Lily Madigan - to celebrate 300 women leaving LP with a party

[LaSqrrl]

The facebook event now seems removed, but Feminist Current does have the screenshot before it disappeared.

Constituency Labour Party Women’s Officer for Rochester and Strood, Lily Madigan, a trans-identified male, plans to host a party to celebrate women leaving the Labour Party in protest of Labour’s policy allowing men to self-identify their way onto all women candidate shortlists.

(Sorry if this one has been posted before, I looked, but could not see a matching thread)

I am posting this to illustrate that TRAs do not want to join 'Class Woman', but to take over 'Class Woman' and throw out the existing inhabitants, then celebrate their victory over women (eg 'enjoy your erasure'). This is why 'we cannot get along' and have zero in common with them.

Can a Web forum be sued

Autocorrect knows which side it's on grr

A scene from Mumsnet, yesterday.

Lily madigan only has one X chromosome in each brain neurone. This makes Lily unsuitable to speak for those of us with two X chromosomes in our brain neurones.

Maybe we can just start using X and Y as pronouns.

Madigan is trolling women on twitter again. It's time Labour dealt with Y.

Lily Madigan only has one brain neurone.

It is interesting how so many men are happy to use porn sites full of incredibly offensive sexually and racially charged language, but women can't even state reality without being threatened into silence.

For a significant proportion of these people, a woman saying no to them is an act of aggression.

My sister has forbidden me to tell her any more about what's going on, as she has been managing to control her blood pressure without medication, and the insanity of the situation would send her BP rocketing. :(

Why exactly is Labour allowing men onto it's women only shortlists? What is the argument?

Why is a man allowed to be a women's officer?

Why are women who don't feel that a man should be a women's officer not allowed to observe that a man is, in fact, currently a women's officer and that the reason they are complaining is because the women's officer is, in fact, a man.

How can I say what it is that I feel is the main characteristic that should disqualify Lily Madigan from being a women's officer.

For a significant proportion of these people, a woman saying no to them is an act of aggression.

Exactly right.

Again it's instructive to look at the concept of "narcissistic injury".

Actually, Joan
Maybe we can just start using X and Y as pronouns.

It is a bloody good idea! But rather than a single 'X' or 'Y', use 'XX' and 'XY'. They are indeed, chromosomal 'fact'. Although I disagree we should be changing from the sanity version (her/him) to this nonsense anyway. But hell, we are not 'allowed' to use sanity, so let's use 'biological fact'. All TWs have XY chromosomes. Fact.

example; a TRA has decided to throw a party, to celebrate 300 women leaving the Labour Party. The XY even made a facebook event to promote this party.

And yes, I will take a copy of this comment, to ensure it does not get lost in heavy handed moderation. I changed the 'example' to a generic TRA.

The problem here isn't male entitlement or narcissistic injury though, it's about Mumsnet forcing women to not speak if it might upset those things.

This is about Mumsnet wanting to have a nice lady reputation, and being prepared to censor and exclude women to make that happen.

Because I don't believe Madigan or Y's pals have a legal leg to stand on. I'd love to see that go to court. The case would recieve so much negative publicity for the TA side on every male dominated internet site - from blogs and forums to newspaper comments sections, even twitter and facebook. Peak transing of the like we have never seen yet.

Yes, it seems that is what this moderation here has come to, given they do not inform us about which of the 'Talk Guidelines' the comment breached. It is a ridiculous state of affairs. They need to lift their game. It looks stupid to see a thread peppered with "Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines."

Crossposted with LaSqrrl. I think it is really important we are disobedient in as many ways as we can be, and be as pointed or humourous as we can about it. When we do this, it highlights how silly or sinister the people stamping on us are being.

