Deleted/censorship on mumsnet now!

[HermioneKipper]

My thread asking about transwomen/transitioning/penises has been deleted.

Why are we not allowed to discuss this? It’s a genuine question and extremely relevant to the debate about transwomen entering female spaces.

There was no abuse of trans people that I could see aside from a few people attempting to derail by saying that they couldn’t see why women might be concerned about having to share their space!

This isn’t right

*Yikes. I agree that one surgery is more technically complicated than the other.

But to say that a double mastectomy is merely aesthetic is not true. Removal of a benign mole is aesthetic.*

@GromblesofGrimbledon I didn’t say it was “merely” aethestic but I know my late mother was told that it was non invasive and should only have “aesthetic impact” on her when she had a single mastectomy - a rather harsh surgeon I suppose.

A trans man having top surgery (to look more male - thus aesthetic) by choice really isn't comparable to the trauma of having a mastectomy due to cancer.

I’m afraid I don’t know any trans men only trans women (not trans myself so only know what I am told my them).

You shouldn't be generalising about trans people like that, Mishy. I'm sure there are lovely trans people who respect the need for women-only spaces and services, and won't use such facilities. If they can do it, so can others. That's how most of society functions Mishy - by people respecting the rules that are in place.

Indeed NonnyMouse.

Those poster's who continue with the activists trope they see play out on twitter don't seem to grasp the significance of what they are saying about trans people.

Luckily we know there ARE many males who identify as women who DO respect the needs of females and use facilities that do not impinge on those needs. But the continued push of this bizarre rhetoric really does not portray ANY males who identify as women in a positive light.

And I guess they might also believe they are allies to that group, or maybe they are part of that group. It doesn't matter though.

The end result is still the same.

1000 post thread in AIBU on Hubbard with 98% voting it to be unreasonable. The number of posters on there who had their eyes opened was significant. People want and need to know about these topics.

But there’s always people determined to derail and shut the threads down. Still going on on this one.

@nauticant

This is an example of a post I find objectionable.

That post of mine you're objecting to is me saying that it's unhelpful to generalise rather than understand that there are different groups under the trans umbrella. You win today's top irony prize EarringsandLipstick.

It absolutely wasn't! You were stating your belief that there is a particular narrative about the trans community. I thought your language and tone was nasty.

Then you round on me because I expressed a view, again in a sneering way.

I have many many concerns regarding trans women / impingement on female spaces. I have learnt a lot from posters here. (Not least terms like 'gender critical'.).

But there's no space for nuance, for uncertainty and questioning. Which is why I'll leave this thread, and why I don't post on these threads almost ever.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet thank you for your posts & engaging. I agree with another poster that said such explanations are helpful.

How would you know if a penis entered the bathroom? Would there be an inspector? None of the bathroom proposals make sense unless there is policing and inspections. Which will never happen.

Those who have a prostate should not use female sex-specific facilities, including public toilets. In the same way that those who are not disabled should not use disabled facilities including toilets.

I do wonder if those apparently unable to respect female single sex facilities without 'policing' are similarly disrespectful of other specific provision/ Safeguards whether disabled, for children etc

You can keep on givng this answer but it never sinks in. Challenging women based on physical appearance could result in a good handbagging too. The GC argument is like a stuck gramophone record.

See, this just proves the GC argument. Women can tell.

It's also worth pointing out that there is a growing market for an operation in which transwomen retain their penis, but also get a cavity created between their penis and their anus.

This suggests that for this particular subset of transwomen the desire for a neovagina is not triggered by dysphoria.

The original thread title was far too blunt for those who prefer the general public to think that transwomen are all like kindly Hayley off Corrie (was there some reason the character was played by a woman rather than a transwoman, I wonder?).

Before the split into the Be Kind/The Cunty Kind boards, there was a day when 3 out of the 5 trending thread titles were about the Maya Forstater judgement. I assume that caused some consternation in MNHQ, as it probably mucked up all kinds of ad stat algorithms or something.

1000 post thread in AIBU on Hubbard with 98% voting it to be unreasonable.

On the Hubbard threads, I fully support that majority viewpoint regarding Hubbard's participation in a female sport.

I hid all those threads after a while.

The language, aggression, use of pronouns in quotes, I personally found abhorrent.

Many will roll their eyes at that, and perhaps say, the language reflects their passion & upset on the issue. I get that.

I just don't subscribe to advancing a point of view with harsh aggressive nasty language.

I should be allowed to hold this view. I despair of the lack of reasoned, civil debate on the issues. And I mean that on all sides, I am not specifying one side only. It's just shameful for all.

Going now ...!

This is, with respect, nonsense. A mastectomy is not simple aesthetic surgery, and it is not possible to 'create a vagina' out of a penis.

