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.

Hence you would be breaking the law

I'm female. I know of no law which would be broken if you referred to me as Mr TallulahWaitingInTheRain

Shared female socialization, specifically, engage on command when someone suggests that they think you're not being nice! It's like Voltron, but instead of making you more powerful it makes you less so and almost guarantees your defeat.

Indeed. You could call a person with one leg a cripple. Which I suppose would be correct but very cruel.

But a person with one leg does not demand that we see them with two legs or to be addressed as such

But if we were compelled to say such a thing, what then?

If anyone would like to call me Mr Puppies instead of Miss Kittens I would not be offended. Somewhat confused at first, maybe, but I promise not to ask for you to be banned or have your comment removed.

I have started a Spartacus thread. Feel free to join me if you fancy it.

I completely understand that some may not wish to, on the basis of protecting one of the few spaces where debate is still possible.

But I think if we're not allowed to talk about biological facts then debate here is no longer possible.

BUT WE really need to focus on how a woman who was a victim of assault came to be pressured to use the pronouns as preferred by her attacker under oath and the wider implications of this (which are huge!)

I would be interested to know what Peterson's take on that situation is.

Mumsnet would like me to be good little girl and not say anything that makes the men angry, so could I be nice and conform to them that I will be a good little girl and do as the men want please.

How about no? Does no work for you? Cause it works for me!

Wow reading indias Twitter is bizarre.

We've said we do want to welcome and support those questioni ng gender etc. So transfer would be welcome as guiding is based on sex not expression of gender.

LOL, rufus. Every comment will be 500 words long and nobody will undestand what anyone else is on about, but hey, at least we're not being rude! female ˈfiːmeɪl/Submit adjective 1.of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes socialization, engage!

Im sorry am i going to have to fix everybody's posts

My understanding of the equality act in relation to harassment (which I think is the pertinent issue) is that the circumstances and what is reasonable should be taken into account. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

See subsection 4 b and c in the link

If we are talking about sex and gender then in my view it is reasonable to use biologically appropriate pronouns.

If we are talking about social and political impact of changes to the GRA then biologically appropriate pronouns should be fine and could not be considered to be creating a hostile environment for transgender people.

If we discuss the political impact of Paris Lees statements then it is relevant and appropriate to acknowledge that he was socialised as a boy and still enjoys male privilege ditto Shon Faye etc. Pronouns are an important part of that cultural and political critique. They would not constitute harassment in this usage although they may offend PL.

If we are snarking then it’s more difficult to make the argument that the pronouns used are reasonable in the circumstances. Irony, sarcasm and satire are difficult to convey in text whereas if we were talking face to face it would be easy to spot.

Mumsnet doesn’t have the resources to defend every borderline post. It’s a fine line and mumsnet is under scrutiny and I would imagine threats of litigation.

I'm female ˈfiːmeɪl/Submit adjective 1.of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes I know of no law which would be broken if you referred to me as Mr TallulahWaitingInTheRain

Its just that its going to take ages if all keep saying the words!!!

Shared female ˈfiːmeɪl/Submit adjective 1.of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gamete socialization, specifically, engage on command when someone suggests that they think you're not being nice! It's like Voltron, but instead of making you more powerful it makes you less so and almost guarantees your defeat.

And no...i have nothing better to do

Supermatch I would not dream of going up to a transwoman who had done me no harm whatsoever and repeatedly saying "you're male". That would be cruel and humiliating and would indeed be harassment.

However, it will be a cold day in hell before I use "she/her" to refer to, for example, David "Davina" Ayrton, convicted of raping an underage girl with his penis. And I think it is my human right, the right to free speech, to reserve to myself the ability to call Ayrton male, because he is male. You don't get much more male than using your penis to rape someone, IMO.

/me applauds @hairyballtheorem

So I got a response to my earlier query that confirmed that using male is not allowed for those males who very publicly identify as women and was very concerned with the politeness of not doing so (attempt to engage female socialization again, I'm getting the sense that I'm supposed to feel like a very naughty girl). Not sure how this squares with Justine's interview and if her intent is to just ban all those commenters who refuse to toe the line, but I'm not happy.

A somewhat convoluted workaround was suggested but I'm not sure if we're allowed to share direct quotes from messages from HQ here or if that too is a violation of some sort of guideline.

Bet it wasnt as convoluted as my work around

Idontdowindows My post stating that I will not miss-sex people and that I refuse to call men women has been refused.

I have been threatened with removal from Mumsnet if I do that again.

Men are not women. I will NEVER repeat that lie. I will NEVER call men "she" or acquiesce to the erasure of women.

There are some on here that are opposing self id. They say they respect transwomen are women, but only if they go through the correct medical/ psych/ legal processes. I can agree with that stance. I think self id does potentially risk female spaces. I think transition should be a medical and legal process. It protects everyone including trans people.

But your stance just comes across as nasty. Men are not women. Correct. But legally and medically transitioned transwomen are women. Most reasonable people are going to be ok with that.

What you say reminds me of how people objected to the decriminalisation of homosex, or the legalisation of same sex marriage. Or the end of apartheid. Or women getting the vote. Or the burning of Catholics in the 17th century.

There were people who objected to all of these things, wanting to maintain the status quo and the comfort of having their prejudices justified by law. But the world changes and we become more and more civilised as the centuries go on. Trans women being legally women and trans men being legally men, and accepted by most as such is just another aspect of this progress. I think your view will one day be looked back on in the same light as all these other prejudices.

But legally and medically transitioned transwomen are women

That simply has no basis in REALITY.

But your stance just comes across as nasty.
Refusing to lie to appease abusive males is nasty?
Demanding that women submit, or git is nasty.

I really am surprised that after everything that has happened in the last few weeks, people are choosing now to make this their line in the sand with MNHQ? I for one massively appreciate Mumsnet for being prepared to enable this debate - one that almost every other site appears to censor. So when they ask us to not use pronouns in a particular way, I am prepared to do that . I may be a minority about this but I think there's a greater battle than this one - it is possible to write about someone and use 'neutral' language that doesn't challenge our own principles or give fuel to those trying to shut Mumsnet down.

HairyBallTheorem However, it will be a cold day in hell before I use "she/her" to refer to, for example, David "Davina" Ayrton, convicted of raping an underage girl with his penis. And I think it is my human right, the right to free speech, to reserve to myself the ability to call Ayrton male, because he is male. You don't get much more male than using your penis to rape someone, IMO.

Yeh I get that. It is a situation that would challenge us all. I don't know how I would refer to them, and I probably will never have to. But I guess that's the thing about human rights. They are not predicated on anything other than being 'human'.

Women's rights are antithetical to transgender rights. Transgender identified males have made this crystal clear. That is why they are trying to eliminate women's legal rights.
We are not prepared to negotiate women'r rights being reduced.

Maybe the future will look back at this odd period where women's rights were eroded :(

Noone has a monopoly on the right not to be distressed.

Isn't this what we are all talking about? (Ok, the non AGP ones?)