Ooh step back, India Willoughby is going to penetrate the Mumsnet debate

[ALittleBitOfButter]

Just saw on twitter that IW says will do radio interview about Mumsnet. Sorry can't link as on phone.

These are all core tactic of cults, btw. Any research into how cults work will turn up the importance of controlling language. It has also been of central importance to conquering nations - disallowing people to speak in their own language is a way of committing cultural genocide.

Not feeling well and really confused. What are people being censored for now? Can someone be more direct?

The idea that people like IW just dismiss the complexities of women's lives and experiences and reduce boards like FWR to 'hate speech' is so profoundly ignorant.

This really upsets me. And is exactly where people with this kind of opinion are going wrong as they make no attempt to identify with women. And therefore why the majorly of these debates are happening here. And why Debbie and Miranda and others really do get it and are very much applauded by women and feminists.

It's odd for a lifelong leftist to find herself hoping for the continued health and wellbeing of a Tory government, and yet here we are.

Me too. I hate myself for it, but I've never felt so angry in my life about what is happening to women's rights and how little women matter.

Isn’t this what the Spartacus threads were for?

Don’t the tabloids often use ‘name, a man who identifies as a woman’ as their formula? Which makes it crystal clear that it’s a man —who identifies as a woman—.

people like IW just dismiss the complexities of women's lives and experiences

Ain't that the truth. We're all about the leg shaving, apparently.

Thing is I think it's a tone thing more than an issue with specific usages, that's why the deletions are inconsistent. Take the first page of this thread: there's no one particular transphobic post but there is a sense that people are having a go when a number of anonymous posters are all taking turns to say negative things about one not-anonymous individual.

Yes, there's a history with that individual but someone coming on to see what we're up to won't know that and it just looks like a pile-on. Posts which factually describe why somebody might not be a good representative of a community are better strategy.

We just need to get this out there. We've nearly done it. And once it's done we wont need to represent the acceptable face of gender-criticism any more and we will be able to relax.

By the way, I took great exception to the description of mn as a "cosy coffee morning, where the days events are discussed".

I may have misheard, but that isn't what I got from what IW said. I thought it was more like "People think MN is a cosly coffee morning...", not realising that in reality it's peopled by raving drooling transphobes who want to kill all transwomen.

I found the shouting down and treatment of Karen I especially illustrated that POV. I was then blocked for liking a tweet by Karen about the murders of women at the hand of partners.

Our terfy batcave is located under a fairtrade coffee shop...

After the comment about Karen's site "demonizing" men I'm afraid that any willingness I had to give India the benefit of the doubt evaporated.

The idea that people like IW just dismiss the complexities of women's lives and experiences and reduce boards like FWR to 'hate speech' is so profoundly ignorant.

And sexist. Which rather brings us back full circle.

A- If a phobia is an irrational fear, and people like Corbyn are very empathetic towards people who undergo a great trauma in life, where is his empathy for people with phobias to transwomen? Didn't IW have a phobia of Shane in BB? Or do only those born male deserve empathy?

B- If people are basing a concern on statistics of biological realities, then it isn't a phobia, so why use factually incorrect language to describe a group of people?

I may have misheard, but that isn't what I got from what IW said. I thought it was more like "People think MN is a cosly coffee morning...

I heard that - but I still found it patronising because I got the impression that IW thought that this was what MN should be about (tee hee and tinkly little laugh, because you know, that what wimmins do).

Saying that a woman who dedicates her time to publishing the names of women killed by men has a "one track mind"

People think MN is a cosy coffee morning - yes you're right but the image that comes across to the uneducated listener is still the cosy coffee morning. The vast majority of 'applied' feminism going on on mn is across the relationships boards, often AIBU, parenting, pregnancy (threads about dv or abuse often pop up there) and then there's the health board's (often female specific or commonly female issues). 'Trans' stuff is a tiny tip of the iceburg tbh. Bit bigger now but the actual examples of feminism at work are elsewhere, everywhere.

I bet all of the mugs have bunnies on in this imaginary caff
Or maybe the coffee is served in tea cups?

IW needs the attention and the money. Ignore. Being very vicious about mumsnet on twitter and has to get in the act. Other transgender people don't know from day to day what view IW has. IW is not popular with transgender people

If IW wants to take on mumsnet, fine.

The more 'penetration' of this issue, the better

Our terfy batcave is located under a fairtrade coffee shop...

Reminds me of the thread where it was suggested coffee cups were named Spartacus I had no idea you could name your coffee

Spartacus would be an excellent name for a dog. Imagine if you went to the park and there were multiple women all calling them...

I don't really see neutral pronouns they/their being vastly problematic when trying debate something where nuance is everything to avoid your point being misunderstood.

Actually we lose a great deal when we lose the ability to call men, especially those who are enacting sexism, 'he' and 'him'.

They/them/their literally neutralises the sexed power relations at play in this fight. It obscures the fact that this is about male dominance, male power. Conversely, using male pronouns boldly - shockingly - draws attention to those power relations. It's like black light for the true sexual politics of the trans movement, instantly revealing its extreme misogyny. Highlighting that what's going on here is the same old male domination of women in postmodern guise.

Language mediates reality. That's why TRAs are so fanatical about enforcing their Newspeak. If pronouns were really no big deal, trans activists wouldn't be so obsessed with policing everyone's use of them. Pronouns are not merely a matter of 'courtesy', or an insignificant side issue. Pronouns are the whole ball game. Again, trans activists understand this. If they didn't, they wouldn't care so much about them.

I understand that under Mumsnet's new regime, we are forbidden to refer to men as 'he' and 'him' if men say that they are offended by it. I'm not here to argue that we should all do that anyway and risk being banned and/or losing the forum. I understand the necessity of pragmatism.

But I do want to point out that this submission to male authority over language costs us. It costs us the freedom to accurately describe reality, including the reality of what men do to women.

But we can still describe a transgender male as male surely?

That is scientific fact.

Still reading through this thread, and haven't caught up with the interview yet, but on the subject of young people, fragile identities and lack of critical thinking, have a look at . I think it comes from a right-wing US website, judging by the name. This would be funny if it wasn't so jawdroppingly stupid. (Actually, it's both.)

I think where it is germane to the discussion to be very clear that a particular individual is displaying male behaviour, I shall use the formula "X, who was born male and now wishes to be identified as a woman..." then use name/initials. This, I think is both factually correct, and makes clear that it's about what is going on inside X's head, not about my acceptance/lack of acceptance thereof.

But we can still describe a transgender male as male surely?

Based on my experience from today I think possibly not, if we're linking the fact that they're male with their behavior.

Which, again, I think is a big problem, because that's rather a key point to make when discussing this issue.