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.

It's like trying to explain the theory of relativity to a side table.

TRAs have no intention of listening to women, they merely talk and talk and talk at us, and when talking at us doesn't work, they start to threaten violence to those who hold a different view. How terribly male.....

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

Lang has a right to ask that - wonder why you would bring it up in a thread that she is not even on?

Do you not like boundaries?

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

That's because gender critical feminists are concerned with the rights of women, trans is only of any concern when the rights of women are affected.

Feminism is not anti trans because feminism is not about trans.

Datun that just made me splurge coffee everywhere.

I don’t think the view that we should all accept TWAW is left or liberal at all. On another thread, there was a poster MaterialReality I think, who gave an excellent explanation as to why the ideology was not left-wing, which I wish I could re-cap succinctly. It was to do with the fact that the physicality of women’s bodies, their reproductive capacity, was the root of their oppression as a class group, and hence it is not left-wing to deny that material fact, the basis of socialist feminism is about women as the reproductive class and their economic and social inequality on that basis. I am rendering their argument badly.

Nor is the ideology liberal, because classic liberalism is about considering the impact of freedoms on the whole of society for the common good, not just about freedom at all cost. There was a moral core to classic liberalism (for example, Adam Smith) which expressed anxiety about self-interest with no regard to social good.

I think it is certainly neoliberalism which is about choice, the idea that we can consume our way to individuality and identity and the role of the state is to actively remove all barriers to this. TWAW as an ideology relies on the digital infrastructure which creates a movement through tweets, likes, and chat forums (validating one’s identity beyond the real world); it relies on a consumer economy where anything can be bought or created; it relies on a free market to do so, and it relies on a government which removes any barriers.

Neoliberalism is not the same as conservatism. It is clear that TWAW also gains traction in places where it is easier than being homosexual (Iran).

The paradox is that many GC women would not have batted an eyelid at the transsexuals of the past who did not try to remove existing same sex provision, but simply lived their own lives. It is the shift from sex as the definition of male/female to the nebulous concept of gender identity, a concept which many feminists have either actively rejected, or used to lay bare gendered expectations, power and inequalities.

Feminist analysis of gender aimed to show that ideas of gender was mutable, and could be changed so that the societal limitations on women due to biology could be challenged. Whereas gender identity makes these categories fixed and removes the language to talk about the oppression women face because of biology.

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.

No, it's pro REALITY. Saying a lie does not make it truth.

I am Galileo - and it still moves.

Just to reiterate something I said in another tweet: TERs absolutely attack and assault trans women. They confront trans women at meetings and protests and hit them until they hit back, at which point they mark the encounter down as “trans activist hits feminist” and leave.*

Whoever wrote that is seriously not right in the head. Women hit TRAs until TRAs hit back? Where is the evidence of this? The video is there for all to see of what happened to Maria. So why on earth they try to spin it as anything other than a group of men attacking her I don't know.

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.

Snappity - If you read the exchange above, you will see that you have not at all answered my questions.

The point is that The debate is whether TW are women or not. That is the very point that we are debating. You say they are, those of us with a minimum understanding of human biology say they are not.

It is irrational to expect people to accept "TWAW" before you even start the debate, because that IS the debate.

Snappity - Actually "TWAW" is not even a debate. You are wrong, as you can see in any dictionary:

Woman = Adult human female

Female = Of the sex that can make eggs or bear young.

Transwomen are male (= Of the sex that can make sperm). They are not and cannot be female (= Of the sex that can make eggs or bear young), regardless of the hormones they take or surgery they undergo to change their appearance. They are still male in every cell. Therefore they cannot be women as per dictionary definitions, because Woman = Adult human female.

The "debate" is us trying to help you and people like you understand dictionary definitions.

The real debate is how we can move forward with trans rights and help them live their lives free from hate and discrimination without taking away women's rights and protections.

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.

Agreed. TRAs have done a remarkable job convincing the world (or is it 18% of people..) that their irrational illogical argument is the progressive one and convincing people to ignore the misogyny and homophobia. I will give them that, they truly are good at being manipulative and twisting everything to make a slight bit of sense, to people who don't think very deeply about stuff.

See the thing is before dictionaries defined what women are chromosomes did. The rest is bullshit, in my view, and I’m entitled to my view. I can see how forcing people to go along with the genderist belief system makes them feel better but making deluded people feel better isn’t my role in life. I have other things to do.

Whoever wrote that is seriously not right in the head. Women hit TRAs until TRAs hit back? Where is the evidence of this? The video is there for all to see of what happened to Maria. So why on earth they try to spin it as anything other than a group of men attacking her I don't know

Morning Star open letter, July 4th

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/improving-climate-debate-around-proposed-changes-gender-recognition-act

"We, the undersigned, have a variety of positions about proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. Some of us have not yet fully formed our opinions.

We are calling for action within our movement to allow debate to take place over proposed changes to the Act.

You may be aware that on April 13 this year, an activist, Tara Wood was convicted of the assault by beating of Maria MacLachlan, a 60-year-old woman who had gathered with others in order to attend a meeting at which they could discuss the potential impact on women and girls of such a change to the law.

