New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

[Maryz]

According to KateMumsnet:

"We also thought it might be useful to clarify our thinking about general terms for trans people. Having said that TIM is not okay, it seems a bit illogical to allow other terms which hang upon natal sex."

Well that's that really, isn't it.

We are all being told to pretend that men have become women.

Am I going to be deleted/banned for this post?

Let us name the oppressor.

Erm.

Under his eye.

Yes @thebewilderness but sex is defined by implication is S7 as having multiple aspects and the accompanying example in the Explanatory Notes has an example which is entirely social. So sex is not biological sex.

It is bizarre that Mumsnet has rules against being rude but Gibberty repeating the same lie day after day that sex is not a protected characteristic in the 2010 EA is not considered rude.
It takes less than a minute to look up section 4 of the EA.

Name the agent
Name our abuser
Name male violence
Name ourselves

Exactly - what is happening here is sexual harassment and targeted stalking of women on the FWR by some defending and elevating the rights of men who cross dress above women's and children's safeguarding

Do not @ me in your malicious manner when I am right here on the thread.
Yes, but, is bullshit.

Section 7 is about gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, not sex. It's a separate characteristic.

Biological sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Do you think biological sex shouldn't be protected under the Equality Act?

There is such a thing as bad law.

It was not until 1991 in England and Wales that the exemption was removed and Marital Rape was possible to recognise legally and prosecute.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#England_and_Wales

Yy bewilderness I've seen this lie about a hundred times in the past week. I'm very distressed about it.

Also do you thing abortion is a cis privilege?
Do you think it's transphobic to use the words 'female genital mutilation' about a girl having her clitoris sliced off with a rusty razor blade?

That's to Gib. Would love some answers.

I hear the tippy tap of a keyboard reporting to head office

Gods Pratchet you is prescient!

They go quiet. Utterly transparent.

Professor Michael Briggs (Oxford Sociology Dept)
"I have entered this debate not because I am a feminist but because freedom of speech is one of the highest values of a democratic society, and the basic foundation of university life.
Transgender activism poses a grave threat to freedom of speech."

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3257819-Michael-Biggs-Sociology-Dept-Oxford-Free-speech-at-Oxford-Do-women-have-the-right-to-meet-to-discuss-legislation

The deletions ar only up to page 7 I think so it will take a while.

Were all wasting our time with Gibb

We know the arguments are crap, Gibb knows it, the conversation never moves on. Ever.

David Aaronovitch (chairman of Index on Censorship, the free speech advocacy organisation) in The Times today:

"But you don’t have to be a tabloid leader writer to see that there are some big problems to be dealt with here, some practical, some anthropological, some philosophical. “What,” my sportiest daughter asked, “about women’s sports?” People born biologically male are physically bigger, stronger and faster than biological women. So what about places designed to protect women from the possible consequences of that physical difference? Do we really want to say that we will not see the difference in experience between, crudely, someone with a womb and someone with a willy?

Maybe you do. Maybe I agree. But wouldn’t you also say that if ever there was a case for an “open debate” this was it? You can’t just make a change like this without arguing it through and hearing the other side...." continues

"I don’t even know what my own view is of the GRA, but what I can see is that one side is trying to stop the other from expressing its opinion. It is doing this in the first place by characterising any expression of belief that biological sex is important, as being — and I am not joking — akin to fascist violence.... "

(concludes)
"This freedom boat, I’ve realised over the past half decade, is the same boat for all of us, even if we sit in different parts. Sink it, and we’re all drowned. There’s no “but” after “open debate”.

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3277408-David-Aaronovitch-comment-in-Times

Just caught up on this thread, and wanted to highlight a few of the excellent pieces of analysis centred around:

"Trans-identified' seems pretty goady - people generally don't identify as trans but as the opposite sex"

BeyondSceptical: "Ah yes, that explains why there wasn't a T tacked onto the end of LGB... Doh."
Quite. It is not the 'LGBO' now, is it? O being for Opposite Sex. To spell it out for MN, the T is for 'trans'. They indeed ARE 'trans identified'.

thebewilderness "This is an egregiously false statement and writing moderation policy based on this falsehood severely undermines every other justification for restricting the ability of women to discuss women's rights on FWR."
It only works if your moderation policy is either a house of cards, or designed to silence dissenters to this new religion of 'gender'. Some of us are gender atheists.

terryleather "I feared that MNHQ would try to engineer a situation where they come out of a free speech crackdown looking reasonable by having painted the GC view and how we express it as derogatory, agressive and rude. That means the bad girls get thrown off the bus and they have no one to blame but themselves and MN can polish their woke halo while still appearing to believe in free speech."
To me it has seemed like a deliberate strategy. But I suppose it could be down to naivety?

CharlieParley "I understand you are aiming for a policy that will save you from the trans activists and their complaints, but once our language is cleansed in accordance with your new rules, they will move onto the language we use to talk about the things that matter to us: pregnant woman, breastfeeding, nursing mother, female reproductive organs, women's troubles, female genital mutilation etc etc"
This is currently happening in a lot of places (womany bits and functions are deemed 'transphobic'). Also, the T takeover always starts with appeasing them, not offending them, and then the tried and true 'give them an inch, they will take a mile'. Look at the tumbleweeds over at the F-Word.

But I guess, MN think they are too big to fall.
Where trans activists are ultimately heading, all female terms, body parts, reproductive functions will (mostly already are) deemed 'transphobic'. Just not here... YET.

Is Mumsnet going to demand we all talk about pregnant people and chestfeeding now too?

Also, did anyone see the Pink News piece re this announcement?

"Founder Justine Roberts said that Mumsnet will now “stand in solidarity” with trans people. “Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed minorities,” founder Justine Roberts told The Guardian."

I don't think Justine did say Mumsnet would stand in solidarity with trans people, not explicitly.

Also, even if she did mean trans people, having seen the rows about disablism on here, specifically around moderating what is posted about people with disabilities, I'm not sure it's true anyway.

As for saying that trans identified is triggering because trans people don't identify as trans - think that's so far down the rabbit hole you'd best hope there's a biscuit with 'eat me' written on it.

I came across this article today and thought it was so aposite.

No it's not. As many of us keep saying here, those extreme activists do not represent the majority in anyway.

They do "represent the majority" because they are the loudest ones, the ones that policy makers are listening to. They are the ones that screech their demands and everyone shamefully falls over themselves to pander to, throwing women and girls under the bus to do so.

Have MNHQ come back in any of this? I can’t find any clarification, have I missed it?

It is bizarre that Mumsnet has rules against being rude but Gibberty repeating the same lie day after day that sex is not a protected characteristic in the 2010 EA is not considered rude.
It takes less than a minute to look up section 4 of the EA.

But as I keep telling you, you need to read S7 and the accompanying example