Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

469 replies

MsJeminaPuddleduck · 09/11/2018 08:22

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer)
09/11/2018, 08:16
Have just seen this. Argument is Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues. pic.twitter.com/WVkBMxZeqv

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
R0wantrees · 09/11/2018 09:34

April 2018 Times,
'Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site'
(extract)
“Transgender activists have contacted Mumsnet advertisers and said they will be organising a boycott of their products if they don’t remove their advertising from Mumsnet,” Roberts said.

The website had told the advertisers that it “works hard to keep the discussions civil” and was determined to let them continue.

“What’s worrying to me is the thought-police action around speech and the shutting down of the right to be able to disagree and immediately labelling it as transphobic,” Roberts said.

The threats are the latest move in a campaign by transgender activists to inhibit discussion of potential legal changes that would allow people born male to self-identify as women.

Feminists say the plans threaten women’s rights and protected spaces. Trans activists say that to oppose them is bigotry. They have pressurised dozens of venues into cancelling meetings on the subject.

One meeting that went ahead at the House of Commons led to a complaint to the parliamentary standards commissioner against David Davies, the MP who organised it." (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mumsnet-founder-justine-roberts-transgender-activists-try-to-curb-free-speech-on-site-z3sr3nf6q?shareToken=b2eb62822dd26aecc0f88653978ed23a

AIBU thread in response to Justine Roberts' statement:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3222471-AIBU-to-be-extremely-proud-of-Justine-Roberts-Mumsnet-right-now

Interview with Justine Roberts (& India Willoughby) by Julia Hartley Brewer that week:

heresyandwitchcraft · 09/11/2018 09:41

Umm... I'm quite sure MNHQ has a real legal team who would already have carefully looked through this.

LangCleg · 09/11/2018 09:42

Sorry but I've been treated with nothing with respect since I started posting on the boards.

Being a decent person with an ounce of self awareness does help, Hamster!

PineappleSunrise · 09/11/2018 09:43

Given the endless threats towards MN for hosting women who talk about things, I feel it's an opportune time to review the old Harry Enfield classic:

Women: Know Your Limits!

JessicaJonesJacket · 09/11/2018 09:46

It's like Jeremy and the MRAs all over again except they're trying to use the law rather than hacking. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's funny (but not original) that some people think trying to close a forum amounts to stopping women talking and thinking and meeting. I imagine they'd explode with rage if they stopped to consider that women and men in RL express views all the time, have meetings with politicians, write to organisations etc.
They foolishly think if they try to control social media they control the population's opinion. Does anyone know who is funding their 'proposed' litigiousness?

mackerella · 09/11/2018 09:46

Dr. Adrian A. Harrop
@DrAdrianHarrop
We wonder - having reviewed Sections 26 and 29 of the Equality Act, 2010 - whether there would be grounds to take legal action against them?

Indeed, it certainly is an interesting & important question.

And of course, the outcome is far from certain.

Watch this space

Alex
@MUM*_Wandsworth
Might want to run that past an actual barrister or solicitor first.

Paul 🐝
@DaveDavidDave_
Bigot - ignore her Ade, someone who identifies as a lawyer will be fine - trans briefs are briefs!

JessicaJonesJacket · 09/11/2018 09:48

Drat was it Jeffrey?! I can never remember the names of men who are threatened by women's agency.

ShotsFired · 09/11/2018 09:55

Isn't this "Nick Griffin on QT" all over again?

Let the person with the, er, "unusual", views come forward and and say their piece. And then the rest of the world can then see then for what they are. Same for this "lawsuit". File it, go on. File your claims and let the whole world see through them for the transparent wastes of time they are.

Or perhaps just wind your necks in with your pathetic empty threats and bullying. That would save everyone a lot of time.

R0wantrees · 09/11/2018 10:02

It's funny (but not original) that some people think trying to close a forum amounts to stopping women talking and thinking and meeting. I imagine they'd explode with rage if they stopped to consider that women and men in RL express views all the time, have meetings with politicians, write to organisations etc.

Spectator: 'Mumsnet and the British media aren’t ‘transphobic’'
by Robert Jackman
(extract)

This is why many British newspapers have expressed concerns about the GRA reform: not because of any underlying bigotry but because it seeks to apply a fringe ideological conviction to an immensely complicated question.

Oddly, the Outline lays the blame for this supposed media bigotry at an unlikely door: Mumsnet. The article claims that some of Mumsnet’s 14 million users have developed an “obsession” with transgender issues. It’s true that transgender issues are frequently discussed on Mumsnet – but why assume this is down to bigotry, rather than the fact that many of these concerns (the housing of male sex offenders in women’s prisons, for example) resonate deeply with the women of Middle England?

The writer isn’t wrong that Mumsnet holds deep influence – just not necessarily with the media. When I spoke to someone who knows the consultation well, they mentioned the “Mumsnet effect” – the fact that the Government had received cautious responses from women all over the UK, representing all ages and backgrounds. The responses calling for the more ideological system, however, tended to be concentrated in smaller clusters, usually from London and university cities – places which typically vote Labour.

