This is why mumsnet is considered transphobic

[gingerginger2]

Syntax

jayhulme.com/blog/warinwords

What a twisted web we weave, when once we practice to deceive.
Tru dat

Dictionary definitions are transphobic. Medicine is transphobic. Anything apart from total obedience to the ideology is transphobic. Of course Mumsnet is considered transphobic.

The term has been so overused that it's meaningless.

That entire article can be summed up with the words "They tell the simple truth and we don't like that". I'm not even trying to be dismissive. That's exactly what the writer is saying and he doesn't even realise.

I've noticed that a lot of these young poetry types affect a John Hegley style of speaking. Do they not realise he was taking the piss?

OMG! So true! How have I never noticed this?!

”The thing is, transphobes work with words. They understand the power of definition and expression, and try to destroy and twist language to their own aims."

The power of definition! When you ask someone over and over to define something and they can’t and their entire argument is laid bare as nonsensical.

Twisting language? Nope. We’re using it.

And how eye rolly is it to see over and over that we’re defining them out of existence?

Stop using inappropriate words to define yourself and we’ll stop pointing out your transgression.

Pick some words of your own and use them consistently and maybe, given time, you will both exist AND have words to define yourselves that others understand, agree with and use.

“Lesbians are women”

“Men shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces”

“We need single-sex changing rooms”

“Women are female”

These are examples of why women are transphobic? There is nothing ambiguous about any of those statements. They are rational, reasonable, and easily defined.

And, more importantly, none of them reference trans people at all. If you, (generally) as a person, find those statements problematic because of who you are, it is you who is imposing on rights, women and the very definition of language. Talk about projection!

If the author of this article wants to come on here and explain the meaning of the words lesbian, woman, man, trans and gender in a way that has even a smidgen of logical consistency, then let's have it.

But then you have the most dangerous of all, THE MISSING SPACE.

Maybe you'll fall down the space never to be seen again?

Maybe that's why they saying we are literally erasing them?

Ooo maybe I should go look in the space for all those missing unicorns?¿!

Once you notice it, it's really annoying Lang. I can only apologise

IMO Twitter works well in general for poor arguments and mantras because the character count means there isn't always the space to make a compelling argument / counter argument, poor orators don't have the space to put their complete foot in mouth (as here), and short responses are generally best for snark or sarcasm.

That's why MN terrifies most TRAs.

Once you notice it, it's really annoying Lang. I can only apologise

A trouble shared is a trouble halved doubled!

Okay, I'll play.

In their circles, sex exclusively refers to someones biological sex, and gender is ridiculed as an indefinable concept as vague and - it is implied - as unscientific, as souls (a suggestion that trans people are not and cannot be real. That we are either liars, or deluded). In a world where “sex” and “gender” are used interchangeably by the general public, they use this general ignorance to drum up support for their cause.

The concept of gender IS vague and unscientific, as it is based on societal (more often than not, sexist) stereotypes which vary from culture to culture and can change over time. Not obeying societal expectations of gender in choices of clothing, hobbies, name and presentation can be difficult in a sexist and conformist society, but it doesn't magically turn a male (small gamete producer) into a female (large gamete producer).

In Jay's mind, what exactly IS gender dysphoria? Is it a distressing condition causing sufferers to unfailingly attempt suicide unless they permanently alter their healthy sexed body to relieve it? Or is it a normal state of mind? Why does one person have gender dysphoria and another does not? How does it come about, and why should we not investigate possible environmental causes of it, seeing as it we are told it requires significant pharmaceutical and surgical interventions and social engineering to manage? Why should we take the subjective feelings of the sufferer as empirical truth? By that logic, we should be affirming the beliefs of anorexics that they should lose more weight and paranoid schizophrenics that the voices are real.

By the Goddess, this guy is a fucking numpty.

Yup! Pure projection!

Trans woman is a big no no as it’s othering them...yet ciswoman is a yes yes despite its othering them!

That is as clear as muck really isn’t it

The “protect” is important, it again lies heavy with the implication that they are standing up for the status quo against some undefined danger.

It's not an "undefined" danger it's the very well defined and documented statistical danger that male-bodied people aka men pose to women.

another wee male gobshite who doesn’t like women then?

