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

I think Sue in particular would benefit from a read of the Shroedinger's Rapist post and the comment after it. But yes, even lovely men who I'm completely sure wouldn't hurt me I don't want to get naked in front of unless we have a sexual relationship. My dad? My brother in law? My nephew? Nope!

Unless one is talking to the Dalai Lama I don't think expecting them to love everyone is reasonable.

I usually just ask if people think that women and girls only spaces should exist? - most do, tho they don't necessarily know why they think this - and take it from there.

Absolutely to this. People all over the world in whatever cultures, times and places all know on a conscious or subconscious level that women and girls need some private spaces for safety and dignity.

This is really well understood, yet for some reason people arguing on what they think is the 'pro Trans, anti-TERF' side are often disingenuous about this - I've seen posters even on here pretend they think it's fine for teenage girls to have boys in their sleeping quarters and sharing facilities on school trips, 'what could possibly go wrong', etc. and express wide-eyed bemusement at the very idea of needing single-sex toilets.

EVERYONE knows, really, why we need these things. And everyone knows what a woman is, and what a man is.

It's bewildering how quickly it's become the thing to pretend otherwise - how quickly the TRA agenda bullshitted people into the pretence that it's all a bit fuzzy and 'not straightforward' and so on.

We need to try and get this woolly thinking and (what began as an essentially kind-hearted) pretence gradually turned around, and we won't do that with a trade of escalating insults across the barriers.

#TGLWGH

When women do try to redeem violent men by the quality of their love everyone blames them and says 'why didn't she leave?'

It's really important to separate our (emotional and practical) response to the plight of individual transgender / transsexual / gender non conforming people, from an analysis of the role that manipulation of their plight can play for old fashioned patriarchy.

(My view of this is very shaped from having tussled with an abusive relationship for 13 years. But then that isn't exactly a niche position so while it makes it personal it doesn't make it irrelevant.)

I just read this: "Even if a strange man in my intimate space wouldn't dream of physically attacking me the chances are relatively high that he will leer at me, make a distasteful remark, tell me to 'cheer up', or do something subtly intimidating in order to enjoy my reaction." and thought YY, it's all this crap.

Then I thought, not realistically, but purely as a thought experiment: what if we just started trying to train men not to do this? Could we rehabilitate public space for all people? Would it seem less important, or even unimportant, to have somewhere to go, if you weren't being constantly belittled and humiliated in general public space? Could we collectively just stop putting up with it somehow, train men to stop glorying in their power and making us feel uncomfortable? If you appease, you get more shit; if you oppose, what would happen?

The answer that came immediately to me from my experience of my relationship was: you might get a partial, passive-aggressive accommodation to your reasonable assertive requests - but it would be followed with a massive and "apparently unrelated" backlash punishment in some form just a little way down the road. You might have to look quite hard to see the way in which the incidents are related but they will be, in some subtle way. You'll find yourself materially punished - something that mattered to you to have or to do will be taken away - and it will be done in a way that puts you on the back foot and creates a cloud of attention and sympathy around the other person and a cloud of guilt and obligation around you.

THIS IS WHAT WHAT IS.

Yes. It's part of the backlash. That's why MRAs have hopped on board.

Trans 'folk' usage - useful sealion indicator

Eh? Perhaps? Perhaps not.
I use it now and then. Why? I was using it 30 years ago when the majority male workforce bosses enjoyed calling the men workers to a meeting by shouting "ladies". On it's own, it's an inclusive word. No one "owns" it.
Language changes, don't drop the thread to unnecessarily snide remarks about "spotting" people, stick with the issue.

I think you can spot a sea lion by its need to get a fish.
And people here are starting to throw them to one. Don't go too far off track on the theme of your thread.

Personally, it's a turn off to me, when I read sealions putting up links that have poor statistical basis, a microscopic or undisclosed sample base and dodgy funders of research.
Oh, and the use of "experts" to tell me what my lived experience has already taught me.

Sometimes one is very well aware that the sealion is a lost cause, but is also aware that the lurkers are not and may benefit from seeing the sealion's "points" debunked.

what if we just started trying to train men not to do this?

The real breakthrough would be if we stopped explicitly training them to do it.

But this would require a massive cultural revolution in pornography, mainstream film and television, popular music, etc

The real breakthrough would be if we stopped explicitly training them to do it.

Indeed. They don't all just individually decide that maybe violating women's boundaries would be a fun hobby. The culture is saturated with it.

AntiGrinch thanks for your insightful posts. I'm learning a lot from you.

Yes grinch that really rang a bell with me that unrelated backlash. My husband is one of the good guys and even he does this from time to time. We’ll have an argument then suddenly later that day out of nowhere he’ll be saying he’s too busy to go on the day out we had planned, or he won’t come with me to see my mother.

You’re so right about this being what it is.
We have just got too big for our boots.

Let me try to unpick the issues.

1. Violence and intimidation against women by anyone is wrong
2. Women have a right for certain single sex services which exclude others where it is ‘proportionate and legitimate’ to do so
3. It is wrong to erase another’s identity by deliberately misgendering them and using the wrong pronoun
4. Violence and intimidation against trans people is just as wrong as it is against women
5. Hormonal and chromosomal abnormalities during foetal development drive incongruities of sexual characteristics for some people
6. An individual’s gender identity, sexuality and how they express themselves is up to them
7. Trying to imply that trans women are out to commit violence against women is highly inflammatory and not supported by evidence
8. Trans men and women have a disproportionate amount of violence committed against them
9. Gender equality and equity of opportunity should be at the heart of our society

10. Children have the right to be brought up in a supportive environment were they can develop their own identity and personality

These ought to be ten statements upon which a foundation could be built for future dialogue

Centring as Datun says is the key.
The reason why 'terf' has had so much power is because of the 'Te'- the focus is on the exclusion of a group of people.
Language matters, the concerns that I have read her are not 'anti-trans' they are concerned about the impact that legislation, atitudes, policy etc have for women and girls...
On another post, someone (apologies as Ive just hopped back here) asked "What about women?" and this for me is the key...
What About Women And Girls?
Concerns about prisons, sports, guides, school loos and changing rooms, sexuality, legislation, policy, society etc etc if they start from WAWAG then we have re-centred and established the truth of it....