Ultimately it will be this kind of political pragmatism which will probably persuade ministers against uprooting the GRA system." (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mumsnet-and-the-british-media-arent-transphobic/

Noteworthy that LAWS (Let A Woman Speak) London meeting sold out within days:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412631-Radfem-101-LetAWomanSpeak-is-coming-to-London-Friday-30-November

MsBeaujangles · 09/11/2018 10:13

I can see why some people experience the board as transphobic - but that doesn't mean it is!

I think it is fair to say that this board tends to focus on:

  • posts that focus on preventing changes in the law that trans people see as being about improving their quality of life
  • posts about articles that highlight criminal and deviant behaviour of trans people and do not highlight positive stories about trans people
  • focusses on TRAs who behave in ways that are damaging to women and not on those who conduct their activism in an appropriate manner

If you switched 'trans' and 'women' in the above list that may give a flavour of what I mean. However, the interest/focus isn't on trans people here but is on women's rights and interests. The aim is to highlight and evidence problems for WOMEN.

There is no requirement for interest groups to be balanced and to promote the interests of all. In light of this, there is no requirement for positive trans stories to be discussed and promoted.

I do have sympathy and understanding for the many decent people who perceive hatred and threat on these boards as a result of the focus on the posts. However, I think their perceptions are skewed because they do not, or will not, understand that the focus is on natal women's needs and interests not on undermining the needs and interests of trans people.

However, from my perspective, posts on this board aim to combat the narrative that proposed changes in legislation are not threatening to women, there is no threat to women from trans people and that women are not being silenced. Posters seek out evidence of damage, violence and threat to evidence that there is a problem.

Bowlofbabelfish · 09/11/2018 10:15

Ahhh... the evil of freethinking women, eh?

Been reading from the malleus maleficarum have we?

RedToothBrush · 09/11/2018 10:19

Ok, so how does that work with talk about discussion of safeguarding frameworks and medical ethics? Are they completely off limits?

Honestly, was that crap written by someone with a law degree? Cos that university needs investigating if they do!

deepwatersolo · 09/11/2018 10:21

Sorry but I've been treated with nothing with respect since I started posting on the boards.

Yeah, Hamster, but you probably also don't feel like being literally anihilated out of existence if someone disagrees with you.
This is about people with a very unstable sense of self imo.

But, yes, if there is any sanity left in politics, this open demonstration of the problem should be a good thing.

RedToothBrush · 09/11/2018 10:25

I'm guessing the true purpose of the 'case' is really about costing MN money in an effort to close the forum down through vexacious harassment via legal means.

In which case, if they do try and take on MN, I hope MN are wise enough to seek legal advise along those lines and have a counter case which includes their costs.

I am willing to bet the law could be used to MN's favour...

LangCleg · 09/11/2018 10:29

Grandiosity is as grandiosity does.

Budgieinaberet · 09/11/2018 10:29

Trans briefs Grin

PineappleSunrise · 09/11/2018 10:39

If they did succeed in closing down MN with vexacious legal cases, they'd single handedly manage to peak all the S&B, Telly Addicts, Relationships and AIBU regulars who hid FWR years ago before all this started up. You literally couldn't buy publicity like that. Grin

LangCleg · 09/11/2018 10:41

The aim would be to close FWR. Which would be an own goal because then the topic would be spread all over the other sub-forums and therefore much more difficult to stalk, keep track of, or complain about.

But strategic thinking doesn't seem to be a strong suit here.

Knicknackpaddyflak · 09/11/2018 10:45

The aim would be to close FWR

Which truly would prove what LM innocently blurted out a couple of years back: that in certain circles the concept of women having rights is itself seen as transphobic and should be ended.

Yes, I'm all for that being explained to the general public and MPs. Crack on please. Get it right out in the open and let's be honest about what the aim of this game is.

TrashyTerf · 09/11/2018 10:54

I don't understand? Is this a real court case? Who is doing it?

RedToothBrush · 09/11/2018 10:56

Its hot air. Its trying to intimidate with the threat of legal action.

Until such time as anything happens and I'm sure we'll find out about a proper case, pretty damn quickly.

nauticant · 09/11/2018 11:02

Yes, that's how I see it too. The transwoman "lawyer" will have knocked this up as a generic document to pass on the threatening message to mumsnet that there's a legal case in the air. It's just another example of narcissistic controlling behaviour.

silentcrow · 09/11/2018 11:20

Imagine the crowdfunder Grin

This is just squawking. MN has had some positive press lately (and you can bet those publications checked with their legal teams first!), and I do believe a certain couple of medical legal cases are impending. Distraction.

Also, hi hamster, I do enjoy your thoughtful posts.

LikeDust · 09/11/2018 11:22

Privileged white dudes just love the Equality Act since all extremely hard won equality legislation by genuinely oppressed groups was helpfully 'streamlined and simplified' into one Act with the help Sarah Brown etc in 2010.

This is all part of the long term plan.

Ereshkigal · 09/11/2018 11:52

Privileged white dudes just love the Equality Act since all extremely hard won equality legislation by genuinely oppressed groups was helpfully 'streamlined and simplified' into one Act with the help Sarah Brown etc in 2010.

This.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread