MN is a 'Hate group' apparently.

[KlutzyDraconequus]

Apologies for spoiling your Sunday, but i thought I'd best let you all know, according to some on an external site... Everyone here is part of a hate group..
I had no idea tbh.

There never seems to be any evidence of this far-right fascism or rampant transphobia. They can't point to even one thing and say, look, there's the evidence.

Puzzling really.

But good that they are sticking with their claims, so many more people on the FWR board now. Finding out facts.

I wonder if some Twitterati genuinely think that some of the posts by provocateurs that they then screenshot as evidence are from MN posters? Even the handful who've done it themselves? Just a thumb on the scales to help the cause? Because all of the other ones would be 'real'?

Far-right fascism. Many flavours of phobia.

It's a little like a Sharpe novel. Indecent Exposure - the one with all of the undercover secret agents posing as dissident saboteurs who accidentally form a group made-up exclusively of undercover agents and plan an attack that ends with the bombing of a town.

Magpiesarehuge Those screenshots! They're like Kevin the Teenager.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3337288-Transexual-voices-twitter-thread

To me, the essay is far from brilliant and massively misses the safeguarding and other consequences. However, I will accept that Stephanie H's legal analysis is brilliant etc. when somebody with relevant legal expertise, such as Prof. Rosa F, tells me that it is.

Until then, I will not accept the self-praise for the essay from SH nor the people for whom the essay is confirmation bias. And, I'm a little dubious why this essay from someone whose speciality is Landlord/Tenant law is thought to be particularly insightful in this area unless this expertise is wholly by virtue of SH holding a GRC rather than any legal knowledge?

this is the updated statement from the group:

twitter.com/tsvoices/status/1031286943047458817

it includes the following:
"We represent a growing group of ‘transsexual women’ seeking to find further voices that can add to ongoing debates about gender self ID without resorting to dismissive slurs."

"We respect women and acknowledge our biological differences. We believe that their acceptance and support can only be earned, not demanded or coerced."

"We call for an immediate stop to the harassment, threats, intimidation, misogyny and violence directed at women who have raised concerns about gender self-identification"

"We object to the Transgender activists’ disrespect for specific needs of young girls, mothers, lesbians and other female only groups, active creation of inaccurate statistics and propaganda of trans ideology among children."

Oooh better. Thank you Transexual Voices Matter

It seems though that the lawyer who is the subject of this thread is a key member, with her legal analysis being promoted. I am finding it difficult to reconcile her comments reported here with parts of this new statement.

She's not on the Law Society, register of SRA- solicitors. At least, not under that name.

"After you have successfully completed the academic and vocational stages of training, you can apply to be registered with the SRA. This register is referred to as the roll of solicitors in England and Wales. Registration entitles you to practise as a solicitor and to become a member of the Law Society.
Membership of the Law Society - The Law Society
www.lawsociety.org.uk/law-careers/becoming...solicitor/membership-of-the-law-society/"

Clicked on the "lawyers" thread and just spotted this near the top:

"No nonsense in #Switzerland! Want citizenship? Well you have to integrate with the Swiss way of life, not the other way round! We in the #UK could learn a few lessons!"

Raises a few questions.

• Why is "identifying" as a Swiss person not enough? If someone says they feel Swiss inside, who is anyone else to deny them the opportunity to be their most true authentic self?
• Who is this pointing at? Is it about multiculturalism? A complex and thorny subject to say the least. The poster however seems to boil it down to, a group (the Swiss in this case) have the right 1. to decide who and who may not be a member of the group and 2. they can include rules around what people must or must not do if they want in

What a breathtaking display of hipocracy. Are you sure this is a real account? It may have been created to flag the contradictions etc around all this.

I've seen quite innocuous and perfectly respectful MN screenshots put up on Twitter as evidence of 'hate'.
And each time, I think 'Keep going. You're proving our point with every tweet.'
Like so many of the women on here, it was trans activists own behaviour that first alerted me to the problems with misogyny in the trans movement.
Until then I was quite happily supportive.
They can keep making ridiculous claims. A they're doing is making more and more women aware of their misogyny.

I am aghast that someone threatened a school for the deaf with a bomb

Because of something that the SPOUSE of someone who works there is supposed to have done

Guilty by association then? All those deaf kids evacuated?

What the fuck are these people thinking?

And then they do magic reversal and say ooh those women on MN you know the ones with the cunts and the kids and the naice ham, they are super likely to be trying to attack trans people with razor blades.

I mean come the fuck off it.

I don't think they are an actual lawyer.

As evidenced by the libelous tweets.

If TS voices wish to avoid slurs they should not be tweeting articles by Hayden who regularly uses TERF.

I am aghast that someone threatened a school for the deaf with a bomb

Because of something that the SPOUSE of someone who works there is supposed to have done

WTAF? Did I miss something?

In USA there is a link upthread.

I'm confused now.. wasn't one of their supported calling MN a hate group when I started this.

I guess the group doesn't have to agree with every supporter they have.

Where's my Beano?

I guess the group doesn't have to agree with every supporter they have.

Of course not.

Hardliners openly strategise ways to make life tougher for trans people:

No. See below.

Passengers warned not to travel on sleeper trains because they might end up in the same sleeping berth as a woman who’s trans.