Sue 5. Intersex? They've asked to be left out of this. Let's respect that.

1. 'Die CIS scum' badges?
2. Where's the evidence? You can't say 8 is true when you dismiss 7 so glibly.

7. Trying to imply that trans women are out to commit violence against women is highly inflammatory and not supported by evidence

The issue is not with transwomen - it is with imposters who may use the legislation to their own end. This is why we need language to talk about the issue bluntly. If we are supposed to accept that transwomen are women without questioning, where on earth does the idea of an imposter fit into this? We can't identify the dodgy men who are taking advantage of the legislation if we - the collective we - are not allowed to acknowledge that transwomen aren't, in fact, women.

Sue

No one is denying the right for trans people to ‘express their identity’, honestly.
I would love to live in a world where people could live free of homophobic bullying and fear of expressing themselves due to Male violence when someone isn’t sticking to gender roles.

But the issue is is that there is a difference between sex and gender and women NEED sex based protections, if we give them up in lue of gender identity we have lost the ability to name our sex based oppression.

I support trans women to be trans women, but they are not biologically female.

I am against any violence towards trans women but keeping our protections isn’t violence it’s preservation.

I accept that life is hard for trans people, let’s look at that. Honestly I’ll fight so hard for a third space, I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with them against Male violence. We’ve fought for our spaces we know the map of this rodeo.

Saying no is not violent.
I accept transwomen, I just don’t believe they are biological women, it’s not possible to change sex.
I’ll not misgender them, if they want to be called she, I’ll call them she but I won’t accept that they have changed sex.

Let’s face it there are very few sex based protections needed, we aren’t shunning transwomen from the lunch table just saying, these ones need to be sex based.

sue

I have read your points and I agree with all of them. I would like to add another if I may.

11. Trying to imply that feminists are out to commit violence against trans women is highly inflammatory and not supported by evidence

12. Children have the right to be brought up in a safe environment were they can develop their own personality and body free from interference and pressure to conform, children have the right to puberty and the ability to develop a healthy sex life in the future.

Antigrinch
"In the past, some feminists used to take a line something like "I don't care if the facts hurt your feelings; here are the facts."

It's amusing that Ben Shapiro has a version of this as his pinned tweet.

And he's rather scathing of 'feminists'. I use the quotes because I don't think he's clear on what feminism is, or at least, think the lib fems speak for all of us

twitter.com/benshapiro/status/695638866993115136

Sue, I like your idea about statements on which to build a dialogue. I'd like to suggest some changes in order to cut to the issue/ help us focus on they key sticking points, as many of the interests are compatible:

1. Violence and intimidation against women by anyone is wrong

violence and intimidation is wrong. When people feel their rights/protections and interests are under threat, they can act in a defensive manner. It is important to understand and express the perceived threat and not to attach

1. Women have a right for certain single sex services which exclude others where it is ‘proportionate and legitimate’ to do so.

Where it is proportionate and legitimate, female-bodied people have the right for provision that is designated for female-bodied people.

1. It is wrong to erase another’s identity by deliberately misgendering them and using the wrong pronoun

We need to have vocabulary for our gender identities and vocabulary for being 1 or 2 sexes. This way people can be free to choose labels that fit with their identity and there is a language that enables the dimorphic aspects of the species to be understood and referred to where relevant.

1. Violence and intimidation against trans people is just as wrong as it is against women

Agreed. Trans people are a vulnerable group and active steps need to be taken to ensure trans people are afforded dignity, privacy and safety.

1. Hormonal and chromosomal abnormalities during foetal development drive incongruities of sexual characteristics for some people.

More research into the causes of people being distressed by their sexed bodies is needed in order to help alleviate suffering

1. An individual’s gender identity, sexuality and how they express themselves is up to them

agreed

1. Trying to imply that trans women are out to commit violence against women is highly inflammatory and not supported by evidence

When monitoring and recording crime the variables of natal sex and gender identity need to be recorded so proper evidence is gathered about patterns of crime

1. Trans men and women have a disproportionate amount of violence committed against them.

See above. We also need to record patterns of crime throughout the UK and internationally so we can build up a pattern of what is happening and where

1. Gender equality and equity of opportunity should be at the heart of our society

Gender equality, sex equality and equality of opportunity should be at the heart of our society 10. Children have the right to be brought up in a supportive environment were they can develop their own identity and personality agreed

Certainly agree with most of sues points

There are a few i just dont know enough about

I like teacups additions as well

2. Women have a right for certain single sex services which exclude others where it is ‘proportionate and legitimate’ to do so

Women have a right for certain single sex services which exclude others.

There, fixed it for you.

5 is problematic in this context as this describes intersex, but many biologically normal people are using it to explain their trans status without really understanding the deeper meaning. There may well be slight biological differences in the brains of people with dysphoria (I think on another thread some research looked at the area that focuses on body perception as being different) but there's a difference to that kind of explanation and chromosome and endocrine explanations.

And the biggest need in a list of that sort is to clearly distinguish sex and gender as very different things.

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/