Nicola Williams was FANTASTIC on R4 just now!

[BabyItsAWildWorld]

Fiesty, not backing down and made the core points despite attempts to distract,.

The point that biological facts are can't be stated should have made a few listeners stop and go WTF??

Thank you Nicola you are doing an amazing job.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth
Do they have voice coaching
Yes. But although you can change the pitch of your voice, you can't change the timbre.

www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-to-be-able-to-change-your-voice-timbre

We're now at the point that calling abortion a women's issue is considered transphobic - and we really need to resist this. Only women have abortions - we must be able to talk about female biology as a women's issue.

There are accusations of 'cissexist' language in Ireland's recent campaign. Additionally (and rather incredibly given the context) lobbying by some TRAs to not use the word 'woman' in the context of new policies and legislation which will assert Irish women's hard fought rights to access abortion.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3260503-Trans-Voices-For-Appeal-Complain-About-Together-For-Yes-Campaign

I thought Nic was right to stress the GG point. People who check for themselves and see she is telling the truth will then be less likely to listen to cries of 'transphobe' uncritically.

To the untrained ear, GG could have sounded like a diversion from the topic at hand. It’s a tricky line to walk.

Has anyone seen a document or similar which pulls together the bans with specific tweets?
I've seen some examples such as below on twitter but not in one place.

twitter.com/NoToMisogyny/status/1001534310573322242

I thought she was very good.

I thought Nicola was quite rubbish actually. There are quite a few rational, calm points about self ID she could have raised but instead she shouted about Twitter banning members for calling trans women men (which does actually seem hateful and bigoted to the outside world) and then made a poor argument about not allowing trans women in female prisons.

The non binary person came across much better IMO.

She was invited on to discuss the issues as raised in yesterday's BBC report.

'Twitter 'bans women against trans ideology', say feminists'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44288431

Nicola wasn't able to come up with any examples of where women were actually banned for tweeting any of those things. The other person came across as more rational and consistent. Also made the point that people had been banned for misgendering - which is hate speech and has been described as unacceptable by UK parliament and the Human Rights Commission.

Ah I see I didn't realise she had been specifically invited on to discuss the Twitter ban.

The tone and sentiment on Mumsnet is pretty strong so she would have sounded normal on here. But compared with lovely, calm, polite Radio 4 presenter and the mild mannered non binary person i thought she came across as rather angry and uncompromising.

Interesting you have highlighted tone.

God forbid women should be angry and uncompromising, eh? Back in your boxes, ladies, and be nice.

Shouting hate speech on national radio doesn't usually get a person anywhere.

Valid point though. If she started a crowdfunder for media training, I'd give a few quid.

the nonbinary person persistently talked over her and the only unusual thing was that the presenter asked the nonbinary person not to do that.

Daimbars and SupermatchGame seem to making similar points.

Over the last few days, as both are likely aware (being regular posters), a number of women and GC people have being suspended and some permanently banned from Twitter.

I am aware of some TRAs who are rather active on Twitter & whose feeds show what might be a 'celebratory tone' alongside their collections of 'blue shields' (which come with successful Twitter reports).

Interestingly I have only seen women and GC people's suspension /ban celebrated in this way. (I don't spend a great deal of time on Twitter so this may be coincidence.)

If you do a twitter search for the pejorative term 'trannie', amongst the porn there is pretty much constant evidence of some truly bigoted, unkind and/ or hateful tweets.
NB please be aware of the explicit nature of the porn

Most of these tweets and hateful comments are made by men (or so it would appear).

As we seem to have established that Twitter suspensions / bans are mostly driven by reports rather algorithms. Where is the outrage about these comments (or even the porn)?

From this recent thread,:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3259650-Lesbian-gets-banned-from-LGBTQ-messaged-board-for-trying-to-talk-about-the-lesbophobia-in-trans-activism

Prawn & Baroquehavoc 's comments about gay men posting on the boards of Datalounge about trans rights ideology contrasts with the OP and other lesbians' experience:

"They are very outspoken and often very funny with it. They are aware that other forums don't allow such free discussion, but TRAs can't get traction there. Gay men on Datalounge reject accusations of transphobia pretty vehemently."

"Partly, also they don't open themselves up for debate or negotiation. They spend little time justifying why they have written something - they don't care if anyone disagrees.
But mainly it's because most TRA don't need or want anything from gay men."

The question has been asked often enough as to why Mumsnet comes under such constant scrutiny when sites such as PetrolHeads and KiwiFarms etc apparently not.

Women recognise sexism. We have experienced a lot of it.

Link to thread with discussions about some of the Twitter reports / suspensions/ bans / blocks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3258983-Miranda-Yardley-permanently-banned-from-Twitter

Daily Mail article:
"Twitter is banning women from speaking out against the 'dangerous dogma of trans ideology', claim a group of angry feminists.

Fair Play for Women published an open letter to Martha Lane Fox, who sits on the company's board, to back their right to 'not be shamed or silenced' for speaking about their views.

The women claim Twitter accounts are being deleted for 'simply stating basic, incontrovertible biological facts', such as men are not women." continues

"Ms Yardley said: 'According to the rules of Twitter it is now hateful conduct to call someone who is a man, a man.

'The implication of this is that the concept of proscribed speech, things we are now not allowed to say, now extends to the truth. This is fundamentally illiberal.'

Trans activist Ashleigh Talbot hit back at the letter, saying it was stoking 'hatred against trans and non-binary people by calling us dangerous'.

She told the BBC that there are often anti-trans attack pieces in the media, and the community is 'small and vulnerable' and their free speech is often diminished."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5787903/Twitter-BANNING-women-speak-against-trans-ideology-feminists-claim.html

I thought that interview was a classic example of coercive control in action:

NW: Has an opinion - women need to talk about biology and sex - banned for saying so

(stating facts)

Other: No you're not right - they were banned for harassment

(Outs themselves and the gas lighting at play - are they there as the official spokesperson of Twitter - no - so how can they assert that unless they are the ones making the harassment complaints in the first place?)

NW: Girl Guides example

Other: ignore GG example and repeat unrelentingly and talk over NW "they were banned for harassment and stalking".

NW: starts to get angry, a normal response to the verbal abuse of talking over, dismissing, ignoring and DARVO

Onlooker (uninformed BBC interviewer) comments "so heated - he said/she said - you're both at fault - disappointing it's come to this)

I don’t think the GG example, although important, was relevant when the debate was about Twitter.

I think the Girlguides issues is relevant to the twitter silencing. Women are being hounded out of Girlguiding for stating biological fact - we restate those facts on Twitter then get suspended.

The constant suppression of any viewpoint that doesn't centre the needs of transgirls/women is in part leading us to a place where a parent cannot be confident that their daughter will have single sex accommodation or be cared for by a woman, if that's what they would be prefer.

I thought Nic did well in difficult circumstances. She had a very short time to make her point.

Yes, that kind of interview is very difficult, and it’s an important example many listeners won’t be aware of.

Why the letter to Martha Lane Fox and not the CEO or chair of the Twitter board?

(extract)
"This is a letter to Martha Lane Fox, the entrepreneur and feminist who sits on the board of Twitter. We write to her in the wake of mass deletions from Twitter of gender critical feminists who in many cases have had their IP addresses and phone numbers blocked so that they cannot re-join Twitter."
fairplayforwomen.com/martha/

But why her, rather than the very top bods?