That inviting armed men into women’s spaces to ‘defend’ us is a batshit idea

[RealityNotEssentialism]

The TRAs are jubilant because a person who is neither GC nor a feminist yet is constantly associated with these things has put up a lovely little video (since deleted) where she implores men who carry guns to start using women’s toilets to protect women from transwomen. I don’t even know where to start.

I know I will be shouted down because this person can do nothing wrong in so many peoples eyes, no matter what horrible stuff she comes out with. But this stuff basically pisses on all the hard work done to try to convince politicians and policy makers that this is a legitimate and important cause that is not based on hatred or violence.

You might not care about someone taking an anti-feminist stance but I do. She was making an appeal to toxic masculinity and to those who see women as their property to "protect".

She was making an appeal to toxic masculinity and to those who see women as their property to "protect".

That's how you interpreted it. My interpretation (as I've already said) is that she was suggesting that men should do Man Friday type stunts (by 'identifying as women') to show how ridiculous a policy of self ID is.

But as I said in my earlier post, I think this could be counterproductive because it is likely to cause distress to women.

YAAAAWWWWN. Please don't feed the goady fucker.

Isn't it funny that I read Lisz' post completely opposite to how Lisz meant it. Biden and Sturgeon. Let's see what their legacy is, shall we?

Might just be me, but I find it highly hypocritical that someone who takes every opportunity to shit on PP for her associations is basing this latest witch-hunt on information provided by a TRA.

From where I stand PP’s approach has brought this issue into the mainstream with a bang, which can only be a good thing, and she is unflinchingly out to support women and girls.

Or do we just say "Fuck off you disingenuous twits, that's not what was meant by that?" and move on?

Yup.

The idea that all women have to carefully toe the line, never say anything extreme or outrageous or off-the-cuff, in case the men in charge think we’re hysterical or dangerous is a ship already sailed.

If men thought women were fully human, we wouldn’t have to constantly check ourselves, (of course not all men/trans”women”). The idea that we must be always so careful to be reasonable and well-behaved and have our paperwork in order is just another version of be “good dear girl, and let who will be clever”.

All the while the TRAs get to be as aggressive and batshit crazy as ever they please, because they’re held to a different standard. (What standard you ask? Well, a different one is all I can say).

I didn’t listen to Posie because I find live-streams annoying, but the idea that one women, making a comment, details an entire movement, is playing directly into the idea that if women aren’t nice, nobody will pay attention. And that there's no women as individual humans, but only woman as little box marked “Nice. Kind. Complaisant. Passive. Quiet. Supportive.” we all have to squeeze into.

eresh

Isn’t Lisz’s goady fucker the cursed one on twitter? That is how I read it. But I really could be wrong too 😃

I am constantly amazed and thankful for Posie’s energy and commitment to keep going on this.

Isn’t Lisz’s goady fucker the cursed one on twitter?

No, I think Lisz would support the likes of Cursed.

Applauds DancelikeEmmaGoldman

@DancelikeEmmaGoldman

Or do we just say "Fuck off you disingenuous twits, that's not what was meant by that?" and move on?

Yup.

The idea that all women have to carefully toe the line, never say anything extreme or outrageous or off-the-cuff, in case the men in charge think we’re hysterical or dangerous is a ship already sailed.

If men thought women were fully human, we wouldn’t have to constantly check ourselves, (of course not all men/trans”women”). The idea that we must be always so careful to be reasonable and well-behaved and have our paperwork in order is just another version of be “good dear girl, and let who will be clever”.

All the while the TRAs get to be as aggressive and batshit crazy as ever they please, because they’re held to a different standard. (What standard you ask? Well, a different one is all I can say).

I didn’t listen to Posie because I find live-streams annoying, but the idea that one women, making a comment, details an entire movement, is playing directly into the idea that if women aren’t nice, nobody will pay attention. And that there's no women as individual humans, but only woman as little box marked “Nice. Kind. Complaisant. Passive. Quiet. Supportive.” we all have to squeeze into.

This

Imnobody4

I really hope she apologises. It's the only way to go.

I’m guessing you’ve not seen what happens when someone apologises.

I really hope she apologises. It's the only way to go.

She has no need to apologise. She is allowed her opinion, just like anyone else. She certainly does not need to walk the apology plank.

I disagree. I think that, if you're going to talk off the cuff like Posie does, then it's wise to hold up your hands when you get it wrong, not to appease your enemies - it won't - but simply because sometimes it's the right thing to do.

But to my mind, Ruth Serwotka comes out of this looking worse. Using CursedE as your source is embarrassing enough, but telling women they can't be feminist unless they share your politics, and talking down to Maya Forstater - well that just makes you look like a nob.

Except she did.

I think this is potentially a very undermining statement.

It gives oxygen to the idea that it is only trans women that we do not want in our spaces. That somehow there is an “ok” sort of man to have in our spaces - a protector, a family man...a good sort.

That undermines the whole argument - it makes it not about our safety, but about trans people specifically being excluded.

