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

If female AGP is basically ' sometimes being sexually excited while also being a woman' I'm surprised it's only 30%

Radical Feminism posits that the root of the oppression of women is biological. Our capacity to produce human resources. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that for over 500 years what passed for the medical profession taught that women were simply the sub human animal, or soil, men planted their human seeds in to grow little mini men. 1200 years later we are still arguing that we are autonomous human beings.

If 30% of women were AGP it would explain the sudden surge in girls calling themselves asexual. I thought it was to avoid performing sexual services on the lunch break for pornsick male classmates.

They are really pushing this 'most women have AGP' thing.

How can women have AGP? I feel like wailing sometimes...

If AGP is purely based on feeling sexual, then yes surely more than 30% of women have it? But do transmen have autoandrophilia? Or natal men?
Why is it only a "thing" either for just some transwomen (cough fetish cough) or for transwomen-but-with-the-"women-do-it-too" clause?

Autoandrophilia? I didn't think so until recently. But reading, and watching videos, particularly from one very prominent "trans guy" activist has convinced me that autoandrophilia is indeed a 'thing' with some TIFs.

I do think Autoandrophilia is a thing, but much rarer than AGP. Women cannot be excited by the idea of themselves as women. We may be women and excited but it's not AGP.

I think the idea women have AGP is a rise because they have succeeded in convincing is AHP does not exist.

Sorry.
're try... I think the idea women have AGP is a ruse because they have not succeeded in convincing us that AGP does not exist.

If transgender identified males have AGP then women have to have AGP because it is the symbolic fetishes, silks, satin, big hair, slinky undergarments, that they identify with.

Yes AAP exists, but a) it's estimated that for 7 to 9 men with AGP there's only one woman with AAP and b) AAPs seem to report a much lower incidence of the sexual arousal connection (a small minority of AGPs report none either).

Maybe AGPs are just so much more visible and pushy because AAP were socialised female and therefore stay more hidden?

It just suddenly occurred to me that AGP men think we wear pants and fought for the right to wear pants because we are all getting an erotic stimulation form wearing them.

It seems to me that many Self Id supporters are naive at best and don’t understand deviancy plus the progression from “nusiance” to serious sex offences like rape. Even assuming one had a right to invade womens intimate spaces shows an astonishing level of disrespect that's untoward. Yet this abnormal behaviour is obfuscated as “rights”.

An accused multiple sex offender attacks the brave spokesperson who accelerated the MeTop movement and somehow that is his right?

"Some examples of the “Gateway Offences i.e. nuisance behaviours are: wanting to gain access to womens toilets and changing rooms. To peep and perv is not normal but deviant." This latter quote is from Laura Richards ex Scotland Yard detective plus Jim Clemente ex FBI profiler.

"Lots of women have AGP" is just "lots of women rape/murder/whatever other crime that men commit with greater frequency with women that's currently being discussed" for a very specific subset of males. It's whataboutery, basically, an attempt to stop the behavior and its implications from being discussed.

I think you are probably right, AAK. I was just trying to puzzle out why it would even cross ones mind.

Well, I mean, why else do people choose the clothes they choose if not because they're arousing?

@AngryAttackKittens

Well, I mean, why else do people choose the clothes they choose if not because they're arousing?

Yes - I agree. Especially older guys - their dress and demeanour scream out "I'm getting off on this" - it's so disgusting.

There also must be a lot of younger ones who experience distress in their body and are then unduly influenced to think that changing their body will alleviate the distress - and as we are seeing from the increasing numbers of detransistioners - it's not the answer. Anorexics think by starving themselves they will feel better. It's not the answer. It's so sad……the undue influence

@Italiangreyhound
I think the idea women have AGP is a ruse because they have not succeeded in convincing us that AGP does not exist.

Spot on - they are trying to deflect away from the elephant in the room in many TIMs i.e. AGP.

Women having AGP is complete bullshit, I think a lot of women do get turned on at the thought of themselves being sexy but I think a lot of that comes down to the Male gaze.
Women in society are an object to be looked at and fucked so it’s no surprise that women sometimes experience their sexuality through the image of themselves as a sexual object rather than a full being experiencing sex.

This is not the same as AGP AT ALL
And It’s fucking insulting and stupid to claim it is.

Do people not read feminist books anymore?

Genuine question - How relevant is AGP to the discussion anyway?

There's rather a big difference in that women are actually women, self objectifying or not. And males fantasising about themselves as a woman are not.

I think it’s totally relevant because we are told that trans women are women and that’s why we should let them in our spaces.
When we KNOW that for some men it’s a fetish we are being told we are bigots, but we have eyes and we can see. Men used to be open about this, cross dressers, transvestites they haven’t gone away and we are being asked to open our boundaries and let all of them into our spaces on their say so.

Also AGP is at root a kind of transformation fantasy. If you're already a woman you can't transform into one. Like, we don't say that a man who wants bigger muscles and works out/takes steroids has autoandrophilia.

Same as bewilderness, I don't believe women are agp - I was just trying to out logic how nonsense the idea was

But does it matter why somebody says they are a woman? I'm not making a value judgement about somebody's humanity when I say that we need words to recognise people with male and female reproductive systems.

Clearly some people on Twitter and YouTube are indulging a fetish, but their existence or non-existence doesn't change my feelings about being able to gather data on women or have single sex spaces.

I think it would make a huge difference to public opinion if it was more widely known that the majority of male people currently claiming trans status are more likely to be AGP than to be dysphoric gay men who've been feminine their whole lives. Certainly plenty of people have turned up here saying that realizing that is what changed their minds about the whole issue.

AngryAttackKittens

Seconded. It's what made every single person I've spoken to about this sit up and take notice. They all thought self-id was for post-op transwomen (of either type, straight, bi or gay). It's the penis that swings it (eurgh, sorry...)