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)?

I dunno what kiwifarms is but it sounds well scary. Be careful over there OP.
I'm still gobsmacked over "Lady Macbeth was played by a boy, sooo..."
I also wonder if actual history is taught in schools anymore? As in, are kids being taught anything about the restrictions women have faced?
My mum mentioned the other day how her aunt who was single was never able to buy her own house (even though she had a decent job) and had to live as a lodger because no bank would give her a mortgage.That's in the 1950s!
Boys played Lady Macbeth because women weren't allowed to BY LAW , not because they were trying to subvert gender!
How can you be so thick while sounding so intellectual?

It would be a very interesting comparison to see how often and in what terms Kiwi Farms discuss the subject of Trans and its' effects. I am certain that someone so intellectually qualified as Nicola is would be only too willing and eager to conduct the research. I will await with bated breath their findings. Oh and don't forget or be afraid to call out any of Kiwi Farms users transphobia as and when you see it Nicola I am sure they will be only too delighted to be re-educated by you.

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

YY I posted it upthread last night and OP didn't engage with it then either, despite my direct invitation for her to do so!

Well, to be fair to OP, they probably didn't understand a lot of the references, given that they have a surface level understanding of the issues in play here and had seemingly never come across the idea that feminists don't agree with the concept of 'Gender'.

I know Nicola is likely at work or something right now, so I'm not going to be prissy about current lack of engagement, but I am hoping that she comes back and answers some of what has been put to her here. It's frustrating being misunderstood and misrepresented, but sometimes it is possible to have a proper conversation.

Don’t know if this was picked up on before, but

Lady McBeth 😂😂😂

Love it!

And that’s all I can be arsed with in the way of a response to YET ANOTHER misogynist person coming on here to lecture at and “educate” us incorrigible “transphobes”. With obviously no intention of EVER listening to or learning from us.

No, NicolaHare, I am not interested in anything you have to say, any more than you are interested in what I and other women here have to say. The total lack of respect is entirely mutual, rest assured.

But “Lady McBeth”, that did at least give me a chuckle! Well done.

Those stats though! About the increase in traffic on MN in general, and particularly the huge uptick in those entering via FWR. Immensely heartening! How wonderful to have that kind of proof of how much this issue means to so many women.

Thanks for that, OP. I wasn’t aware till now.

Last time I followed a Kiwi Farms link it went to a Jonathan Yaniv thread - the main theme of the comments was (paraphrasing) ‘oh, turns out the t*rfs were right, TW ARE all a bunch of nonces’

Lady McBeth

Priceless!

I advise the OP to watch both series of BBC2's 'Upstart Crow' for a bit of an education on women in Shakespeare's time.

They had absolutely oodles of cis privilege back then, didn’t they, VickyEadie? Satrurated in it, as the good doctor would say.

Oh and apologies to PrawnofthePatriarchy, it was of course you who furnished those excellent statistics, not the OP. Thank you!

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.

You say this almost approvingly.

There has been a lot of writing and internet anthropology around reactionary incubators for young men - 4chan, 8chan, Reddit, sceptic youtube, ect, maybe less so for KF but as a community it's in the same ballpark - and their associated sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other prejudices.

They are awful sites. Far worse than this, absolutely. But, so what. Other people are doing worse isn't a get out of criticism free card.

Oh, you're back. Plenty of substantive questions to address. I'll give you a minute or two. Unless you want to persist with the fingerwagging, which would be a bit disappointing. But I'm a Doctor Who fan, I'm used to disappointment, so I'll live.

You’re missing the point, nicola

the point is not who is behaving better or worse. the point is that you’re not looking for men to behave better/Stfu (delete as preferred), you want that from women. You don’t scold male doninated fora, you go to a female dominated one.

Why is that?

You are missing the point Nicola. The - psychologically intriguing - question is why you chose mumsnet of all places. It can hardly been any affinity to feminism on your part, given you apparently don't know the basics. So, what was your motivtion? Why mumsnet. With your penchant for preaching self reflection, and considering that it won't involve defining words, you surely can answer that one?

