That it's not just what you say, it's also how much you talk about it.

[NicolaHare]

Surprise, another trans thread! But the dynamics of online spaces fascinates me.

Take MWR. Some stats. Feminism Chat has been active since 2010. At this moment 364 pages of threads have been generated. 144 of those pages contain threads that were created or active since January this year. At the beginning of 2018 a significant portion of threads were trans themed and these threads tended to contain the most posts, and the board has only grown more fixated with the topic since then. You have to go quite a ways back to find a page of threads that isn’t 90-95% to do with trans people.

Nowhere else on the site is so obsessed. For example: on the LGBT themed boards you only have to go back 1 or 2 pages to find threads from 2017 and earlier. There aren’t any trans threads in the 1 and a fraction page of threads from 2018 on the politics board. There are, I think, about 2 in the half dozen pages of threads from this year in the currents affairs and news forum. And in 2018, all the education forums combined have generated about 5 trans threads.

This is weird, right? Why is a general feminism board with an overwhelmingly non trans userbase so fixated on a group of people they don't belong to and the issues surrounding them? It would be weird regardless of what anyone in any thread had to say on the subject.

Not surprising, though. Trans sceptical feminism ironically almost always ends up focusing on the transgender question to the exclusion of all other topics that its proponents believe that trans inclusive feminisms are neglecting, and so neglects them to an even greater degree. Honestly, I’m sceptical that they are being neglected at all: it seems to me that conversations about pregnancy, menstruation ect are happening in public view at far greater volume than ever before, taboos surrounding bodily functions are increasingly discarded by the discourse and pop culture, and that when we talk about erasure we’re actually quibbling about terminology, the trappings of language and not the substance of the conversation. To assign a motivation to the common theme on feminism chat of “We are being silenced elsewhere!” a significant part of it might be the catharsis of imagined persecution. “We are saying the truths THEY don’t want you to hear! We are rebels!”

(This interview with a former gender critical trans woman is worth reading. It’s American and several years old, but it describes the many of the other toxic intellectual cul-de-sacs you can observe in MWR. www.transadvocate.com/is-sadism-popular-with-terfs-a-chat-with-an-ex-gendercrit_n_18568.htm)

But to set aside the discussion of substance. Do you think that the mere volume of trans threads in feminism chat is indicative of a kind of transphobia? If it were a forum of straight people talking about nothing but same sex attracted people, even if what they had to say was positive would we not be inclined to see in it's users a troubling insecurity with regards to queerness. If it were a forum of white people talking about nothing but people of colour in the most effusive terms, would we take this at face value or would we assign sinister motives (as the resonance of Get Out suggests many would)?

Yep, Spanna has started absolutely loads.

I'd be quite interested to see a breakdown of categories of 'trans' posts in FWR. You've got the 'Dropped in links: Discuss!' ones, the 'I am here to educate you!' ones, the 'Why can't you just be nice!' ones, and that's before you actually get to the women who post here with links, articles and questions about the impact that Genderist trans issues have on women's rights and protections and the children being affected too.

But if it doesn't, would you reconsider, in the light of this hypothetical, my point that the volume of trans threads on this board suggests a kind of transphobia.

No, because the topic is discussed because it is relevant to women, not because posters are transphobic. I realise that you are oblivious to how proposed changes in the U.K. affect women and are already affecting women, so it is difficult for you to comprehend this.

It also suggests that

1). This is a current issue.

2). As explained (although you ignored the post) it is difficult to discuss this issue elsewhere, so I think posters who haven’t used MN before use this board to discuss this subject.

3). People open up multiple threads on this topic. Other long running threads on MN stick to one thread until it is full and then move onto the next.

4). Discussions on this topic are posted on or moved to this board. In contrast people post about a variety of topics on AIBU.

I get the impression that you don’t know much about how MN is used and are only here because you have heard that it is ‘transphobic’.

Definition of transphobia in use by the OP appears to include 'the desire to discuss issues that affect the people concerned'.

Amirite?

@NicolaHare are you in the UK? I don’t really care where you are but your ignorance of current affairs in the UK suggests that your not. We didn’t all think up a new and interesting topic out of nowhere and decide to make it the buzz conversation. We were asked to submit our answers to a consultation that involves having views on transgender issues. Most of us have absolutely no daily experience of transgender people so we came on line to educate ourselves before submitting our opinion on the consultation.
I have almost no ongoing interest in transgender people and would happily bow out of the ongoing discussions. However some issues did come to my attention as I was doing my research and I now do understand that my input as a woman who is bolshy, argumentative and not easily intimidated is needed.
I don’t care how many people tell me to STFU and go back to my knitting. I won’t do that. Your posts have been obtuse, wordy, supercilious and frankly repetitively boring. But they have helped keep the conversation active. Every little helps with getting the feminist view point out there, calmly and reasonably. You won’t be missed though.

The 144 pages of trans threads since January is verifiable too.

Must've taken a while to count them. Quite feminist-phobic of you.

You verify whatever you like. I'll talk about whatever I like, sans your supervision.

There we go.

Thread over. And thank fuck for that.

