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 he misbehaved there are already laws in place to protect or deter such action occurring

There are laws in place to protect people from car theft and deter such action occurring. Are you going to leave your car unlocked and vulnerable though? Or will the police or insurers have much sympathy with you if you do?

What you seem to mean by 'let's talk' is that women should shut up and do what they are told, and may not have any feelings about it. Their privacy and dignity is something they are not entitled to. Their own spaces are not something they are entitled to.

I wholly reject the proposition put forward that a man would self declare as a woman at risk of perjury with two years in jail to dress up to go in a woman’s space.

I admire your optimism but there comes a point where it becomes dangerous naivety.

A man can put a dress on and walk into a woman’s space today. He would not be covered by the protections of the Equalities Act

Sue0001
Have you actually seen the EA2010?

I think before you use AGP as an argument you need to be aware AGP theory for MtF transsexuals has been discredited and that AGP exists in Women to! In fact the survey below says 28% of Women would have AGP.

Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique

Article (PDF Available)  in Journal of Homosexuality 57(6):790-809 · June 2010 with 183 Reads
DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.486241 · Source: PubMed
Cite this publication
Charles Moser at Diverse Sexualities Research and Education Institute
Charles Moser
30.4Diverse Sexualities Research and Education Institute
Abstract
Over the last 20 years, Ray Blanchard, Ph.D., with a variety of coauthors and collaborators, has proposed a theory that links the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals with the presence or absence of autogynephilia (erotic arousal by the thought or image of "himself" as a woman). Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory suggests that the association between sexual orientation and autogynephilia among male-to-female transsexuals is clinically important and the association is always (or almost always) present. Although the theory has been criticized by clinicians, researchers, and transsexuals themselves, it has not been critiqued in a peer-reviewed article previously. This article will attempt to fill that gap. Key studies on which the theory is based will be analyzed and alternative interpretations of the data presented. I conclude that although autogynephilia exists, the theory is flawed.

February 2009 · Journal of Homosexuality
Autogynephilia, an erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, has been described as a sexual interest of some male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs); the term has not been applied to natal women. To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Using a more rigorous definition of "frequent" arousal to multiple items, 28% would be classified as autogynephilic. The implications of these findings are discussed concerning the sexuality of women and the meaning of autogynephilia for MTFs.

The point is, a predatory man would not need to go through the process of self-ID at all. If the law changes, or societal norms change, so that it becomes an everyday occurrence that trans people who don't physically transition are accepted in single sex spaces, then non-trans men will be able to pose as women unchallenged. Regardless of their motivation. Yes, there would potentially be legal redress if they did something unlawful, but regardless of that you have already lost your single sex space and there is no point in its existence any more. What do you think single sex spaces are for Sue?

.... aaaaand, let's get back on topic! I'd recommend everyone - including me! - re-read paragraph three of the OP.

We've moved on from today's 'women have agp' nonsense trope. If you really want to talk Sue, let's talk. As in, you raise points, we respond, we raise points, you respond. If all you can do is paste today's party line, we're all wasting our time.

Cheers lang I re-read and am off for a cuppa

So Sue, you’re saying that AGP doesn’t exist, apart from in natal females?

Sue0001

Yes, I completely agree than AGP in transsexuals is not a pattern. It is a pattern found in males. It is the most common paraphilia found in sex offenders.

AGP males are considered to be Transgender according to Stonewall.

Transsexuals are generally accepted by the feminist community as welcome into female spaces in certain situations.

AGP males are completely different and we do not want them to be considered female for obvious reasons.

Please can you reference where “AGP males are considered as transgender by Stonewall”

Ophelia

Thank you for that helpful, succinct rebuttal. It will have helped any confused lurkers out there

Trans includes "cross dresser" aka AGP male fetishists.

I fully support certain women’s only spaces for protective reasons. I’ve used them myself. It was a privilege to be supported by such understanding women who like me had been abused.

I still think this debate conflates many issues in particular self-declaration for binary trans men and women and calls for gender identity to be a protected characteristic in the Equalities Act. The second would cover the majority of transgender and gender non conforming people and the former a minority of trans people.

Only Scotland is considering a change in the Equalities Act. Amber Rudd has already ruled out changes to the Equalities Act in England on the Andrew Marr show.

You know how if you feed the seagulls your chips at the seaside, they keep coming back for more and then start nicking your chips...

For anyone interested in the current thinking on AGP in the clinical and psych community, there's a good review here published in 2017.

Spoiler: AGP is not at a discredited theory (despite its unpopularity amongst TRAs), does not appear in natal females (despite the poorly-constructed study sue mentions), and explains patterns of behaviour that other classifications cannot.

Sue0001 - what's your view on the best way to respond to inflammatory posts (in whichever ideological direction) here on FWR, as the OP asked?

I wholly reject the proposition put forward that a man would self declare as a woman at risk of perjury with two years in jail to dress up to go in a woman’s space.

But how do you 'not live as a woman?'.

boatyardblues

Nearly wet my pants.

I think their inclusion under 'the trans umbrella' does harm to transsexuals but in some ways strengthens our cause as women.

I think the problem is that arguments about AGP can stray into "being worthy of getting a seat at the lunch table" territory, when there is no lunch table.

I went to diversity and inclusion training and was told that new types of sexuality are going to be added to the legal protections... I didn't like to ask.

I asked what the difference was between sex and gender and was told that female wasn't a gender.

Gender identity - a person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

I don't have one of those.

Gender identity - a person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

I don't have one of those.

Sex –assigned to a person on the basis of primary sex characteristics (genitalia) and reproductive functions. Sometimes the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are interchanged to mean ‘male’ or ‘female’.

So once sex is abolished I will no longer exist.

Gender – often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth.

Abolishing sex means I will be assumed to be.... nothing. There are no words.

Just popped in coz I wanted to know what seagulls have to do with FWR and it struck me how

a) wonderfully you've all dealt with the attempt to derail
b) how transparent the attempt to derail becomes when it is an almost word-for-word argument refuted just a few threads ago

and

c) I finally, really, completely understand the reason for this thread.

I originally disagreed because I only thought about how important these threads are in helping people, specifically lurkers and Googlers, help reach #peakGIT (as in Gender Identity Theory, suggested on the #peaktrans thread).

If we don't answer these TRA claims, that doesn't happen. But if we develop succinct and civil answers that would be enough to show the uninitiated that the claims can be refuted yet leave the seagulls starving.

Would this be a strategy that works for you as well, OP? I mean in addition to those you mention above?