Spartacus believes in biology.

[HairyBallTheorem]

Transwomen are biologically male. They are born biologically male and they remain biologically male.

I accept that it must be very hard to suffer from gender dysphoria. I wish transwomen well. I support their right not to be discriminated against in housing, employment and in life in general.

But biology matters. It is biology which means that women in Ireland and across South America and in many other parts of the world are the ones who get pregnant and are then forced to give birth against their will by political systems that deny them the right to abortion. It is biology which enables people in cultures which practice FGM to recognise which babies are female and thus decide which ones' genitals need slicing off with rusty razor blades. It is biology which dictates which foetuses are aborted simply for being female, which infants are allowed to die simply for being female. It is biology which means we are, on average, smaller and less physically strong than men and thus at higher risk of domestic violence up to and including murder (2 a week in this country, into the hundreds in Russia which has recently legalised domestic violence).

I am not prepared to lie about biology. Facts matter. The intersection of facts and political beliefs matters.

This is a hill on which I'm prepared to be banned from Mumsnet.

It's playing the ball not the player isn't it?

& considering the bigger picture at such an important time.

it's about singling people out personally and the effects of the volume of posts about an individual. We're asking you to put yourself in someone else's shoes here

The context of all of this is that a particular person was happy to go on a radio show and publicly claim that Mumsnet (and so Mumsnet users) is transphobic for letting women speak about sex.

Somebody who does that has to expect that the people they are attacking will want to respond.

The point is that posts which are fine on their own become personal attacks when there are 300 of them in a row all negatively discussing one person.

Any one of those posts might be fine in a context where an issue was being discussed rather than primarily an individual.

@R0wantrees

It's playing the ball not the player isn't it?

& considering the bigger picture at such an important time.

That's exactly right I think thank you for the analogy. Not always possible, but often...

Thanks for the video link. That poor Ben Shapiro was threatend with going home in an ambulance by the man/woman. I accept lots of transgender people have mental health issues but that does not excuse breaches of the law.

it is like the emperor's new clothes - we are not allowed to state facts any more! How weird. I don't mind people stating what they think are facts or indeed opinions about me or women and I don't go round threatening violence if I disagree with their views.

I have always had huge sympathy with transgender people from hearing about them in the 70s from my psychiatrist father plus I remember reading April Ashley's autobiography I think it was back in the 70s. We all have sympathy for those born in the wrong body or the wrong organs or whatever but that is not the same as saying we are not allowed to talk about gender issues and it should not stop women protecting themselves against statistics begins skewed because people who are male are added into the figures for things like women's pay or leadership roles going to women (the very few that do) or violence against women.

when there are 300 of them in a row

One person attacks a few hundred people on a nationwide broadcast platform.

Are we supposed to shut up now? Or designate an approved speaker to counter their shit?

Mumsnet is pandering to the trans lobby and is shutting women up. And now that women won't be shut up they're using the tone argument (why are women so aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangry, can't they just be niiiiiiiiiiice) or the "if the 300 attacked people reply it's bullying and a pile-on".

There is a big problem with talking about individuals. And what you can and can't say.

It is these very individuals who are changing the law, campaigning, lobbying, intimidating women and shutting down venues.

Their credibility need to be challenged, every step of the way. Their motivation needs to be challenged. Their claims need to be challenged.

For instance a particular transactivist, who is relentlessly sought after for their opinion on television, radio and in the newspapers, is a huge advocate of extreme and violent pornography.

Yet call themselves a feminist and claim they are a woman.

Women have to be able to publicise this contradiction. To call it out. To expose it.

It's the entire basis for disagreeing that you can change sex.

Male anatomy wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is, if male socialisation wasn't very firmly attached to it.

Without being able to talk about what individuals say, and disagree with it, we can't refute anything!

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

We must be mindful of this. When a few days ago a woman in court was forced to use 'she' pronouns to refer to the man who assaulted her.

I imagine that assault has also been recorded under the female crime statistics.

And Labour seem to have confirmed (via a legal letter) that anyone self identifying as a woman can go on all women shortlists.

And transwomen have been allowed to enter the Boston Marathon as women.

But Justine, with the greatest of respect to you and to IW, IW is male.

People can choose to use the female pronouns in referring to a transwoman, or can use their name.

But it IS compelled speech to make them use female pronouns.

And it is simply not factual that transwomen are female or are women. They aren't. It's not being unkind, it's simply a statement of fact.

Certainly it's kinder to say they are a transwoman rather than a man in the normal run of things.

But this is not idle gossip we are indulging in - we are discussing the very serious issues of trans activism and to do that we need to be able to use the precise, accurate terms.

To force or compell the use of certain language is to hobble free speech. I'm not talking about the type of 'free speech' that includes abusing people, but statements of fact using precise, considered language to make a point so that people can better understand the issues.

