Mumsnet gets a mention in the Times

[LadyGrey18]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-activists-think-debate-is-hate-speech-hsh7vpmzt

Hopefully someone will come along with a share token soon but the relevant section is:

Mumsnet is a rare forum where feminist anxiety about trans ideology is allowed to be aired. The website takes no position, it merely upholds free speech. However, activists are now threatening Mumsnet advertisers, telling them to stop “funding bigotry” or face a Twitter storm and possible boycott. They hope that, fearful of losing revenue, Mumsnet will delete and ban the debates.

The article also states that the Crown Prosecution Service have decided not to prosecute Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (presumably because she didn't actually do anything illegal).

I am convinced (personally) that the concerns are contained because either they are regarded as 'anti-trans' or because they are 'feminist'/TERF etc.
This is how they are contained, both politically eg Maria Miller 'so called feminists' and literally within Mumsnet at the moment.
The point I was making above (clumsily & apologies for that) was that surely the point at which the concerns are heard for what they are; legitimate concerns of women then discussion is not only possible but inevitable.
When I speak with my MP, it will be as a woman raising concerns based on the sum of all of my beliefs, experiences, knowledge, qualifications and my sex.
If it were reported that I was speaking 'as a feminist' this would be no more true than 'as an Aquarian' or 'as someone with red hair'. It would though (sadly) mean the concerns I expressed could be contained or even dismissed by some.

Yes, I agree. I assumed all women classed themselves
as feminists, I have t heard this anti feminist rhetoric for decades.

Thanks gor posting. I will buy the Times today, I want to support the papers open to portraying our concerns fairly.

It is a woman's rights issue whether you describe yourself as feminist or not.

Rowantrees makes some great points about the language of the debate.

Indeed... and also with so much talk elsewhere of 'feminism which embraces all genders and none' etc then even starting to raise concerns from that basis also becomes contested, though from a different point of view!

Given that the central point in the article is:

Gender self-ID has serious implications for women’s rights, yet the Tory minister Maria Miller led an inquiry that proposed it should become law without hearing from a single women’s organisation. Hundreds of women have contacted me expressing concerns they daren’t raise in public.

How is it not one of the most talked about article on the site?

and by that I mean both, how can we help to make this point clear & isn't there much to be gained in trying to understand the many ways in which this hasn't happened (yet)?

The whole thing is a bit of a minefield.

Nowadays I think that the general population imagines that both LGB people and feminists are fully on board with the whole of trans ideology. IME going to LGBT+ things at work, most LGB people do seem to be with this - and it's being pushed so hard.

There is something a bit depressing about being in a room with 100+ LGB and allies, and no "visible" trans people, (any who are unnoticed are going to be in a bit minority if we're talking older school rather than the new definitions which mean "most people"), and seeing all these earnest people listening to talk after talk abotu trans, very little about LG or B. I've heard no questioning comments, but I don't think anyone would dare do that.

With feminists, most think, I think, that it's all about all gender choice etc. And of course women are NICE. (Gender). So I think most people assume that women who they know are a bit feminist are very keen on this.

MN, if you are getting grief from certain advertisers, could you drop us some hints? Who would those advertisers rather upset? TRAs or the people who buy their products.

Oh sorry what I was going to say was -

Yes to people tuning out if it's "feminists v trans" - most people see these two groups as extreme loons and it's quite amusing to see them fighting but has no relevance to real world. A lot of people hate feminists as well and so will be happy to see them "beaten" (sometimes literally).

The fact that this affects all women - and the line "A proper debate on the GRA is essential: what is proposed is nothing less than changing the very definition of man and woman in law — biology replaced with identity." sums it up very well - needs to be out there and I believe this is happening.

As an aside, does anyone genuinely believe that women - any women feminist or not - as a group are likely to be advocating murder / actually going out and murdering people? I don't for a minute think that the general public swallow the idea that there are crazed millie tant types all over the country organising into gangs and going out and beating people to death.

If you're reading - thank you Janice, and I hope you're not getting too much crap this weekend

Thx Janice - great article - and you might want to mention the cognitive dissonance experienced by many of us now from having to self censor to conform to some other's expectations - to be seem and not heard so to speak. In order to stay alive on here. So tough on those who have experienced male violence irl - really MN you can do better than this. "They know not what they do"

Once again, great, succinct article. Thank you Janice

I also don't shop at Primark or Top Shop but am boycotting Lush. And I told my local Labour candidate yesterday that I would not vote for them because of this issue. She looked wearily unsurprised so I think I may not be the only person who had said that to her.

Agree womanformerlyknownas .
I am boycotting Lush and Topshop. Don’t go into a Primark but have a teenage daughter, so TopShop is a shame, but I will not hand over my cash to a business that doesn’t safeguard its young female customers.

Thank you Janice for this brave, clear article.

The trend of the comments below is encouraging, too.

MN, if you are getting grief from certain advertisers, could you drop us some hints?

I have asked about this, too! It would be nice to know who to contact.

Thank you for sharing the article.

In a way, it's a shame it's The Times is the paper publishing this as it's behind a paywall. But better, of course, that it's published somewhere rather than not at all!

Mumsnet Why doesn't this thread appear on Active?

Mumsnet Why doesn't this thread appear on Active?

Because at the moment MNHQ have decided to exclude Feminism threads from active convos. There's other threads about it.

Great article, thank you Janice

Janice's Twitter feed is worth a browse: twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham

She mentions that she has been nominated for a couple of journalism prizes - I hope that her clear and incisive writing on an important issue (when others are clearly too scared to do so) wins her at least one of them

Interesting reading the comments - have the TRAs not seen it yet?

All bar one person thinks self-id is ridiculous, and loads calling for free speech.

Surely at some stage politicians are going to have to notice that public opinion is gender critical.

I think you can only comment if you have a subscription. It's unlikely The Times is a paper of choice for most TRAs so you don't get the usual pile ons.

There is one stellar comment about female penises and male wombs that blew a few minds.

Thanks for writing the article, Janice, and putting up with the amount of bile you've received on Twitter. I've read the comments on Janice's timeline and they make me despair.

www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

Do read this paper where Stephen Whittle advised women and girls must have sex based protections literally and legally demobilised. Stephen is a transman adviser to the government. In another thread here on Mumsnet, Stephen said that Stephen did whatever it would take to survive personally.

Ova you dont need a subscription to comment on times articles you just need to sign up

I love Janice Turner. I was thinking of cancelling my Times subscription to save money, but I will keep on paying it for now.

Regarding the muting of FWR in Active, the only thing I was thinking is that the board used to be called Feminism and Women’s Rights. People still refer to it as FWR. Feminism is about women’s rights, and therefore integral to an equal, civil society.

Muting discussion about women’s rights is necessary to protect the space for that discussion- otherwise advertisers will be pressured to pull out as far as I can understand it. Venues refuse to host discussion as a result of pressure and disinformation.

Thus, discussion about women’s rights must be muted.

Does that sentence work with any other group substituted for women?

Discussion of black rights must be muted - nope, racist.
Discussion of gay rights must be muted - nope, homophobic.
Discussion of disabled people’s rights must be muted - nope, disablist discrimination
And so on. All no, because human beings have rights, groups have particular rights and the freedom to campaign for them.

Discussion of women’s rights must be muted.

Consent is the most fundamental right women have. If women do not have a voice, they cannot consent. If women are not listened to, and consent is assumed; or if women do not consent and they are ignored, they are violated.