FWR more unpleasant than ever

[Snappity]

The Talk Guidelines have done little to improve things. The majority of threads are about trans matters and very few, if any, positive. Misgendering is increasingly rife. "They" for a trans woman is as bad as "he".

Even the sex of trans women with female birth certificates is not respected.

There is post after post that trans women are not women and that sex is biological and cannot be changed (totally ignoring that many aspects of sex can be changed).

Then increasingly material from elsewhere which is anti-trans is being linked.

While individual comments are fair enough, the sheer volume means that FWR is a thoroughly unpleasant place for the majority of trans people and those of us who have trans family members.

Intersex women are also repeatedly disrespected with frequent posts that women are XX or are those with female reproductive capacity. It is hugely offensive.

I am going to be here less. The harassment - and I think that is what it is - has driven me away. It is a shame because trans and intersex feminists - indeed trans inclusive feminists - should be as welcome here as any other feminists. If MumsNet believes in debate that means ensuring that one side isn't shouted down - and the sheer volume of people saying that trans women are not women and belong in male spaces (because anyone "male" is a risk to women) is shouting down the other side of the debate.

FWR needs to regain a balance.

I think Snappity's response to my question really highlights one of the big problems in the debate about trans issues. It seems that before discussion can happen, everyone has to agree that TWAW. That is non negotiable. So it's not really a free and open debate at all-it starts halfway round the track, so to speak, with an insistence that the first half of the track is taken as read.

Like Penny Mordaunt said about the GRA consultation.

I don't agree and I will never proceed from that basis.

Has anyone else noted the timing correlations (pre-7am) on the first posts of the day between certain posters on this thread?

I don't agree either.

I used to have no issue with using 'she' as a courtesy pronoun, when it was understood that it was out of courtesy.

Now I do have an issue with it, & 'they' or the use of the name are my polite compromises. If they also become unacceptable & it comes down to honesty (he) or dishonesty (she), then, well.

" It seems that before discussion can happen, everyone has to agree that TWAW. "

That is the crux of the matter, though. That is what the debate is about.

Why on Earth would we have to concede the debate before even starting it? What would be the point of having the debate if we all agreed that "TWAW"?

A big of the problem for me personally is that as a trendy lefty liberal snowflake, I do not feel happy on the gender critical "side". I feel I naturally belong in the TWAW camp. I desperately want someone to explain it to me in a way that means I can breath a sigh of relief and relax into where I feel I belong. But I can't.

oh come on R0wantrees stop trying to paint posters as a certain type of person

Not when posters like LangCleg even object to me quoting what she says

Bespin as I commented earlier to both Snappity and Daimbar misrepresenting and targetting regular posters says more about you than them.
Please don't do it.

I don't think TWAW does actually belong in the lefty liberal side though. It is regressive, misogynistic and homophobic. TRAs have just done a good job of positioning it as the 'progressive' view.

Snappity

Can I ask you something? If two men are having anal sex, is that lesbian sex if they both identify as women?

Caught back with the thread. Something Oscarino said a while back:

If these are the conditions your partner has put on allowing you to access mumsnet you have to understand that your partner has put you in an impossible situation.

You cannot force people to comply with your partner’s demands, other people’s compliance is not a gift you can offer in order to appease your partner.

If this is indeed the situation, that the TW partner is effectively standing over Snappity, and 'directing', this is all a bit worrying. It was Snappity themselves that revealed the TW partner 'was not happy' with the way things were going on FWR. I would say, why doesn't this TW partner actually speak for themselves? Or is forcing the partner part of the power trip? As I said on another thread, I am worried about the TW partner monitoring Snappity's posts, and then Snappity posting frantically, possibly more than normal, could become 'trouble', and Snappity should be wary about deliberately antagonising the partner, because of the possible retribution.

Snappity's lack of concern over women's boundaries generally may be a case of their own boundaries having been worn down over time. This may explain much, and perhaps some of the erratic behaviour of late. A reclamation of a DV victim's boundaries is an important part of the healing process.

Women's boundaries are a very important thing, and a key area of attack by patriarchy - to wear down or dismiss women's boundaries - which is why the parallels between Patriarchy Regular and TRAs are a huge red flag to feminists.

Why on Earth would we have to concede the debate before even starting it? What would be the point of having the debate if we all agreed that "TWAW"?

