Well, that's us told

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

lux-magazine.com/article/the-road-to-terfdom/

This is an article about Mumsnet FWR boards. Author doesn't like us. Oh dear.

"If Mumsnet’s women’s rights forum is popular because it responds to the experience of being stuck at home without support or community"

I wish! Aside from 2 maternity leaves I’ve worked full-time since I graduated. Some of us have jobs that have meant leaving the house to go to work throughout the pandemic too! 😱 What a muppet! Sounds like projection to me. 😄

Most people tend to stick to 'bathrooms' and don't want to discuss prisons so that's really honest of her. Although obviously women have been assaulted in prisons and the stats around the applications for transfer to women's estate and what cohort they come from are available so either she's not aware, has ignored them

I think it's almost worse that she may be aware of those issues and doesn't investigate further. Suggesting that all is fine in Argentina and Ireland when we know there are serious concerns about mtf prisoners being incarcerated in both countries. It highlights how poor the journalism is.

The thing I always get a bit stuck with is this sort of thing.

'TERFs believe that women are defined by their biological differences from men. They want liberation from gender stereotypes, but don’t think it’s possible to be freed from biological sex, and argue the latter goal is not just naive but hurts efforts to combat sexual violence and discrimination.'

It's just put there as if everyone knows that women are defined by something other than biological difference from men. The second part, there's no argument given as to why it's not true.

Then the author goes on to say

'It seemed to me that was exactly what was happening on Mumsnet: some of these newly “gender critical” Mumsnetters were relatively privileged women who had never felt marginalized until they gave birth and came to feel isolated in their nuclear households and (rightfully!) outraged at the lack of support for mothers in the U.K.'

Which agrees that there is at least one thing that happens to women that is not good and is due to their biology.

So that's confusing. I suppose the privilege stuff is to try and frame it as these women have it better than everyone else and so when they have a baby what they see as problems is actually just them being moved to where everyone else is? Not sure.

I read it all. It doesn't reflect who I am or how I came to mumsnet or why. The points she makes about what sort of person I am are all wrong. I don't accept I'm terf or a hater or a bully or a right wing judgementalist or a left wing...whatever. I don't have a problem with people living happy lives. I'm just an average, greying, funny, indignant, exasperated nearly-pensioner, somebody's wife, somebody's mum, ex-employee, reader, gardener, sketcher, hiker who remembers the feminism of the 1970s and worries that all that will be for nothing if I can't do something. Lurking on mumsnet is about as rock and roll as I get nowadays. But I feel like I'm listening & learning & collaborating with like minded women in my own very small way. If you multiply all of us normal 'not-terfs' on mumsnet we're probably not a minority of middle aged, middle class women. She definitely got that bit wrong. Now for a cup of tea (builders, not earl grey) while I pot-on my chilli plants.

‘On the weekends, I’d read headlines in both the liberal Guardian and the conservative Daily Mail questioning whether trans women have the right to identify as women.’

Really? The Guardian raised these questions? In actual headline news?

Have you seen their "about" section?

Well, maybe if she could come and present some cogent arguments (as opposed to circular definitions and repetitive mantras), there would be less 'radicalisation' going on.

Yep 100%. The author writes a long-ish article worrying about "radicalisation" but never tries to address the key issue of whether identifying as a gender really means someone should be treated as equivalent in nearly all scenarios.

The author seemed to think that some of the concerns had legitimacy (what exactly?), but was dismissive about the risk of violence in female prisons. They really don't think anyone is going to get raped if they let males self ID into female prisons? There is no risk to that!?

Is Katie an American person? She seems to think British mothers are unsupported.

My mate lives in America, she had to save up her (ten days) annual leave when she had a baby, and her baby entered full time daycare aged three months. Her ordinary birth cost thousands of dollars because of 'copays' whatever the fuck they are.

They don't have maternity leave and they charge forty grand for straightforward childbirth so with respect, I don't think British women are doing too badly by comparison.

I think that article’s quite a good advert for FWR.

If the people managing that site are keeping track of their analytics, they’ll see the clicks from this thread. I wonder if Katie will notice it & pop over?

Portentuous opening music, followed by

• Various suppositions made about MNers

• eminently reasonable positions taken by MNers.

And various other suppositions that didn't really logically follow - something something feminists are just like MRAs?

[climactic organ music]

All summed up with - what's portentuous backwards? Something like the Carnival of Souls end sequence, maybe.

Anyway, if anyone comes here via that article I'll be amazed welcome! Kick back and enjoy the evidence-based discussions!

