Reality check

[Pratchet]

It's shit but I think we have to be pragmatic. And disclaimer: the below does not refer to all trans people or all transadvocates.

Imagine how many pairs of TRA eyes are trawling every single post on Mumsnet about trans issues. There are the resources, the legal support and the tech experience there to build a civil case, or find the one post that tips over into breaching IPSO and Ofcom guidelines, that can lead to sanction, compensation or worse for MN.

They don't even need eyes. They can build algorithms that trawl mumsnet for them. They want that log of complaints or posts that will enable legal action, criminal action or any other official sanction. There is no lull or respite from this. Mumsnet is the only mass crossover media which enables conversation on this issue which is not trans-agenda driven. It's the only one left that promotes a feminist view. The drive to stop this conversation will not stop, or rest, ever.

And who will they complain to? They will be complaining to people who have had 'trans awareness training' and bodies which have extremely active awareness networks, looking for offensive material. Going back years, through the media, including the BBC and ITV at the highest levels, police, monitoring organisations, government, the civil service, about how vulnerable trans people are, about how oppressed trans people are. What are Mumsnet's chances of coming out the other side and being able to allow this conversation to go on?

We all know this, but it's actually real. It's not theoretical.

Don't do the TRAs' job for them. Please don't jump. Please don't throw yourselves in front of the train. This is David and Goliath, we are amateurs all, new to the field, up against an army of well-prepared professionals. But we can do this.

Here are some links.

www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/112500/dip-statement.pdf
www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/109711/consultation-diversity-inclusion-plan.pdf
www.allabouttrans.org.uk/about/media-interactions/
www.allabouttrans.org.uk/a-meet-up-with-the-independent-press-standards-organisation/
www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/february/uk-to-review-laws-on-offensive-online-communications/
www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-announces-new-national-online-hate-crime-hub

They can't be told no can they ?!

Meanwhile the police haven't come round here to arrest me for thought crimes
Not sure about anyone else

So if I post a thread about how trans women are women and how badly it affects them when they are misgendered, I should be able to ask that no gender critical feminists contribute to the thread?

You would certainly be reasonably asking that on a forum for trans people to discuss their challenges with each other. On MN feminism no, it would not be reasonable. In fact some people might say that continually coming here and posting the way you do, derailing discussions and constantly interrupting when women are speaking is rude.

So entitled that it's laughable. Or frightening.

If Snappity feels that they can't participate in the conversation here without Damn addressing Lang directly that's a bit odd. Is Lang the only GC commenter? Is Snappity honestly not seeing why many people might read some of Damn's comments in this thread and conclude that they're an individual best avoided? If so that's rather concerning.

I take it no receipts yet?

Phew it took a while to get to the bottom of this one but I just wanted to say that...

I solemnly swear never to report any anti-gender critical posts so they can be left to shine in all their glory.

(I may be guilty of doing this in the past but they are best left as they are).

I remember someone @ me even though i asked not to, as I don't want the mails. They then specifically did and then didn't even say anything interesting. Very obviously deliberate to annoy me and push my boundaries. Can't remember who and don't care enough to go look back.
But just warning there are some anti GC here who will deliberately push and push.

Agreed. I've said before that I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they are coming from their own private forum with a game plan of specific goading in different ways.

Although some are just clearly individual narcissists who are incapable of recognizing how much their gaming shite reveals them for who they are to everyone reading. It's like they left the house with their skirt tucked in their knickers and haven't noticed...

Loving this thread. As I say frequently at work* (after I've put the phone down) - put your cock away.

• I work in a male dominated (and sometimes dominating) industry

I think my favourite thing about this thread is that it's called 'Reality Check' and so much reality is revealed therein...

@Snappity

Hi Snappity. I think it is also clear that our views aren't simpatico. I find your contributions to FWR very goady and I prefer not to interact with you. If we find ourselves contributing to the same threads, please do not address me directly or quote my posts in order to engage me. This is a clear boundary. Please respect it. I won't be responding further. All the best.

I am 72 years old and the war on women has been going on all my life, all my mothers life, and her mother before her.
2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a violent hate crime.

It's always important to remember that a right to free speech is just that - a right to free speech. It's not a right not to face the consequences of your speech. It's not a right to demand a response to your free speech.

Free speech comes with consequences (unless you limit yourself to anodyne platitudes, which is hardly the sort of speech that requires protection).

If (to use the hackneyed old example) you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, knowing that there is no fire, and people get injured in the ensuing stampede, you might (quite rightly) face the consequence of being charged with a public order offence.

If you (generic you) use your free speech to be goady and annoying, you might well face the consequence that no-one wants to engage with you any more.

You've still got your free speech, you've just been so ill-judged in how you've used it that no-one listens any more and you might as well be screaming into the void.

To be clear: I am not requesting that anybody not respond to the substance of what I say. I am requesting that users I am personally uncomfortable with do not engage me directly (in the accepted MN ways of direct engagement with fellow members) by @ing me, naming me, or quoting my posts. This is a clear personal boundary. I would like it respected.

People should have the right to speak. There's no way to guarantee them the right not to be found so tedious, irritating, or creepy that nobody wants to have a conversation with them any more.

While I can respect not at ting someone which I don't do when someone told me. What it did I find it hard not to use or reference someone when they have posted a point or quote it in a reply as a way of short hand or making it clear the point I am trying to. Make back, if you find that hard then posting on a public forum is maybe not the best thing for anyones mental health. Which is import to think about when things can get personal on Here at times.

There are accepted and long established conventions on Mumsnet with regards quoting in bold and @ ing.

Recognising and using these appropriately contributes to civil discussion throughout the site.

In fact some people might say that continually coming here and posting the way you do, derailing discussions and constantly interrupting when women are speaking is rude.

This. This is a board to talk about women's rights. We don't go on to trans boards and shit them up.

Make back, if you find that hard then posting on a public forum is maybe not the best thing for anyones mental health

If you're referring to Lang, I think her approach is quite mentally healthy, actually. She just doesn't see any point in engaging with certain people and has very politely asked that they respect this.

Ereshkigal my point was in general as sometimes this debate can be all encompassing and does impact on people's mental health setting yourself boundaries is. A good idea

If you're referring to Lang, I think her approach is quite mentally healthy, actually. She just doesn't see any point in engaging with certain people and has very politely asked that they respect this.

Indeed. Nobody worry about me! I'm perfectly fine and cheerful and am enjoying the fine weather. I'm thinking of a barbecue later.

I'm perfectly fine and cheerful and am enjoying the fine weather. I'm thinking of a barbecue later

I was just thinking the same....

Ereshkigal
If you're referring to Lang, I think her approach is quite mentally healthy, actually. She just doesn't see any point in engaging with certain people and has very politely asked that they respect this.

I agree, i think it's just the same as when people on relationships threads are advised to go low/no communication with certain people who are not a positive in their lives.

FermatsTheorem's free speech post is also very clear-
You've still got your free speech, you've just been so ill-judged in how you've used it that no-one listens any more and you might as well be screaming into the void.

We will be watching jousting today

Ooh, what are you thinking of making? I always find that pork goes well with setting good boundaries and not wasting time on pointless conversation.