Dropped in links: Discuss

Remember when they were just from MRAs!

I am looking forward to OP's forthcoming adventures at Kiwi Farms. Plenty of threads to count over there. I shall be reading with interest the reaction OP gets from an audience of mostly men.

Because of course, OP will obviously be intending to white knight perceived transphobia wherever it manifests, right? OP wouldn't only be interested in attempting to police women, right?

Otherwise, we might suspect that the OP knows exactly what a woman is and where to find one.

Betty! 😂😂😂

I don't bother arguing about evolution with fundamental Christians,

I did that once and made her cry.

The lesson from that is don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

Betty I thought that was going to be Bananarama!

But if it doesn't, would you reconsider, in the light of this hypothetical, my point that the volume of trans threads on this board suggests a kind of transphobia.

No. It suggests an issue women are deeply concerned about.

Take a look at another thread in here - about recent guidance changing who can intimately search women during stop and search. Right now it’s ‘a woman.’ Stonewall seem to be getting it changed to ‘anyone who says they are.’

So two questions for you nicola

1. Why is current guidance that women should be searched by women only? What’s the rationale for that?
2. Do you think it’s ok for that to be ignored simply because a bloke says he’s a woman? If so, can you please provide a clear line of reasoning of how it’s A Bad Thing for a man to intimately search s woman but A Good Thing if that same man identifies as a woman?

Just a nice logical line of reasoning of why it’s forbidden for Bob to search the detainee but if he says he’s a girl tomorrow it’s all fine.

I await your clear, logical explanation

OP, would you perhaps consider that your assumption that all those threads are posted by GC feminists, and you referring to the discussions on FWR about the rights of women as a 'project', is indicitive of a kind of misogyny?

I am looking forward to OP's forthcoming adventures at Kiwi Farms. Plenty of threads to count over there. I shall be reading with interest the reaction OP gets from an audience of mostly men.

Isn't it fascinating how none of the mumsnet bashers, 'transphobia!' shouters and re-educaters ever say even a peep about Kiwi Farms?

God, I'd love to see what would happen, if we managed to mirror some trans-related Kiwi Farm thread on here, making it look like it was an authentic mumsnet one.

My bet is on West Yorkshire Police storming Mumsnet Headquarters, stun grenades and all...

and you referring to the discussions on FWR about the rights of women as a 'project', is indicitive of a kind of misogyny?

It is unabashed misogyny and deeply ironic given Nicola and the likes can't get their project of drawing up an alternative definition of 'woman', one that fits their agenda, done.

Anyway, OP, I actually quite like a bit of Pomo waffle (I even have a degree from the university of Pomoville, aka Goldsmiths) but I’m lucky to be old enough to have studied at a time when Queer Theory was just an annoying nipper and we still had actual Womens’ Studies and proper feminist lecturers.

It seems to me that your critical theory library only dates back as far as the millennium, so I suppose it might be genuinely bewildering to you as to why our Feminism is so absolute on the ‘no cocks in our shower blocks’ rule.

So here’s an enjoyable doc on second wave Feminism in the U.K. (aka actual Feminism, as in, for the liberation of women from patriarchy, without any of that choosy-choice-empowerment, instagram-in-your-underwear girl-power clap trap):

And here is Sheila Jeffreys explaining exactly why the no-cocks rule still applies, even if the cock is wearing a dress and insisting that it identifies as a vulva:

I look forward to OPs report on how Project Force Kiwi Farms To Self-Examine goes. If she asks nicely I might even offer her some tissues when she gets back.

Oo, you bunch of vipers. I've actually quite enjoyed the opportunity to explain the basic feminist anti-genderist thinking and have a challenger actually appear to briefly get it... before spinning off into 'Yes, but can't you admit this is motivated by transphobia?' which rather spoiled the sense of progress.

I am clearly having a mellow moment before PMT kicks in.

Betty Prisoner! What a classic

What floral and pancake said

Ive honestly no idea what transphobia is anymore, used to think it was like homophobia but it doesnt seem to be

And you still haven't said what you have the issue with

There have been plopper threads, threads to have a go at GC feminists and its not all trans threads (fucking obviously)

So which ones do you mean

Haven't RTFT nor even the whole of the first page- so apologies if the point has been made re the massive focus on the impact of trans issues on womens' rights and fewer threads on every other feminist issue put together:
If MN had existed 100 odd years ago, I think people would be asking "Why are you banging on and on and on about getting the vote? Every thread is about getting the vote. Loads of us don't even want or need the vote!!"

nicola this is basically your thread
janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

(There's another thread about it on fwr if people have missed it)

So, Nicola, could you let us know when you try this snotty dressing down thought experiment over at Kiwi Farms?

Isn't it fascinating how none of the mumsnet bashers, 'transphobia!' shouters and re-educaters ever say even a peep about Kiwi Farms?

They don't go after kiwi farms because their denizens BITE. And are relentless in their pursuit of anyone they go after.

They go for MN because a. they know the chances of being latched onto as a ‘lolcow’ with all the potential consequences forbthem are non existent. And b. Women talking without men needs to be stopped. At all costs.