Aargh yes, I agree with all of you. “This is where “it’s just polite” gets us “ absolutely. I don’t see why women should be forced to lie, why ? We don’t owe any debt of politeness to these women-hating, raping, killing males. I don’t understand how on a website FOR MOTHERS we are forced to be “polite” about someone like Ian Huntley, or the numerous rapists and sex offenders who have now decided they are women. I don’t understand how on a website FOR WOMEN I should have to use the grammatically incorrect pronoun for a male person, when the maleness of that person is part and parcel of the reason that person is being discussed. The maleness is key in the behaviour and attitudes of that person, and in the way they are treated .
I am really angry about this. I am angry that we are all being forced into a set of behaviours that may be seen as “polite” to the males we are talking about but certainly aren’t polite to women.
Trans activism has exposed a seam of loathing and jealousy of women that I was only half aware of. All those men so keen to pile in! All the dismissal of actual women with actual women’s bodies and lives.
And the way any trans people who transgress and support women’s rights are treated. The abuse someone like Miranda Yardley gets. Yet WE are the bigots for using a correct pronoun ? FTS .

This is about Mumsnet wanting to have a nice lady reputation, and being prepared to censor and exclude women to make that happen.

YY to that Joan

With you on the disobedience Joan, looks like we cross posted again.
Agreed, SirVix

I mean, Huntley, ffs - who murdered two young girls - and we are supposed to give that XY, respect???

NO. Just fucking no.

I don't think we would be told off for correctly gendering Huntley though. Thats why the rules are so confusing, because they are inconsitent. Mumsnet is deliberately enforcing special unique rules for a handful of specific people. Basically those people who might kick up a fuss on social media.

Here's a tip for Mumsnet - outside of these walls, for the most part people think this place is full of catty bitches arguing over nappies instead of doing some real work. Mums dont need to worry about our reputations because noone really thinks much of us anyway. Knowing that can be really liberating if you'll let it.

Yes, people laugh in a slightly condescending way if I mention that I like Mumsnet - I suspect the word 'mum' in the title is responsible for the sneers. But that's a strength as well, because if MN really was to be sued people would react with horrified incomprehension at the nonsense of being sued for referring to a man as 'he', and the bullying would become apparent to a wider audience.

"Boo hoo hoo all those nasty transphobic bitches with their vagina fetishes who talk about periods upset the menz by calling them 'he' "

(For clarity and with apology - I would never use that language ordinarily myself - but it's important to understand how other people see us as mums and women. Mumsnet has no reputation to lose because noone takes it seriously anyway. Yes it has numbers to make sales/votes, but that makes it an important market to talk at, which is very different to being seen as important to listen to)

On a slightly different note I have long wondered what the social class makeup is of the mumsnet admin and moderation team. Do they publish information on that?

We could just use AH for Arsehole instead?

Looking back at a couple of Sparticus threads, KateMumsnet has previously said:

"From our perspective, the whole issue is pretty much covered by our Talk Guidelines. If people are using sex-at-birth pronouns to provoke, inflame, or belittle, then that's against the rules and will usually have to go. If it happens as part of an otherwise broadly respectful (even if heated) discussion, we look at it in that context and take a view."

and
"it's not the case that we delete any particular use of pronouns. We do, though, delete posts which seem to us to be intended to goad, inflame or provoke, which is against our Talk Guidelines."

I do not use pronouns to goad, inflame, provoke or belittle - they are used as part of natural speech when referring to someone's sex, and reflects material reality and current scientific orthodoxy. I fail to see how referring to any man who identifies as a woman (either named or in general) as 'he' is breaking these Talk Guidelines.

To now announce "we will have to delete posts where people seem to be deliberately using someone's non-preferred pronouns" is quite a shift. Is MNHQ really telling us to call Ian Huntley or any of the numerous convicted TW rapists 'she'? If so, then this as as far from a pro-woman stance as it is possible to get and I'm not sure I'm prepared to hang around and try any workaround.

Yes, agree Betsy.

Is MNHQ really telling us to call Ian Huntley or any of the numerous convicted TW rapists 'she'? If so, then this as as far from a pro-woman stance as it is possible to get and I'm not sure I'm prepared to hang around and try any workaround.

Seems so.

Frankly, the 'preferred pronoun' of rapist/murderers is 'scum'. There, fixed it.