Guardian comments opportunity

[LambChopsMcGee]

I'm sure this has been mentioned but Zoe Williams has done a piece on John McConnell's Mumsnet chat. She mentions the trans issue in passing.

Comments are open. And one says "what is it with Mumsnet and transphobia anyway?"

I'll see if I can link...

What is it with Mumsnet and transphobia, anyway?" discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/120570800

Maybe we should tell them??

happydappy2
donnab how would you describe a third sex?
No reference to gender just sex.

I don’t. And I don’t know what you mean by gender. You seem to be using it to refer to the social construction of sex roles.

I go with Sartre and De Beauvoir. Existence precedes essence.

It’s humans that define the categories we put ourselves into. They’re no t defined in nature.

OK, sex is a biological fact. But choosing sex as a central category in relation to human conduct and experience is a political act. I’m not saying is incorrect.

Earlier societies used skin colour in that way, a categorisation that is now denigrated.

So basically I wouldn’t define a 3rd so.

You’re free to see the world how you want to. I’m just trying to tease out some of the issues.

I was very pleased to see Hadley Freeman write a GC column a while back. I bet Deborah Orr would have had something to say but of course they fired her...

Catherine Bennett has made vaguely GC comments too and mentioned the San Francisco library exhibit as threats and abuse against women. She copped some abuse herself, predictably.

To be more clear, sex is biological and not a social construct. Choosing sex as a way to categorise people is itself a social construct.

Let’s leave out trans people for the purpose of this discussion.

Why? It's you bringing up intersex, irrelevantly, to push your agenda.

Choosing sex as a way to categorise people is itself a social construct.

Why wouldn't you categorise people by sex? It is critical in some things. Why would you categorise by claimed subjective personal feelings?

So trans women are women then? As long as they have vaginas
But they don't have vaginas. They have neovaginas that need dilating daily, grow hair inside and look/taste/smell nothing like a vagina, nor do the neovaginas have any reproductive function. Some are made from bowel segments, some from inverted penile tissue. Still not a vagina, your point is invalid.
I could have some bone grafted to my skull, shape it into a point, it might even fuse with my skull and become an organic part of me, it still doesn't make me a unicorn.

Choosing sex as a way to categorise people is itself a social construct.

Well we don't bother categorising humans on that basis for tons of stuff.

But when one category commits 98% of sex attacks and the other category is largely victims, we will then categorise them to keep one off the other, when they're naked and vulnerable.

To be more clear, sex is biological and not a social construct

Correct. Sex is biological. Gender social.

Choosing sex as a way to categorise people is itself a social construct.

You've contradicted yourself - sex is biological, it cannot therefore be chosen. Choosing gender is though a social construct.

HTH

Choosing sex as a way to categorise people is itself a social construct

Yes but in a world where people who are stronger, richer, more powerful and with a vested interest in our exploitation do this a lot, we need to be able to point it out and to organise as a class against it.

A trans woman can’t have a vagina, they can have an open wound which they self dilate, but it’s no vagina.

DonnaBe
Do you know how babies are made?

I read the expression "fuckable pocket" on the trans porn thread earlier and found that appropriate.

Let’s not waste our time on this thread any more......the fact that the Guardian closed comments so quickly was enlightening to me.

Donna has a Humpty Dumpty attitude to language - the old Alice Through a Looking Glass thing.

As for the Guardian comments. The woeful ignorance shown by many of them is mind boggling. No attempt to acquaint themselves with the facts about transgender. I wonder how many of them realise that 80% of transwomen have fully male bodies for example and have never ingested a female hormone in their lives.

I wonder how many of them realise that 80% of transwomen have fully male bodies for example and have never ingested a female hormone in their lives.
That point was made but it was deleted too.

Interesting that the Guardian want to censor women, though. Although I already knew it, it's interesting that they are still beating that drum.

I wonder if they know that women who have commented and had their comment censored, then repeat the comment here for the whole world to see how innocuous they are.

It's so insecure. Not being able to accept a even a questioning of your narrative, never mind a disagreement.

They will go down the pan, the stupid dogmatic fuckers. Who exactly do they think is going to give them money?

Corlan;
My comment mentioned the majority of Transwomen retaining their genitalia and the reality of Karen White/Michelle Lewin in womens prisons.
and women wanting their concerns about safety addressed ,without being abused as bigots ,transphobes etc
38 likes and a rapid thread development before the comments were closed.
Not deleted (smile emoji)

I wonder how many of them realise that 80% of transwomen have fully male bodies for example and have never ingested a female hormone in their lives.

There was a comment on there that said we'd misunderstood this, and had confused the terms transwomen and transmen. Then went on to say that because most transmen don't have surgery, we thought that meant that most men who identify as women still have a penis.

I can't find the comment now, so it may have been in one of the deleted threads.

PSA

I'll come back when a third gamete is discovered.

They will go down the pan, the stupid dogmatic fuckers. Who exactly do they think is going to give them money?

I remember when they were in real financial dire straits a couple of years ago - I was pretty worried at the time that they would fold. Now, the end can’t come quickly enough for those authoritarian, misogynistic fuckers, as far as I’m concerned.

Hi, I'm the person from the Guardian who wrote "What is it with Mumsnet and transphobia, anyway?", as quoted in the OP.

I'm not a Mumsnet user - I found this because someone reposted the OP to the Guardian article in question, and to be honest I was worried that my comment was being held up on a different site to attack. If it's not cool for me to join this conversation, let me know.

I want to say firstly that I was wrong to worry - this thread is actually way more reasonable and constructive than most Guardian comment sections. And that it's ridiculous that your messages are being deleted. Most pro-Mumsnet messages were civil and didn't deserve deletion. Guardian moderation is absurd.

The reason I asked is that Mumsnet has come up in an anti-trans context a lot recently. And this genuinely confuses me. I see more anti-trans comments from men than women in general, and certainly I don't think parents are more likely to be anti-trans. So I couldn't work out why a site designed for mothers would be particularly against trains people.

Someone in the comments replied and said that this was because Mumsnet was prepared to host this side of the conversation, citing no-platforming and even threats faced by people concerned about self-identification. As far as I'm concerned this is a 100% reasonable answer. Free speech is important and shouldn't be shut down.

I'll come back when a third gamete is discovered.

We'll page you then, Lang.

this thread is actually way more reasonable and constructive than most Guardian comment sections

Many of us here on Mumsnet FWR are former Guardian readers and commenters. I personally have largely given up on it due to its stance on women's rights issues and the censorship of reasonable alternative views.

How do you do ProbablyOnTopic.

Mumsnet is a really interesting place, glad you like it.