To protect ourselves, with our built-in unpatchable security vulnerability (vagina), from being in a vulnerable position (i.e. asleep) with someone who was born with a rape weapon (penis) attached to their body and probably still has it.

Support gathered to stop trans women being allowed on Labour’s all-women shortlists.

The Labour Party are very probably (IANAL) breaking the Equality Act 2010 and this should be clarified by a court. Do TRAs not respect the rule of law?

National meeting organised where they can clap and cheer their hatred.

For "hate", read "demanding female-only dormitories, changing rooms, psychiatric wards, prisons, rape group therapy, and saunas, and DV shelters that admit females and their children, not adult males". For "hate", read "demanding that the GRA be kept as-is and that sex-based EA exemptions be strengthened".

We've already had transwomen transferred to the female prison estate who have then abused female prisoners. It is entirely reasonable to foresee that happening outside the prison estate, especially when it's already happened in a Canadian women's refuge.

Radio hosts warning of assaults and unwanted pregnancies because trans girls have been allowed into the Girl Guides.

Not because they've been allowed in, but because the trans girls (with penises) are expected to share tents with the non-trans girls (who can become pregnant). Talk about deliberately misreading what women here have said.

What’s the problem? Girls have been in the Scouts since 1991 and the world is still spinning.

Scouts are supposed to always give girls and boys separate showers and toilets, and give separate sleeping facilities unless it would be more dangerous not to. The scouts and their parents are also supposed to be consulted and informed when mixed sleeping will occur, unlike the Guides who state that parents should not be informed that a bepenised trans girl will share their daughter's tent. To summarise: the Scouts are giving parents and scouts the chance to give informed consent or not do the activity, the Guides are, by keeping guides and parents in the dark, invalidating the consent given and denying a chance to opt out of the activity.

RE PP saying they no longer care about being labelled "transphobic", YY. Given a choice: support misogyny or be labelled transphobic, I'll take the label.

A penis and its bearer is a potential threat to anyone female-bodied, regardless of the bearer's gender identity. Our demands for sex-based segregation are not based on presumption that transwomen are of poor character, but on a class-based analysis of risk that considers the material reality of female bodies being born with unpatchable security vulnerabilities and male bodies being born with rape weapons.

Put it another way: if you are in favour of gun control because some people can't be trusted with firearms but oppose sex-based segregation of sleeping, hygiene, prison, and hospital accommodation even though some men can't be trusted with their penises, you are a hypocrite.

Put it another way: if you are in favour of gun control because some people can't be trusted with firearms but oppose sex-based segregation of sleeping, hygiene, prison, and hospital accommodation even though some men can't be trusted with their penises, you are a hypocrite.

THIS!

if you are in favour of gun control because some people can't be trusted with firearms but oppose sex-based segregation of sleeping, hygiene, prison, and hospital accommodation even though some men can't be trusted with their penises, you are a hypocrite

I come from a shooting family who lost their pistols after Dunblane:

1. "not all shooters are like that" got our community absolutely no quarter whatsoever after one shooter in a community of around 10,000 perpetrated the appalling mass murder of children at Dunblane. By contrast, women are expected to drop their concerns in the face of NAMALT and NATWALT, even though 6% of males rape and males kill three of their female current or former partners per week in this country, a level of violence that dwarfs everything ever committed by British civilians with lawfully-held firearms. The misogyny inherent in taking away the few places where we have respite from the risk of male violence is off the scale.

2. Despite shooters having access to lethal weapons, we did not send rape and death threats to our opponents; we did not accuse our opponents of wanting us dead, disbelieving in our existence, or "literal violence"; we did not physically attack our opponents, threaten to burn down buildings in which they met, and did not send bomb threats against their meetings. We fought politically (I remember stuffing envelopes at the gun club to mail drop information packs to MPs) and peacefully.

3. We did not threaten "another Stonewall riot" if we lost. We did not threaten to repeat Hungerford 10,000 times across the country, even though we could have done that. When we lost, we were furious and heart-broken, and yet we handed over our pistols for destruction and accepted defeat.

Now how come Firearms Certificate holders cause less harm with firearms than the male general population do with their penises? Could it be the vetting process, the mandatory gun club membership and the character references? It's almost as though gatekeeping, like the kind that we have with the GRA now, keeps people safe...

Brilliant and thought provoking post anonymouseagain. Thankyou

a community of around 10,000
We did not threaten to repeat Hungerford 10,000 times

Apologies, I've dropped a zero when recalling that figure. I've checked, and there were around 100,000 firearms certificates on issue in 1995, so ten times more of us than I remembered as a person can have only one FAC.

Even stronger example then, of how decent people conduct themselves in this country, both during and after your fight. No doubt your posts will be quoted as hateful, incitement, transphobic, etc etc. Pure idiots!! Thankyou again for that information, what better example could we ask for.

males kill three of their female current or former partners per week

Per fortnight. Sorry again. I shouldn't post from my phone, it's really hard to spot errors. Three per fortnight is still way too many.

I also can't help but notice that 100% of shootings committed by British lawful firearms owners in the last 30 years have been perpetrated by penis owners. It's almost like having a penis is a huge risk factor for being violent.