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.

I find it sad that this forum is projecting such a bad version of feminism out there.

I think it is sad that you believe that protecting women is bad, but there ya go.

a new blckbuster movies

The Naysayers

Starring Random Mumsnetter, the hot new gender free star of an undetermined century.
They were there through all time, watching the animals walk onto the Ark, identified as non binary. Ooops that's not going to work out very well.

Beyond11cisRetinol
Oh and re adoption. If the bio parent is diagnosed with a genetic illness, legal fiction wont stop the child from contracting it, any more than a TIM can will themselves out of prostate cancer.

Exactly. So you have strengthened the comparison and its validity?

"Transwomen aren't women and I'll never call a transwoman she or a transman he" etc etc).

That may not be "kind" (kind to who exactly?) but it's an accurate and consistent stance. Where is the prejudice and bile?

dontdowindows

I think it is sad that you believe that protecting women is bad, but there ya go.

I don't. I believe that protecting some women at the expense of others is bad. But there you go.

The adoption analogy is an interesting one which I have a personal interest in, I saw it brought up on Twitter earlier also.

I can see parallels re the legal status of a gender (or gendered) role. However both situations appear to have progressed in different directions over the last few decades.

Years back many children were not informed they weren't biologically related to their adoptive parents and it was often encouraged to be this way. Which I do consider to be a lie by omission.

More recently openness about biological truth and origins is seen as best practice because it's agreed that not acknowledging truths is psychologically harmful to those involved.

The situation with legal trans people seems to have gone in reverse. It used to be accepted that trans people were born a given sex and biologically remained that sex even though their legal sex was different.

This seems to be the position that the trans people posting here take.

Now the current thinking has gone in the direction of trans people always having been the opposite sex therefore there is no 'before' and no distinction allowed between the biological and the legal.

I suppose what I am saying is that there are similarities in the two things but the accepted thinking about how to deal with biological truths seem to be poles apart.

I'm sure someone else can add more to this. I'm an adopted person from way back rather than an adoptive parent so I'm viewing it from that side.

How would I fight for transwomens rights? . How would I know what they need? I am happy to support them but the impetuous can and should come from transwomen.

"Projecting a bad version of feminism"

Literally lolled

I don't think I've thrown my weight around - but happy to reflect on that.

Yes, it's always good to reflect on whether it's actually you in the right and everyone else wrong. I know I've certainly done so.

It is never ending hilarity from you isn't it Trousersdontmakemeaman

Do you mean mumsnutter. You missed that one.

"I find it sad that this forum is projecting such a bad version of feminism out there"

Do you cwy about it? Do you? Diddums!

Thinking about Lola by The Kinks...

Ray Davies like totally misgendered Lola in that song. Wrong side of history fo sho.

Ray Davies is possibly related to that David Davies, MP for Monmouth. Probably put him up to hosting that meeting about women's rights in the House of Commons.

This is all true because I think it in my head.

But we obviously disagree on the definition of women, Supermatch. So therefore our feminism is as inclusive as it needs to be.

I'm going to go and burn all my bad feminism books and replace them with better books written by men.

Very grateful for the Indiana Pi Bill.
What you learn on here!

You're on the wrong side and history will show it.

And there we go.

super You obviously feel strongly.

I can tell you at length why I think it is wrong to have a law that says we must pretend that a falsehood is true. That's a bit boring on this thread where many posters share my views.

I am interested in understanding other people's points of view. Yours seems different to mine.

Why do you think it is a good thing for the law to say a man can be a woman and vice versa? Can you see any downsides yourself?

What's the position on trans songs now btw?

'Walk on the wild side'

'Dude looks like a lady'

What about the Rocky Horror Show? I genuinely have no idea if this is trans zeitgeist or phobia

Wedding cakes and B and B stays - I haven't met anyone on mumsnet who would refuse someone a product or service because they were trans. Of course trans people should have the right to do this, but I have never heard this be questioned?

Abortions - similarly of course trans identifying females should have the same rights to abortion (if wished) as other women. But I have never heard anyone on mumsnet suggest otherwise?

"What about the Rocky Horror Show?"

Even more confusing now the remake was made with a transwoman in the Frank role...!

Yes Ereshkigal me and the Labour party, Green party, Liberals, legal system. NHS. Most universities. Are we all in the wrong? I'll have a good think about that.