Gender critical feminists claim that the debate is pro women not anti trans. If that is really true then there will be no resistance to accepting that trans women are women because that's about trans identity.

If the gender critical argument is truly about the safety of women it will restrict itself to arguments about the safety of all women not try to exclude some women.

It is certainly possible to argue that trans women are not women but we need honesty that that argument is anti-trans not pro women.

What definition of transwomen are you using Snappity?

No. Transwomen are not women and will never be women. They will always be transwomen, the way that women will never be transwomen.

Not that I am trying to engage Snappity further, but I could not let this slide (as well as a possible example of losing the plot, bigtime)

50 years ago the gender critical position made sense but it hasn't kept up with the times because sex is now diverse eg with men giving birth.

Only human females can give birth. Our analysis is as valid as it ever was. If anything, this exposes how ridiculous 'gender identity' is - and especially how irrelevant it is.

A headline of "woman wearing trousers gives birth" is equally ridiculous, and seems like something from the early 20th century (such was the thinking back then, if a woman wore trousers, she was really, or trying to be, a man).

I really thought we had moved on from such stupid concepts. Clearly not.

Snappity are transwomen who acknowledge that they are not actually women wrong about their own identity?

Your reasoning is not logical OP.

It's circular.

Gender critical feminists claim that the debate is pro women not anti trans. If that is really true then there will be no resistance to accepting that trans women are women because that's about trans identity.

Snappity I know I've said this before, but 'woman' is not an identity, it's a biological reality. If you want an identity, how about 'feminine person'?

If the gender critical argument is truly about the safety of women it will restrict itself to arguments about the safety of all women not try to exclude some women.

Not just safety, but the privacy and dignity of women too. The problem though is that if we say TWAW and there is no difference between a TW and a natal woman, how can we talk about privacy, dignity, safety and fairness without making a distinction between trans women and natal women? It's impossible. The debate is over male sexed bodies, not gender identities.

I believe trans women are trans women. I believe they have a right to be treated fairly and equally but fairness and equality does not always equate to being able to use whatever facility you want to. Men aren't treated unfairly by being told they cannot use women's facilities are they? I am deeply sympathetic to the plight of trans women but how can you have a proper debate when you refuse to acknowledge that biology, not gender identity, is the fundamental reason for segregation. Nobody is saying trans women are all rapists or murderers- really not. Just that there is a difference between a male and a female body and that those with female bodies should be entitled to separate spaces with no male bodies. Gender identity does not come into it at all.

"Snappity, can I ask a hypothetical question? A person with the outward physical appearance of a man decides from now on to be a woman. There are no physical changes. If that person died and was autopsied the body would be unquestionably male. There is absolutely nothing except a declaration to distinguish that person from any other male person. On what grounds do you think that person has the right to insist that everyone else agree with the declaration?

I don't think TWAW does actually belong in the lefty liberal side though. It is regressive, misogynistic and homophobic. TRAs have just done a good job of positioning it as the 'progressive' view.

And they pretend there are only two possible ways of viewing this, ignoring the feminist position, which is the truly progressive one.

Gender critical feminists claim that the debate is pro women not anti trans.

Some transsexuals do not claim to be women.
Some transsexuals believe that they only want to be perceived as women rather than believe they are women or should be classified as women.

Gender critical feminists have no beef with transsexuals who don't try to access women's provisions, claim to be a woman or argue that it is the sex stereotypes that make the woman.

If that is really true then there will be no resistance to accepting that trans women are women because that's about trans identity.

Woah there!

'No resistance' to accepting outright lies?

Sorry but refusal to go along with this notion that we are what we say we are is anti-bullshit, not anti trans. But then again, if everything about trans belief is accepting a bullshit first premise to layer more bullshit on top... perhaps..

The position that Snappity and other TRAs put forward is: 'you have to agree with me on all points no matter how bizarre or illogical and then - and only then - can we have a discussion'.

nappity, can I ask a hypothetical question? A person with the outward physical appearance of a man decides from now on to be a woman. There are no physical changes. If that person died and was autopsied the body would be unquestionably male. There is absolutely nothing except a declaration to distinguish that person from any other male person. On what grounds do you think that person has the right to insist that everyone else agree with the declaration?

I asked the same question a couple of pages back. I doubt you'll get an answer.
This person never answers the important things.

I'm going to be here less

Meanwhile......23 pages later.

You couldn't make it up!