women’s services and facilities. Please take the time to read up on the proposals, as it will help you to understand why women are so alarmed and starting to protest more loudly.

@bewilderness

They ask the people advising on the eradication to advise on any conflict. As we know.

How can anyone police an individual’s identity?

I don't want to police anybody's identity, and I don't want anybody to police mine either. In particular I don't want to be shoved into a box marked 'people who idenitify as female'.

Regarding the use of slurs in user names I would like people to take a moment to think back to what happened when women tried to reclaim the B word in the seventies and the POC tried to reclaim the N word.
The act of reclaiming "slut" and other slurs is done as an act of rebellion but is interpreted as permission. Failure to object is assumed to be acquiescence. Pop culture is full of white men using the slurs on one another that we tried to reclaim in the seventies. They were never our slurs, we were just the targets. They always belonged to the white man.