If we can't have that, then there really is no point in language and debate at all

Xenia

Benshapiro is not poor in any sense of the word.

He could certainly kick the arse of that person intellectually in his sleep. He didn't seem intimidated either, so good on him

Look, I'm not going to refer to [hypothetica person who might have been on morning radio recently] as 'male' in a post because I know it will ruffle feathers and be provocative and likely cause more angst than it is worth as well as detract from some of the real issues.

However, I do think that that hypothetical person has had male socialisation and thus some privilege that might inspire that person to feel confident in shouting over women and I might comment on that. This draws from my embodied experience as a woman where this has been all too fucking common in my life.

Is that OK? This is where 'gender' was useful for us old farts second wavers - it referred to a set of power relations that produced empowered males and disempowered females.

I am Spartacus.

Sex matters. Women's rights matter. I will not stand by and watch the erasure and dilution of those rights.

Budge up on the hill please! And I've brought my own oestro

It is not a pile on for women to analyse things that are said in public by influential/famous/infamous males about those women. They should expect their views to be countered and their behaviour noticed. If they don't want us to notice them, then they can refrain from going on the tv/radio/twitter to accuse us of hate crimes.

I suppose I am saying actually that @JustineMumsnet instead of making a statement about our behaviour you are well within your rights to make a statement refuting said person's accusations and if you did that we would all back you up and cheer.

There is an issue here about how IW positions themself.

1. Going on Loose Women - a tiny piece of woman-led telly that has been carved out = male entitlement.
2. Shaming bio women about leg-shaving = male-gaze & misogyny.
3. Going into the CBB house as a woman in the 100 years since we got the vote = male entitlement.
4. Bullying women to accept prescribed terms/pronouns/perceptions = male domination.
5. Guilt-tripping and overstepping boundaries of another contestant = entitled/predatory male sexual behaviour.
6. Wandering around with breasts out on CBB in a way that would be completely frowned upon for a bio woman of that age = male fantasy.
7. Speaking over a woman who is an expert on domestic violence with un-informed opinions = mansplaining.

... there are so many aggravating actions and hostile behaviours that put IW into and adversarial position with women - I can't see how it could be construed as mean to react accordingly or discuss the misogyny and male entitlement behind them.

Much as a totally appreciate @JustineMumsnet publicly stating MN will take the advertising hit, which was very heartening, I think the word 'male' must stay for describing males, whatever way they identify, otherwise we don't have free speech.

By all means delete my post if it will hurt MN , but it won't sit well.

And also it is worth noticing that Julia HB who invited Justine on her show has a actually stuck up (and stuck her neck out) for Mumsnet, so we should make sure she isn't standing alone on that (although I get the feeling she can manage perfectly well, still I don't think she should stand alone)

Somehow I suspect that some people wouldn't be happy with the old "play the ball, not the man" rule!

IW came full tonto attacking MNHQ and its posters. It was initiated by IW, on the back of the other TRAs targetting Mumsnet

IW could smell the blood in the water.

However, I don't think there are personal attacks directed at IW on that IW thread here.

But there are hundreds of personal attacks on the various twitter tweets that were posted on IW's account today.

Some of them are eyewateringly brutal.

Yet IW focuses on mumsnet, because we are women and we are supposed to be nice.

IW is not going after those men on the thread.

IW is not lobbying Twitter to have those accounts removed.

Funny that

If a woman is called a man and goes to the police to report this, she's laughed out of the building.

If a man who believes he is a woman is called a man and goes to the police to report this, it is registered as a hate crime.

Funny how that is, innit?

to stretch the analogy
Somehow I suspect that some people wouldn't be happy with the old "play the ball, not the man" rule!
the point is more for the benefit of a wider population who may be very new to what is going on!
& also to ensure that no-one with such important and vital contributions get's sent off prematurely....

I am Spartacus.
I am inspired and reassured by you all.
I think @JustineMumsnet and her team are amazing for the approach they have taken and continue to take. Thank you.

I will treat all trans identified people with respect.
I will support their human rights.
I believe in IDIC (Infinite diversity in infinite combinations). A Vulcan philosophy.

I will not support the dismantling of female rights and our erasure.

I am a woman but have never** ever "felt" like a woman (because I don't think anyone knows what this feels like and there is more than one way to be a woman). I've only ever felt like ME.

The problem? Male violence always is, always has been, and money.

I agree IW started it, but when one identified individual gets into a barney with hundreds of anonymous people the impact on the respective parties is not comparable.

I absolutely agree we should be able to refer to their maleness and call out what they say and do. It's just how we do it.

one identified individual gets into a barney with hundreds of anonymous people the impact on the respective parties is not comparable.

Said person used a radio show as a platform to make untrue accusations of the hundreds of women who do not have such a platform to respond.

And that person then made the same claim on twitter to their 48k followers knowing full well that most (if not all) of the accused women will have as large and public a platform to respond.

Will not have, sorry.