The Angels Forum

[Nextloorejext]

This trans forum has a long thread on Mumsnet. Seems they are actively lobbying companies to pull out advertising on Mn on the grounds of Mn allowing/supporting/encouraging hate and transphobia. After having a quck look, the Angels site seems to spout it’s on views on “terfs” which sound pretty hateful, possibly even misogynistic. I know both sides if the debate can go over the top and get pretty nasty - but, am i wrong to find many pisters there completely hypocritical in targetting Mn for the kind of comments and rhetoric similar to which they are accusing Mn of, not only accusing but trying to damage the site with haranguing the sites advertisers to pull out.

[SwearyGodPervert]

Exactly Tallulah. Exactly.

It never happens
You’re paranoid
NAMALT
WATM
Women do it too.

Fuck off. When you’ve solved male violence then we can talk about whether maybe some spaces can become unisex. Even then though we can keep women only spaces for privacy and dignity if we want so the answer may well (probably will) be no.

[ReluctantCamper]

Ok, I knew all of those except WATM?

[KittyKlaws]

There are some hot-heads, but there are also some calm, reasonable posters. I see they've sensibly closed down the Mumsnet thread now.
I think Jaycee was doing a very difficult balancing act between the two. She's right: the communication needs to be there, however hard some try to disrupt it. I'd be very sad if Jaycee were to feel she can't post either here or there. I hope she's OK.

I have to say I've been looking over the forum and so far I agree. There are some very reasonable posters there who (for example) share our dislike of those 2 hipster brick singing songs about kerb stomping feminists and they talk sense. We all know that any forum has chippy people who always want a scrap but they don't necessarily define a forum.

I haven't altered my position on biology or women's spaces but I'm interested and open to hearing more from 'the other side'. I'm going to read some more . @JayceeDove I hope you are ok and I hope you carry on posting.

I haven't looked over the whole forum so this is more my initial rather than definitive assessment, however, on that initial reading I've read some thoughtful posts on Angels (and some chippy ones).

[SwearyGodPervert]

What About The Men, reluctant

[Ereshkigal]

I'd say the misogynistic posts I've seen are a little bit more than "chippy" personally. But I agree there are some reasonable posters there.

[KittyKlaws]

Just to add I don't disagree with Tallulah either. These things have been making me angry for years. Absolutely years of anger over the treatment of women means I won't alter my position on sex segregated spaces, my personal experiences mean I won't alter this position either.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to read more thoughtful posts elsewhere with empathy. Not that I'm suggesting you are saying this Tallulah (I was just mentioning your post as I share your anger).

[KittyKlaws]

I'd say the misogynistic posts I've seen are a little bit more than "chippy" personally. But I agree there are some reasonable posters there.

Well, that may well be the case - I'm exploring it at the moment, like I say I'm taking an initial look right now. That there are misogynistic posts doesn't surprise me. I find it hard to go/read anywhere without the obligatory misogyny these days. It's the great acceptable hate in our society.

[TallulahWaitingInTheRain]

I'm all for open debate. Good arguments deserve a hearing and poor / misogynistic / manipulative arguments deserve a hearing too, so everyone can see them for what they are

[Datun]

TallulahWaitingInTheRain

Excellent post.

[AnitaLovesVictor]

I don't want to derail but actually this is doing my head in. Women and girls in this country are being murdered in our hundreds and raped in our thousands every year, by men. We're sexually harassed and threatened at work and when we go out and on the street, by men. We're subject to coercion and abuse in our own homes, by men. Violent and degrading pornography and glamorised mainstream depictions of sexual violence visited on us by men are everywhere, training men to think that we are not really human and that hurting us is OK.

Where does this idea come from that we are being unreasonable when we worry about losing sex-segregated spaces, that we have no real skin in this game? Listen to what we are saying. Listen

^This. So much this. TRAs are re-writing the narrative to say that males are not a risk to females, and that female spaces are not required, or are transphobic, or that women can have penises and beards. It's making my head spin.

[Havoc]

The issue I have is that, unless TIM don't think of themselves as women and female and are either willing to use male or unisex spaces or campaign for their own spaces, they are part of the problem.

I have seen few TIM, either here or on trans websites who don't want to redefine women to include themselves. It just seems to become a question of which TIM should be classed as women, rather than keeping women as a distinct class separate from all men.

I think the threads where some TIM are seen as women and others are not, is setting us up for critisism. There is a lot of judgements made about how and when TIM transition which is irrelevant - what we should be clear about is a women is an adult female human, how men choose to live isn't relevant to the discussion.

[Havoc]

have seen few TIM, either here or on trans websites who don't want to redefine women to include themselves.

Arse, Who do want to redefine women

[Nextloorejext]

What rankles is their posts about terfs and anyone who asks any questions on gender identity poutics are similar if not worse in content and intention that the posts they are outraged about in mumsnet - calling transphobia and bigotry etc. If our pists are evil and transhopbic, hate speech- what does that make theirs?

