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)?

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.

I want that from men too.

Look, to you I'm a score of posts on an internet forum, mostly made over a couple of days. You can infer a few things about me from the links I posted, and that I've spent a bit of time looking at this forum - not very much I assure you, it's the work of about an hour to look at MNWR, wonder "what did this place look like before all they talked about was trans people", and scoot through the archives 5-10 pages at a time, and notice some very obvious patterns.

You only see a fraction of my life. I can see only a fraction of yours. The internet accelerates the processes through which we dehumanise each other. What has been created on this forum is a window to an issue that distorts the facts and realities. This forum is a lens for interpreting trans lives and the implications of trans existence, constructed of a dominant viewpoint of total scepticism and an obsessive cataloguing (by the collective) of bad news stories (though this does not mean that everyone contributing to it is obsessive).

I want that from men too.

Off you go to Kiwi Farms then.

Because we've all expended quite enough labour on you now.

This forum is a lens for interpreting trans lives and the implications of trans existence

No. It is not. It is FWR, a forum for discussing women's rights, and the reason (I'm sure I might have mentioned) trans lives are mentioned here is because the way they are being used to shoehorn destructive wedges into women's rights.

This forum is a lens for interpreting trans lives and the implications of trans existence constructed of a dominant viewpoint of total scepticism and an obsessive cataloguing (by the collective) of bad news stories (though this does not mean that everyone contributing to it is obsessive).

No, it is about the effect of trans ideology, specifically the GRA on women and children which should come as no surprise because this is a site called MUMSNET. On the other hand I can see that it’s easy to miss the whole ‘woman’ thing if you put a great deal of effort into pretending they don’t exist.

What has been created on this forum is a window to an issue that distorts the facts and realities

No it doesn't. The women here have spent an inordinate amount of time researching how the trans ideology is impacting women's rights.

None of it is a distortion.

But you know what you've got? A 'feeling'. When that feeling is held up to the light, it's based on nothing. And now you know it. And you don't know what to do with your feeling. Because your feeling is prejudice.

I've spent a bit of time looking at this forum - not very much I assure you, it's the work of about an hour to look at MNWR, wonder "what did this place look like before all they talked about was trans people", and scoot through the archives 5-10 pages at a time, and notice some very obvious patterns.

This is possibly one of the most unpleasant and revealing things for a 'lecturing' poster to say. You haven't spent much time here, you've not bothered to read anything, and you thought you could post your cod intellectual critique in AIBU about how horrid we are and not deal with any pushback because you didn't expect FWR to read it.

I'm not even sure you have enough self awareness to see how mendacious, devious and slapdash you have shown yourself to be, tbh.

What are you prattling on about now?

Its dead simple.

Militant trans ideology does not consider the feels or rights of others. It puts trans rights ABOVE other rights, rather than considering the institutional frameworks that exist to protect the most vulnerable in society on an individual case by case basis. Instead it seeks to intimidate and crush anyone who points out cases where a trans person isn't the most vulnerable person in certain situations and that needs must be balanced.

Thats the fucking problem.

It doesn't require an essay written by Pompous McPompousface to discuss this, nor make this a legitimate argument.

Its actually pretty straightforward.

You are deliberately and consciously trying to suggest its not and shut down anyone saying this with your spectactular tone deafness.

It is no distortion that TRAs try to erase the meaning of the term ‚woman‘ by making it undefinable, just as it is no distortion that you do the same. Self reflection my ass.

This forum is a lens for interpreting trans lives and the implications of trans existence

Err ... no.

It’s Feminism and Women’s Rights.

Trans people are discussed because of changes in legislation to erode Women’s Rights. Rights to single sex places, to single sex awards and shortlists and organisations and sports.

Trans people exist and always have done. No one is ‘debating their existence’ (no matter how often trans rights campaigners make this claim it still isn’t true).

The intersection between trans specific rights and female sexual specific rights is under the spotlight. That’s why we’re talking about trans people - in relationship to women’s rights.

Women’s. Rights.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been pointed out, but it's not MWR, it's FWR.