I’ve been on MN for over 14 years. I’ve evolved through many stages of life and experience. From worrying about carrying a pregnancy, professional woes, debt from having to stop freelance work minus maternity benefits, worrying about my own daughter walking out alone as a young teenager - how dare she fucking make-out women gravitate here as wiped-out, isolated, exhausted ‘mums’ and then cling on to an ideology to give their lives meaning and explain away all their woes. So fucking insulting. Feminism means something to me. And I’m not having it hijacked by a bunch of appeasers.

...who can’t even write.

Some decent points in there , but totally swamped by sweeping generalisations and inaccuracies.

I am on these boards so much because I am GC. They have educated me and helped to mobilise me. Why has it been trans issues that have motivated me like this rather than equal pay, or VAWAG or FGM? This is a good question.

I think it is because I am being told, not asked, to move over, be nice, shut up, dont ask questions, don't ask for silly things like definitions or evidence. #No debate. #FUCKTHAT

This has triggered me like no other feminist issue, including birthing 2 children (which the author assumes is the common factor that has created these pages), repeat miscarriage, unequal pay and shitty health care for issues related to my female biology.

I will respect trans people and fight to support their rights, as part of my belief in all human rights. But people can't change sex and I won't pretend they can.

I can't and won't lie to myself and my children to assuage someone else's need to have all and sundry affirm their identity.

Womens safety in prison is in all cases more important than transwomen feeling validated.

Women's safety and fairness in sport is more important than transwomen feeling validated.

The right of female victims of sexual assault to receive care from female carers and professionals is more important than transwomen feeling validated.

Until we have true equality, my feminism will centre natal women and girls. And I will not apologise for that.

Oh my God. Clearly not remotely bothered to even try to understand other viewpoints, so convinced is she of her unshakeable virtue. Patronising, ignorant tosh..

cor that was a bit long

uses variations of the word 'bigot' 4 times without ever explaining what's bigoted about understanding that women are adult human females.

Do you think Katie knows what 'bigot' means? Maybe someone will buy her a dictionary for Christmas.

it gave me a chuckle on a Tuesday night, so thanks Katie

I tried to read the article, but it seemed to be a box-ticking exercise rather than a reasoned and thought-through piece of writing.

The content or lack thereof is annoying, but what worries me more is that other women may look at that type of (terrible) writing along with the lack of care that went into the content and think it's acceptable. It's not acceptable to write badly no matter the subject and expect to be taken seriously as a writer or journalist, and it's even more suspect to write drivel and and present it as facts. To use a YouTube video as "proof" of one's point is just wrong.

As far as the "About" section of Lux magazine, that seemed to have been written by a very cross, very woke 17 year old who likes to talk loudly over the grown-ups to make their very valid point

The Guardian raised these questions?

She'a an undercover operative for The Guardian hoping to incite a click of hope that The Guardian has wooed back Suzanne Moore et al and come to its senses ?

@GNCQ

Have you seen their "about" section?

Oh well, at least that explains that the name isn't a reference to soap suds, but a tribute to the founder of the Spartacus League.

GNCQ having read the “About” section I can’t help feeling that Rosa Luxemburg would be spinning in her grave.

The Guardian have posted a couple of articles allowing mild gender critical arguments, including one in 2018 looking at different perspectives on the legal self iD question. For which they notably received a pompous slapping down from their own US office, interfering in U.K. political questions in quite the culturally imperialist way.

@ChewtonRoad

I tried to read the article, but it seemed to be a box-ticking exercise rather than a reasoned and thought-through piece of writing.

The content or lack thereof is annoying, but what worries me more is that other women may look at that type of (terrible) writing along with the lack of care that went into the content and think it's acceptable. It's not acceptable to write badly no matter the subject and expect to be taken seriously as a writer or journalist, and it's even more suspect to write drivel and and present it as facts. To use a YouTube video as "proof" of one's point is just wrong.

As far as the "About" section of Lux magazine, that seemed to have been written by a very cross, very woke 17 year old who likes to talk loudly over the grown-ups to make their very valid point

Oh yes. How do they think abolishing the police would end for women?

The 'About' section was hilarious.

Forget about concrete & practical progress for helping women overcome structural inequality, that's so old-fashioned - what we really ought to be doing is dismantling society altogether! Genius!

As people get drawn into these communities, they become obsessed with a misguided sense of victimization and start to focus single-mindedly on their newfound worldview.

Strange how she can come to this conclusion about mean terfy mumsnetters and MRAs, but can't see how much of an influence online communities might have in encouraging gender confusion in vulnerable teens.

Cringe. I'm cringing for the writer of this piece. I'd feel incredibly stupid if I'd displayed my utter lack of reasoning skills so clearly.

How fucking weird to acknowledge MN is made up of millions of users then try to summarise it as "smug mums" talking about strollers and dogs eating plants despite just being able to go online and see what people are posting about. It's almost as though they struggle to form conclusions from the evidence available.

'Hysteria' is such a tired old misogynistic trope.