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.

Totally inappropriate and down right nasty jimny. Reported.

But when India Willoughby attacked Karen Ingala Smith for counting Dead Women (and all the other brilliant and extensive work she does) Willoughby should have been denied a further opportunity to be taken as possessing any common sense on Women's issues at all.

Cosigned!

Excuse the butting in..

I was told that two of my posts were deleted for using the word 'male' to describe two people who are not female in relation to also noting that the behaviour displayed by and the privilege given to said people was an example of the sexist imbalance in power relations between males and females (I was more specific but I'm trying not to repeat the deleted posts).

The email further said that in describing the person as male that this could be construed as calling those people men (which I was careful not to do).

I still don't know how it is possible to have a discussion about this without using the word male for people who aren't female. Or if saying they aren't female will cause just as much offense. Given that it is nearly impossible to have any feminist discussion without offending some person (usually male) somewhere I am a bit lost really.

It might be because you called specific people by the wrong gender rather than talking about the topic generally?

If transwomen have changed their legal sex to female then they are female that is factually correct information. Yes I know not their chromosomes etc but we don't interact with 'chromosomes' we interact with people. The Equality law protects people from being called a pronoun that doesn't reflect their transitioned status so why shouldn't that be the same on here?

In the same way using certain words is deemed racist and not allowed on most media, so is calling people by the wrong pronoun now seen as abusive by the law. I think that is different to discussing the issue more generally.

I get that it can be difficult to remember to use the correct pronoun if a person is obviously not coming across as that pronoun/ sex. It can be difficult for people to change their language and behaviour but that is also true of people who have to learn not to use racist or homophobic language.

Thoughtful tweets from seven hex C6.

The Equality law protects people from being called a pronoun that doesn't reflect their transitioned status

This is not true, as BetsyM00 stated above.

Supermatch I think you're buying into the obfustication pushed by a lot of TRAs, namely that telling someone's biological sex is some sort of arcane scientific/medical specialisation that can only be carried out by sequencing someone's DNA. Whereas in actual fact the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever identifying other people's biological sex. It is after all how our species manages to reproduce without going extinct.

If transwomen have changed their legal sex to female then they are female that is factually correct information.

Well, no, the legal system does not in fact have the ability to change a person's biological sex

The coerced speech point is another one well worth making as loudly as possible, since people (men) who may not be fussed in the least about the plight of women or transsexuals might care a lot about their own freedoms being curtailed.

Just watched this, Julia was great

welcome to Mumsnet SupermatchGame...

It comes down to whether we legally have compelled speech or not. They have a much stronger law in Canada and it's a grey area even there. And I don't think has been tested in court? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Absolutely agree with that Tallulah. And I think some men are beginning to realise this in media comments I've seen.

I mean this is what Jordan Peterson's fame is based on.

BetsyM00

I've definitely seen wording in the equality act that says to use the correct pronoun. I'll have to have a dig, though. Maybe it was to do with children? Although I was under the impression that there weren't two sets of rules for adults and children.

Which is why a couple of teachers have been highlighted as falling foul of the equality law by misgendering.

And that chap Vernon whatisname, was taken to court on the same basis. It was thrown out, because they decided it was not malicious.

He subsequently came on here, actually. And hinted that 'there was more to it'.

I haven't read your links yet, but I sincerely hope that we are not legally compelled to use the correct pronouns. That would be a massive plus, as far as I'm concerned.

To add to the point on compelled speech, I think it's helpful to see transgenderism as a religion like scientology. You rightly cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of their religion. But the state must not impose transgenderism as state religion.

Imposing preferred pronouns would be similar to compelling people to say "Mohammed Praise Be Upon Him" or "Our Lord Jesus Christ".

I am posting this link because I am frustrated that lawmakers and journalists do not appear to read the studies that are pertinent to the amendments they are considering. Also it is ammo.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmwomeq/91/91.pdf

But the state must not impose transgenderism as state religion.
^^This

It's shocking that we have come to this. But here we are.

I'm not doing it. They can't lock us all up

To add to the point on compelled speech, I think it's helpful to see transgenderism as a religion like scientology. You rightly cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of their religion. But the state must not impose transgenderism as state religion.

Agree. We are not a theocracy.

I didn't use a pronoun at all. I used the word male. I pretty much said (paraphrasing):

Something is off when a male is invited to speak over women about an issue that women understand better.

And

Middle aged male people should not get to shout over women as if they were stroppy teens even though they may claim to be going through a second puberty.

That is in a nutshell what I said. Yes I was referring to a specific person and a specific situation but I didn't use pronouns or the word men. I was specifically talking about the dynamics of the situation and how they demonstrated well recognised sexist power dynamics.

My posts were deleted and I was asked not to not say things like that anymore.

I think it's helpful to see transgenderism as a religion like scientology

It is a religion. The idea that one can be born in the wrong body presupposes a soul. I'm a materialist and I don't believe in souls.

Perhaps it was not that I didn't use the word 'men' but more that I did make a distinction between 'male people' and 'women'?

That thread on JHB's twitter, where she asks for examples of transphobia on MN, is surreal. The examples that are being produced are things like a discussion of what to do for Man Friday. Some much older posts from years ago.

Worth reading, to understand the level of disconnection from reality. There is no way of moderating one's behaviour that would satisfy the complainers.

twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/985905197904998400

I said basically (in response to an earlier commenter who said they found IWs performance on CBB endearing) that I didn't find a younger male person shouting at an elderly female person endearing.

Not allowed, apparently. We agreed not to say things like that in the earlier threads, apparently.

TRA's say, "Trans women are women"

We say, "No, a women is an adult human female".

So now it's, "Trans women are female".

So if they are now female then they are definately actual women coz the dictionary says so.

My head hurts.

I think Muscato is simply a career activist. Jumped on a cause they can make the most noise in.