On March 8, an incident also occurred on a Bectu picket line in which trans activists, with no connection to the industrial dispute itself, mobbed and verbally attacked a female trade union member on the basis of having recognised her as an attendee at a similar meeting.

And in late April women in Bristol looking to meet and discuss changes to the Gender Recognition Act were met with masked activists blocking entrances to the venue, and deliberately intimidating those wishing to go inside.

More recently, a meeting organised by Woman’s Place UK was targeted with a bomb threat which Hastings Police are investigating as a serious incident.

These cases are part of systematic attempts to shut down meetings organised by women at which they can discuss potential legislative changes and the impact these may have on any sex-based rights already enshrined in law.

They draw the whole of our progressive movement into disrepute.

Some trans rights activists even continue to justify the use of violence, meaning that many women are simply too frightened to attend meetings that are both public and lawful in order that they may discuss their own rights." (continues)

Letter discussed by James Kirkup 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate'

(extract)
"Now, I’m a dedicated centrist and I happen to agree with every word of that letter. I know paid-up Tories who would too." (continues)

I"n a previous job as a political reporter, I’d probably have summarised that letter something like this:

Transgender activists who use threats of violence to frighten feminist critics are bringing the Labour movement into disrepute, Britain’s top trade union leader has said. Len McCluskey of the Unite union has joined several other close allies of Jeremy Corbyn to warn that “trans rights activists” using threats and intimidation have left many women “too frightened” to engage in political debate..." (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

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.

Sorry, but bollocks. Men do not and cannot give birth. It is not possible. What happens is that a woman who identifies as male gives birth.

Guess it helps though for those who can believe 10 impossible things before breakfast.

If I identified as a cat would I give birth to kittens?

At any time up until the very recent past the claim that men can become women would simply have been considered lunatic fringe nonsense.

At any time up until the very recent past the claim that men can become women would simply have been considered lunatic fringe nonsense.

discussion:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241837-Why-has-the-trans-lobby-been-so-successful

The people who say TWAW seem to think that science can be changed to suit an agenda in the same way language and laws can.

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.

With all due respect - Bullshit.

Part of the 'debate' being pro women is the fact that acknowledging the mantra TWAW denies the fact that women's oppression and a large part of being a woman lies in our biology. To accept that people with male biology are women means that an awful lot of our experiences and the root of oppression (period poverty, the killing of babies merely for being the wrong biological SEX not gender, FGM, abortion laws, domestic violence, menopause, endometriosis and a whole host of other things) is denied. The fact is women have been treated as second class as a result of their biological differences. The problems cannot be tackled effectively if we cannot identify the issues, therefore accepting that women is merely a feeling and biology doesn't matter denies a whole host of women's very real feminist issues. That is why we are PRO WOMEN when we say why can't you just identify as transwomen for that is what you are? Why must you pursue something which hampers women talking about themselves and the issues they face which are categorically not that same as those trans people face?

If I identified as a cat would I give birth to kittens?

No the news headline would be:

Cat gives birth to human baby!

It will happen...

BiologyIsReal. Don't be silly if you identified as a cat you wouldn't give birth to kittens. It would however be "true" that cats could have human babies.

Good break by the way - very effective.

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.

You can identify how you like.

I want the right to say no to being naked or vulnerable in front of biological males.

TRAs in the UK and USA may not be aware, but there's an important court case being heard at the moment regarding transwomen in Guyana. I can't find a link to the story in English about the appeal, which is being heard by one of the strange colonial courts which still has jurisdiction in the Caribbean, but it centres around a case of a cross-dresser (their terminology) who was convicted of wearing women's clothing "for an improper purpose". The appeal is seeking to establish what the "improper purpose" bit actually means. www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39292599

Now, TRAs would be outraged firstly at the charge of being a man wearing women's clothing (if they say they are a woman, they are a woman #nodebate), but the law disagrees. But their greatest allies in the fight are GC feminists, who also believe that a man can wear a dress - and a woman can wear trousers - and that's OK. Because tackling gender stereotypes is one of the most important actions in tackling patriarchy.

This is a place that is trying to "erase transpeople", not flipping FWR

Oops cross post.

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

Current threads collating many of the concerns:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3297184-Your-comments-for-Penny-Mordaunt

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3297067-Mumsnet-moderation-response-to-yesterdays-feedback

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

I was so sympathetic to trans people and the difficulties in life they face. I still am to people with genuine body dysmorphia/dysphobia, who it seems are actually the least likely to self identify - witness several who post on FWR and completely understand where we are coming from over women's spaces.

But TRAs with their Alice in Wonderland idea of biology and gender can jog on.

I filled in a satisfaction survey this morning for Hermes delivery service. Usual questions then asked me my "gender" - male, female or prefer not to say. I said prefer not to say. On the section asking how they could improve their service I said they could stop using biologically nonsense terms like gender as my femaleness was a question of sex. I am doing this at every single opportunity just to try and bring an air of reality to these companies who have swallowed the "how to be woke" manual hook, line and sinker.

Whoever wrote that is seriously not right in the head.

Exactly.