Jay Hulme is transgender. He has actually won quite a few awards for his poetry, despite being in his early 20s.

I think technically the word transwoman (no space) predated trans woman. The space was inserted more recently to emphasise the woman part so I think he is wrong to assume the lack of a space is always deliberate.

I agree with gingerginger2 that it is important to understand debates about language. For instance the tipping point at which language is defined as transphobic seems to be much lower for other types of discrimination.

I am not saying I agree with the article. I don’t. I do worry how we will ever reach a resolution though.

People who work to undermine the definitions used in the equality legislation that protects them are sawing off the tree branch that they sit on.

OTT but thank you for the John Hegley reference, whose poetry I do not know but which reminded me of that poetry collection I bought for my soon-to-be-married niece called Poems for married people which I just googled to see if it was by Hegley (it's by John Kenney) and which led me to this delightful poem by Billy Collins.

So thank you for that.

P.S. I kept the poetry collection, it's definitely not for newlyweds. Needs about a decade at least to understand the wry humour I think. Preferably two.

Oh, I LOVE that article. Everyone should read it. He lays out sex vs gender, some of what women want protecting and that transwomen are male.

Then he goes on a big rant about transphobic meanies as if the reader OBVIOUSLY believes that TW are literally women. Ha ha ha. Only those who have glugged a lot of Kool Aid will be on board with that!

Then he helpfully gives a list of terms to pop into a search engine to find other people who are transphobic/TERF/gender critical.

Beautiful example of having no clue of people outside your tiny wokochamber.

I simply cannot believe someone could call themselves a writer and commit that drivel to paper.
By the way we're being watched

FFS
OT not OTT
For off topic. Should have just spelled it out.

It’s like stumbling into an entirely different culture and causing hideous offence for having uncovered shoulders

Plus in that culture, by shoulders, they mean elbows and shoulders, but we should never mention elbows.

Transphobes obsessively police the divide between “sex” and “gender” - In their circles, sex exclusively refers to someones biological sex, and gender is ridiculed as an indefinable concept

Feminists originally separated the concepts of sex and gender back in the seventies. Sex means the physical reality, gender means the social constructs associated with that physical reality. Gender as an innate feeling is something invented by TRAs (although conservatives have probably always thought that women think like women and men like men).

They will often use made up jargon such as “TiM” or “TiF”

All language is 'made up' and then generally agreed by speakers - as TRAs themselves often point out.

Some go further, and use it as a way to refuse trans people’s humanity. People, they say, are Men and Women. Transmen and Transwomen do not fit into it. It is an attempt to define us out of existence. It is a form of othering, used to remove any empathy towards trans people.

No, a transwoman is a subtype of man. No one is being defined out of existence.

They state, without explaining why, that “Cis is a slur”.

Using 'cis' means accepting that 'women' can be female (cis) or male (trans). It also implies that any woman who isn't 'trans' is signed up to social stereotypes associated with womanhood.

If you are “concerned” about trans people doing nothing more than existing in the same spaces as you or your children

Men, not trans people. And only some men, but how do we know which?

Years ago, transphobes claimed they were not transphobes, but TERFs. Then the general public came to realise TERFs were transphobic, so they called themselves Gender Critical.

Nobody ever called themselves 'TERFs'. It's always been an insult.

I am not saying I agree with the article. I don’t. I do worry how we will ever reach a resolution though.

I know what you mean. How can a civilized resolution be achieved if the approach of transactivists is to view very anaemic, basic statements like those mentioned in the article as suspicious, venomous manipulation?

I still believe that progress is made by rational engagement, and all that is really needed is determination and patience, but you read an article like this which can essentially be summed up as "These women are using reasonable language, and refuse to comply. This makes them untrustworthy bigots", you do find yourself wondering if rational thought is disappearing entirely.

Helen/Mimmymum spends so much time monitoring MN it’s a wonder she has time to waste taking people to court for no good reason.

This is striking I think:

'The “protect” is important, it again lies heavy with the implication that they are standing up for the status quo against some undefined danger.'

Almost as GC feminists haven't delineated precisely what is at stake and made the case with endless data and statistics and testimony...