It’s not even a leap from there to a narrative that women don’t want self ID because they are transphobic.

I’ve watched the whole stream, and I’m struggling to see the analysis that “it was sarcasm”. Maybe it was - I’m not in Posie’s head - but it has given weight to the notion that Posie and “her movement” are transphobic and also that they have some grimly regressive ideas about gender roles.

Thanks for all comments. I’d muted the thread. I had guessed that the majority would be supportive and not care, as has been the case all the other times PP has said similar stuff or worked with right-wingers. 🤷‍♀️

You might think that she wins the public over but I think she caters to a specific section of the public, definitely not everyone. Also, it’s not about ‘the public’. To achieve law reform and to avoid laws being changed to damage women, you need politicians and policy makers on board. For that, you need to show that this is not based on violence or hatred of trans people. PP sets that back hugely, in the same way that someone like Tommy Robinson does because she courts controversy. I know she doesn’t claim to be GC or feminist but she is somehow still associated with the movement.

Okay, will probably mute again now. Although it seems I am in a minority, I am pleased to see a few that share my concerns.

@SmileEachDay

I think this is potentially a very undermining statement.

It gives oxygen to the idea that it is only trans women that we do not want in our spaces. That somehow there is an “ok” sort of man to have in our spaces - a protector, a family man...a good sort.

That undermines the whole argument - it makes it not about our safety, but about trans people specifically being excluded.

It’s not even a leap from there to a narrative that women don’t want self ID because they are transphobic.

I’ve watched the whole stream, and I’m struggling to see the analysis that “it was sarcasm”. Maybe it was - I’m not in Posie’s head - but it has given weight to the notion that Posie and “her movement” are transphobic and also that they have some grimly regressive ideas about gender roles.

Yes, I agree with all of this

It gives oxygen to the idea that it is only trans women that we do not want in our spaces. That somehow there is an “ok” sort of man to have in our spaces - a protector, a family man...a good sort.

How? What she says is this:
"I think you should start using women's toilets. Because you have every reason to self identify ... it's about time you started using women's toilets and saying that you identify as a woman, if stopped ... that's one of the many ways that you are going to have to combat the insanity of self-ID"

I'm assuming that the transcript in this image is accurate as I haven't managed to view the whole video. If it is, it's quite clear that she's suggesting that men should start doing Man Friday type stunts, but because of the reasons I mentioned in my post yesterday, this was discussed and rejected as a strategy on here when Man Friday started up.

She's not saying it's OK for men to go into women's toilets to 'protect us'. She's trying to show up the insanity of self-ID. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'm not sure what the point is of starting a thread and then muting it op? Or why, having come back to it, you feel you have to mute it again? From what I can see, it's a broad discussion with a range of views and quite a bit of disagreement so I don't see the need to present yourself as some kind of beleaguered minority.

She's not saying it's OK for men to go into women's toilets to 'protect us'. She's trying to show up the insanity of self-ID. Why is this so hard to understand

I agree with this.

I’d muted the thread. I had guessed that the majority would be supportive

So you muted your own thread when you discovered that some people had different opinions from you?

In your OP you said that she implores men who carry guns to start using women’s toilets to protect women from transwomen. This appears to be incorrect from the two-paragraph transcript I've seen, so you shouldn't be that surprised when people disagree with you.

I'm assuming that the transcript in this image is accurate as I haven't managed to view the whole video. If it is, it's quite clear that she's suggesting that men should start doing Man Friday type stunts, but because of the reasons I mentioned in my post yesterday, this was discussed and rejected as a strategy on here when Man Friday started up.

Yes. It's not a strategy I agree with for many reasons in the case of female single sex spaces, but I can see why other people think it would force extra sunlight on this issue.

I've been on mumsnet a long time now.

I never agreed with Posie on everything when she was on MN. That was normal; you robustly disagreed with a poster on one thread, and agreed with them on another. I don't expect there is a single poster on MN with whom I couldn't argue.

So why is it that now PP has a livestream channel, I (and other MNers) am expected to agree with her on 100% of what she says? Why am we being asked to officially distance ourselves every time the month has an R in it?

What do trans activists do to distance themselves from rapists? What do trans activists do to distance themselves from trans inclusive campaigns that explicitly dehumanise women by referring to us as "people who bleed"?

The internet is full of images of people posing with weapons with captions referencing t**fs. I've seen transwomen posting selfies of themselves holding a sword in the women's toilets. There's something to distance yourself from!

Double standards, here.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it’s entirely unclear.

If she’s suggesting a “Man Friday” type stunt - and I don’t know that she is - then she’s saying it’s ok for some men to be in our spaces. The ones doing the ManFriday-ing.

Are we supposed to be reading “Maybe make the women in the feel ok about it” as “banter”? Like “this is what transwomen do and I’m sending up how daft it is hahaha”? If so, why all the preamble about protective men with guns?

I accept that other people may read it differently to me - but to claim it’s clear? That there’s no room for it being a terribly undermining message?