[Havoc]

Arse again, I'm sure my original comment makes sense. . I'm going for a lie down

[Ereshkigal]

Think you were right the first time

[Ereshkigal]

Agree with you too!

[AnitaLovesVictor]

Yes, right first time Havoc

[AngryAttackKittens]

I'm getting really tired of the dynamic where a new trans poster turns up, declares their intent to engage in constructive dialogue, and then, like sapphire just did on this thread, dismissively handwaves away women's need for sex segregated spaces. Which then leads into this.

I have seen few TIM, either here or on trans websites who don't want to redefine women to include themselves. It just seems to become a question of which TIM should be classed as women, rather than keeping women as a distinct class separate from all men.

There are definitely exceptions, but they're the minority. I'm not sure that constructive dialogue is possible with someone who can read dozens of posts from women explaining exactly why we want sex segregated spaces and airily dismiss them as silly, hysterical, extremist, etc. And I can't help noting the irony in terms of identifying as a woman but not with women.

[Bowlofbabelfish]

"Segregate people by biological sex because men are threats!"

A proportion of men are a threat. That is why we have some sex segregated spaces.

Why did you think we have them? Do you disagree with having them?

We don’t have many - ours is generally a law abiding society. We aren’t saudi arabia. The spaces we have are legislated for to protect the safety of women and girls.

Since that proportion of men remain a threat, we still need the segregated spaces.

The ‘both sides are as bad as each other’ tripe simply isn’t true. There are no masked feminists blocking corridors at meetings of trans groups. There are no 60 year old feminists punching TRA activists. There are no feminists writing you tube ditties about smashing TRA teeth in with bricks.

There are plenty of feminists putting their opinions forward on boards such as this and in real life (go sweary!) all in a non violent manner.

The ‘awful on both sides’ thing tries to create equivalence where there is none.

[AnitaLovesVictor]

And this topic would make anyone feel like a lie down - it's such a major backlash on feminism and women's rights, women and girls safety, I can't think straight.

Posie's speech at Bristol keeps making me think so much. "Does my 11yr old daughter have the right to go into a changing room and not see an adult penis?" It's so ludicrous that this even has to be posed as a question...

Sorry for derail. I've had a read of the ANgels forum - there's a fair bit of Terf Terf Terf rhetoric there, but definitely some reasonable posts too. I don't think it's an unreasonable stretch to realise that we're talking about women & girls - rather than hating all trans people. We don't - I feel fairly protective of trans people actually, I don't with them any harm. But they are being harmed by the insistence of TRAs that anyone who says they are a woman, is a woman, and should automatically be accepted as such. Because that is nonsense - an abuse of our language, an abuse of women.

Ian Huntley transitioning to "Lian' or "Nicola" (or whatever name it is this week) and experimenting with makeup in prison should be ample evidence of this.

[Havoc]

Some posts seem to promote the idea that the more authentic transperson knows from an early age, has medical intervention early and has surgery. I think that's wrong, I think healthy people should only have surgery and hormones as a last resort, not as a way to become the opposite sex. Some post come dangerously close to encouraging children and very young adult into transition.

[LangCleg]

My beef is the dynamic in which interesting and productive discussions focusing on women and girls here are interrupted by lengthy autobiographical posts designed to manipulate female socialisation and the focus, on thread after thread, is successfully diverted away from women and girls. I find this doubly annoying when it is discussed by the derailers elsewhere.

[SwearyGodPervert]

Oh goodness yes, Lang the derailing is so obvious and manipulative. I fell for them a few times before having a lightbulb moment of how is that relevant here and seeing how it derailed the lot.

Seeing someone talk about their tragic translife and how many people have been mean to them when we’re talking about how many men refuse to see what a threat men are to women is just so blatant.

[Datun]

I have seen few TIM, either here or on trans websites who don't want to redefine women to include themselves. It just seems to become a question of which TIM should be classed as women, rather than keeping women as a distinct class separate from all men.

I completely agree with this. The only reason I would accept a stringently gate kept GRC is because of numbers. Making them negligible will reduce the problem.

Transsexuals are no more women than transvestites. They may not be the same as each other, but neither are women.

And frankly, the compulsion and profound determination behind a transvestite/AGP to be accepted as a woman, frequently demonstrates a commitment just as strong as that of a transsexual.

It may not be the right kind of commitment, but it's commitment nonetheless. Because it can be every bit as much of a compulsion.

But a a man's commitment, determination, or compulsion to be a woman, has nothing to do with women.

[AngryAttackKittens]

And then to add insult to injury a bunch of other women come in and tut at you for having the temerity to point out what is very obviously happening, and reassure the derailer that of course they're valued and important and we all want to hear more.