Crosspost, Sophocles.

You really need to work on your comprehension skills, NicolaHare, no-one is saying other people are doing worse as a get out of criticism card what we are saying is why are those forums and their users not subject to the same level of target and attempts at censure as Mumsnet is? It couldn't possibly be that Mumsnet and its' users are seen as a soft target due to the demographic of the site now could it?

Furthermore, you stated in your opening post that you find the dynamics of online spaces fascinating yet the only dynamics of online space(s) you appear to have looked at and collected statistics on is MN, hardly a broad sweep is it and certainly not an exercise in comparison? Once again, why did you single out MN?

The cynic in me knows the answers to those questions and that they expose your true agenda but the cynic in me also knows that you will never own up, answer truthfully or acknowledge it.

So now you have four posts in response to yours asking the same question, any chance you could furnish us with an honest response - try to keep it simple and straightforward the answer does not require reams of faux intellectual word salad.

Far worse than this, absolutely.

For the love of God, go and bore them shitless about their failings then.

But you won't, will you? You know why not. We know why not.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW FINE WELL EXACTLY WHAT A WOMAN IS.

And who to leverage female socialisation against.

There has been a lot of writing and internet anthropology around reactionary incubators for young men - 4chan, 8chan, Reddit, sceptic youtube, ect, maybe less so for KF but as a community it's in the same ballpark - and their associated sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other prejudices

Interestingly, none of your research into these forums. Being that your initial opener was your 'fascination' with the 'dynamics' of online spaces, I find your sweeping generalisations disappointing. Please link to your research on any other online spaces that you have completed in which to compare methodologies. I do believe I've already requested this information at least once before.

Other people are doing worse isn't a get out of criticism free card.

Who are you critiscising and for what? Mumsnet isn’t a hive mind.

Again, there is nothing transphobic about defining biological women. For one thing it is necessary for medical purposes.

Again, you don't appear to be aware of the current situation in the UK, but I still can’t understand why you are surprised that people using a site called ‘mumsnet’ are worried about losing the ability to define the sex that grows humans in their bodies.

You can tell me about all the women who don’t have children, but 80% of women in the UK born in 1971 have had children. Of those that haven’t many will have undergone years of failed fertility treatment, for women, and others will have relied on contraception, for women. Some will be now facing the fact that their fertile years are over, because they are female. Being female is not some abstract identity that you can choose.

On the other hand nobody is trying to own ‘femininity’. Everyone is welcome to high heels, make up and looking after people. Just don’t assume that any of us ‘identify’ with it because of our Fallopian tubes.

Clearly people with gender dysphoria need to be able to participate in society. However I don’t think any of your arguments help anyone to do that.

Counting the numbers of threads made about a subject is not a criticism. Its an observation.
Its impossible to extrapolate any useful information about quality from data listing quantity.

The - psychologically intriguing - question is why you chose mumsnet of all places.

Well yes, it is a bit like starting your ‘fight against fascism’ with the local Conservative lunch club.

Upstart and as pointed out before, it becomes completely arbitrary when you don‘t curate the data for threads started by TRA trolls.

Nicola, who appointed you the moral guardian of the internet?

As other have said, many of us here find trans ideology deeply offensive in its homophobia, agism, classism, sexism, racism, elitest, lack of cultural sensitivity.

The response to that is simply to brush off concerns or anger by stating its transphobic to have ANY negative thoughts (never mind words) that do not treat trans people as infalable saintly beings who have never or will never do anything remotely questionable.

Every definition of transphobia you will see is contradictory crap, which doesn't escape its own absurdity.

Just the other day I saw this thread:
twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1062367921392009218
In which by its own definition of transphobia, the police definition of transphobia, is err.... transphobic.

I'm sorry, but your arrogance, in assuming the role of self appointed moral superiority is offensive.

People here mostly wish to engage and talk in good faith - unlike other places on the internet which just wish to offend. These are people who have long term committments to inclusivity, human right and promoting equality. You might like to seriously consider the difference, cos it matters, before shitting all people and burning important relationships.