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.

Also I know that people like Eileen Myles who identifies primarily as 'queer' prefers 'they' as a singular pronoun, and I thought that there were people who are 'queer' and 'trans' who use 'they' as the singular? Did I get that wrong? I know I didn't about Myles but am not always clear about 'intersections'.

It's all happening here on Mumsnet, that's why so many lurkers pipe up with 'I was always a live and let live kind of person, never had a problem with trans people until I read about them on Mumsnet'.

That's why nobody noticed or cared when the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004 - there were no evangelical GC feminists opposing it, or if there was they didn't have a platform like they do now.

Trans women have been peacefully and happily (and legally) living as women for the last 13 and haven't caused anyone any problems but all of a sudden it's a massive issue. Even though 99% of posters on here freely admit they have never met a trans person in RL.

Im a lurker, and I have an issue with this assertion.

I'm a live and let live person; I never had a problem with trans people. NOTHING I have ever read on MN posted by feminists causes me to have an issue with trans people. And I have never seen anyone pipe up to say they have an issue with trans people, either.

What has "all of a sudden" changed is aggressive lobbying by some trans people to make changes to the law which are open to huge abuses against women. I had no reason to oppose the 2004 act - in fact I celebrated it as I believe that trans people should be protected to get on with their lives in peace. Not at the expense of others, though.

It isn't that women have changed in their views towards trans people, it's that the context has changed in a way which threatens women's rights.

That's your right. But saying that someone who has the legal status of sex + gender = female is not female and a woman isn't acceptable.

The key word in that first sentence is 'legal'. You've been asked repeatedly to explain how someone can change their biological sex, and you've failed to give an answer that has convinced me, and probably many others.

Someone can be any gender they want, or none, but that still doesn't change their chromosomes.

Apologies for the bold fail in my post below - I was quoting an earlier post by Daim.

There was much TRA complaining when a transgender person was murdered a couple of months ago and the press didn't take much notice.

Even then, about eight people were murdered in the same week in London and Naomi Hersi was by far and away the one most widely reported.

When that became obvious and TRAs couldn't deny it, they switched to complaining about how the murder was reported - such as this from Stonewall.

Some of the media reports talked about her death in the context of other knife violence in London, with all the other victims discussed being men – ignoring the specific issues that are likely to have contributed to the attack on Naomi.

Hersi was killed in a hotel room, possibly while engaging in sex work. Stonewall made it sound like Hersi was the victim of a transphobic attack. Yet prostitutes are often subject to violence.

Even the GRC itself doesn't prevent a person from being seen as their previous 'gender' in certain circumstances. It doesn't change their status as a mother or father, it still allows individuals to be prosecuted for crimes specific to their previous gender and restrict participation in sport among other things. Where are you getting your information from that a GRC means that you are now the opposite sex? It allows you to be treated as the opposite GENDER in most circumstances, but not all.

Snappily the law itself acknowledges that transwomen are not literally women by allowing exemptions within the Equality Act. Do you disagree with this?

No. Definitely not.

The Gender Recognition Act expressly says you are wrong and says that sex is changed for all purposes (And that means Mumsnet too)

There is for example an exception for sport but it is not a sex-based exception. It t is ensuring that sports can make their own rules about testosterone for example which would equally apply to a trans man without a GRC if he was on testosterone.

Exactly quentin

It’s so upsetting that this kind of terrible, real violence that happens everyday to women and girls is sidelined because gender identity theory does not and can not explain millennia of horrific human behaviour towards the reality of women’s biology. I look forward to being told how women’s systematic abuse across most cultures and most history is entirely based on their self expression and could have been avoided.

That's why nobody noticed or cared when the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004 - there were no evangelical GC feminists opposing it, or if there was they didn't have a platform like they do now

2013 Guardian article 'Voices from the trans community: 'There will always be prejudice'

Important context & background
(Extract)

"The thing that held us back in the 1990s campaigning was that fear of being out," admits [Christine] Burns. Eventually, she came out in 1995; she jokes that she realised she was more embarrassed to be a member of the Conservative party than openly transsexual.

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Snappity: that means 'to all intents and purposes as if'

It would be good if FWR could have the sort of conversation about trans women being welcome but not wanting fetishistic crossdressers

But I've never yet seen a decent explanation of how we tell the difference. How does a 16-year-old shop assistant allow genuine transwomen into the changing room but stop fetishists or men who just identify as women some of the time? How does a YHA receptionist know who to believe when they say "I'm a transwoman" & who to reject if there's no apparent difference?

FFS snappity... the EHR commission has told you you are wrong about what the law does/doesn’t say...

The more this goes on, the level of delusion involved, the more I think you probably need to be reading ‘why does he do that?’ and posting on relationships TBH...

and the direction of wider society

Even Pink News admitted there was only 18% support across the country for the idea that people can change sex.

Snappily, you are wrong. Exemptions are allowed in certain circumstances. I suggest you read the Equality Act.

Like this
What is meant when a thing is said to be true 'for all intents and purposes' is 'it isn't actually true but it it so close to being so that we may proceed as though it is'

I'm sorry it's hurtful to hear but we must be able to articulate material reality.

Garam as snappity doesn't seem to want to answer can you say if you think a pre op transwoman should reveal they are pre op before it becomes obvious if they are dating a straight man?

I realise it's a bit of an out of context question but it's one I've always been curious about and have never had an answer when I've asked under different NC's over the recent years.

Mumsnet has gained a reputation of one of the most hateful and transphobic riddled corners of the internet, where it is widely acknowledged some of the worst anti-trans groups mobilise and arrange attacks on trans women.

Are you saying MN is coordinating the mobilisation of groups that physically attack transwomen? That’s quite an accusation.

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Because that would be criminal offence territory.

Even the GRC itself doesn't prevent a person from being seen as their previous 'gender' in certain circumstances. It doesn't change their status as a mother or father, it still allows individuals to be prosecuted for crimes specific to their previous gender

No. S9(1) is clear. Sex changes for all purposes.

On parentage, s12 to me reads that a parent remains a parent. I don't think it says that a father remains a father because s9(2) changes the understanding of father or mother on the child's birth certificate anyway. At most, this section changes the meaning of terms father and mother to not be sex-specific.

As to crimes, s20(1) is even clearer saying expressly that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender so you can't possibly argue that this is an exception to sex. (And BTW this section only refers to gender-specific offences, not sex-specific offences so it says nothing at all about sex.)

arrange attacks on trans women

Have you heard yourself? FWR is a place where posters arrange attacks on trans women? That. Is. A. Lie.

Because when my partner sees me reading MumsNet it upsets her. So I will be here less when she is about.

OMG Snappity.

Your partner is trying to control your access to thoughts your partner doesn't want you to agree with.

Does your partner trust your intellectual/philosophical integrity?

Does your partner trust that your partner's own arguments are sound enough to withstand interrogation?

Your posts generally irritate the hell out of me, but suddenly I feel really worried for you.

daimbars

You are accusing MN of hosting planning for physical attacks on people.

That’s a serious accusation. Please back it up with evidence. I’m sure MNHQ would want to be aware of any group planning a physical attack on anyone because that’s a serious criminal matter

Snappity, were you initially asked to come here by your partner?

Snappity you sound utterly indoctrinated, denying things that are there in black and white and that people can access and read. I would advise you to start a thread in relationships, especially after seeing some of your partner's previous posts.