This matters because MWR is Million Women Rise, the march against MVAWG that is organised in London and elsewhere every March, primarily by women of colour, and which I have habitually attended with many fellow MN FWR posters.

Please don't erase MWR by misusing the abbreviation for something else.

This forum is a lens for interpreting trans lives and the implications of trans existence

Ok for the three thousandth time - someone disagreeing with you doesn’t invalidate your existence. if you think it does, I suggest you seek help - such literal thinking plus a fragile sense of self is characteristic of several disorders.

If you’re using ‘LITERALLY DENYING WE EXIST WAAAHHH’ as a rhetorical device then stop. Just stop. It’s a crap one. It’s the same as the suicide stats. It’s abusive. It’s validate me or I will kill myself. It’s the same stuff that countless women in here have had to put up with for years *your disagreement or meander to me is violent and I shall retaliate with actual violence.’ So stop with that too.

And this is a feminist forum. feminism centres women. Not men. We are only talking about the trans thing because it affects us as women. believe me, it’s tedious as hell and we’d rather not be dealing with it.

But while it affects us, we will continue to talk about it. As much as we like, as often as we like, to however many women we can.

female sexual specific rights = female sex specific rights.

Or to put it another way, you will justify or turn a blind eye to ANYTHING in the name of trans activism and your moral righteous purity.

Thats dangerous.

Or meander? I meant refusal to pander.

Damn autocorrect...

Anyway, it’s all the same stuff - shut up/your words are justification for my violence/you made me do it.... blah blah.

No. Enough. We are going to talk about this. And talk and talk and talk. Sunlight is the best disinfectant

NicolaHare When you challenged mens forums about their transphobia, how did they respond to you?

janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

This needs to be reposted at this point in the thread.

Nothing else need be said. It says it ALL.

You can infer a few things about me from the links I posted, and that I've spent a bit of time looking at this forum - not very much I assure you

So...why DID you?
Why ARE you so fixated on what a bunch of women think?
Why ARE you trying to control their words?
What is in it for you to shut women up?

I would love a link to the posts you made on men’s forums please nicola.

Floral, to narcissists, the denial of validation of their false identity by others is actually an existential threat. They basically demand of others to manage their identity. The choice of phrases by TRAs reveals so much...

Why ARE you trying to control their words?
What is in it for you to shut women up?

I think that is the point of the posts and I’m sceptical that the OP cares about trans people.

"what did this place look like before all they talked about was trans people".

Like this but with MRAs more likely to admit that they were male.

and that I've spent a bit of time looking at this forum - not very much I assure you, it's the work of about an hour to look at MNWR,

So not that fascinated, interested or invested in the dynamics of online spaces then?

wonder "what did this place look like before all they talked about was trans people",

Dress it up in whatever word salad you like but here in all its glory is the real agenda for your post.

The internet accelerates the processes through which we dehumanise each other.

You mean by removing and/or changing the language we use to describe ourselves and our bodily functions? You mean by attempting to shut down all and any discussion if the views do not match yours and to do so by the use of threatening, violent, abusive aggressive language, threats to doxx, target employers of those who don't fall into line, businesses who advertise with websites who host discussions - that the sort of things you mean?

What has been created on this forum is a window to an issue that distorts the facts and realities.

Show me proof for this statement, please.

This forum is a lens for interpreting trans lives and the implications of trans existence,

That's just unmitigated nonsense, OP. This is a Feminism Forum. Feminism is for women and girls, it is a lens through which we interpret women and girls lives and implications on women and girls existence.

constructed of a dominant viewpoint of total scepticism and an obsessive cataloguing (by the collective) of bad news stories (though this does not mean that everyone contributing to it is obsessive).

No, this is an area where we gather information. We find evidence and proof to refute the oft chanted mantras that: "changes to legislation will have no effect on the rights of women and girls" and "those things you are scaremongering about will never happen". The best way to defeat an inherently dangerous ideology is to have facts and evidence, which we do.

But we are not text. We live in a material reality in which political struggle is a fight over how real, material assets are allocated.

Quite terrifying that this is entirely beyond OP's comprehension, is it not?