@FloralBunting - absolutely certain I didn’t say ‘create a vagina out of a penis’.

@heathspeedwell

It's also worth pointing out that there is a growing market for an operation in which transwomen retain their penis, but also get a cavity created between their penis and their anus.

This suggests that for this particular subset of transwomen the desire for a neovagina is not triggered by dysphoria.

Description of such surgically created orifices as 'neo vaginas' is both inaccurate and offensive. Unless we are to accept that any surgically created orifice deliberately created in a male patient's body is a 'neo-vagina'?

Without being able to peer in their underwear how would you know? You can keep on givng this answer but it never sinks in. Challenging women based on physical appearance could result in a good handbagging too. The GC argument is like a stuck gramophone record.

Perhaps you need to listen to it more carefully?

How are you going to decide who passes? To what extent? To what degree that a female person is not excluded by perceiving them as natally male?

How are you going to tell those who do not and cannot pass to this standard and insist that they don't use women's spaces? How are you going to manage those such as the individual who photographed themselves with a sword in female toilets explaining what awaited any woman who dared challenge them? Or someone such as the well known Twitterer who posts pictures with invitation to women to 'suck my lady dick if you don't like it'?

The answer is that there is no way to gatekeep. There is no way to differentiate stage of transition or degree of transition. And as has been amply proven since the GRA (which was the compromise) if any natal male people are permitted to use female spaces then it has to be accepted that it means in effect, all. And female people are powerless. And vulnerable. And excluded. And saying no.

This needs to stop now. This does not work for female people. Another and better answer needs to be found, but attempting enforced female capitulation (or trying to prevent women being allowed to voice the issues, their feelings, their experiences and yes, their justifiable anger at all this) is not going anywhere helpful for anyone.

@EarringsandLipstick

You can hold any view you want. No one's stopping you having an opinion. They're disagreeing with you.

Re needing Pants Police to check for penises.

I don't need that. I can instantly tell the sex of a person who is walking behind me in the dark. I can tell the sex of a person at the other side of a darkly lit bar from the way they stand. I can tell the sex of a person from the way they get out of a car in a foggy parking spot, or pick up bags of shopping on the other side of a supermarket car park.

And, I can tell the sex of a poster from the way they post on here.

Women see sex because sex can be a threat to us. Most women do it totally unconsciously.

Description of such surgically created orifices as 'neo vaginas' is both inaccurate and offensive. Unless we are to accept that any surgically created orifice deliberately created in a male patient's body is a 'neo-vagina'?

@ R0wantrees - That’s the terminology used by the clinics performing the surgery.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Re needing Pants Police to check for penises.

I don't need that. I can instantly tell the sex of a person who is walking behind me in the dark. I can tell the sex of a person at the other side of a darkly lit bar from the way they stand. I can tell the sex of a person from the way they get out of a car in a foggy parking spot, or pick up bags of shopping on the other side of a supermarket car park.

And, I can tell the sex of a poster from the way they post on here.

Women see sex because sex can be a threat to us. Most women do it totally unconsciously.

This x 1000

There’s no reason to challenge people as long as everyone understands which spaces are single sex and which aren’t.

So if a problem occurs it’s the person who is in the wrong place at fault, not the people that should be there.

Re needing Pants Police to check for penises.

The individual concerned can check their own pants and if they find a penis they could decide that out of respect for women they won't invade their single-sex spaces. For some reason management of oneself and one's actions seems to be an impossible request.

You can keep on givng this answer but it never sinks in. Challenging women based on physical appearance could result in a good handbagging too. The GC argument is like a stuck gramophone record

Good handbagging? Really? Nothing like a bit of misogynistic female stereotyping is there. #weseeyou

Mumsnet needs renaming transnet. A mum is a woman. A woman has female sex organs, but we can't say this any longer.

The individual concerned can check their own pants and if they find a penis they could decide that out of respect for women they won't invade their single-sex spaces. For some reason management of oneself and one's actions seems to be an impossible request.

💯

Re needing Pants Police to check for penises.

I don't need that. I can instantly tell the sex of a person who is walking behind me in the dark. I can tell the sex of a person at the other side of a darkly lit bar from the way they stand. I can tell the sex of a person from the way they get out of a car in a foggy parking spot, or pick up bags of shopping on the other side of a supermarket car park.

And, I can tell the sex of a poster from the way they post on here.

People who are male /prostate-havers know what sex they are. If male then they make a deliberate decision to disregard a sex-based boundary in entering a female sex space. The girls and women who are using that space have not consented to the male person/prostate-haver's presence. This is a boundary violation.

@LadyDanburysCane

This is, with respect, nonsense. A mastectomy is not simple aesthetic surgery, and it is not possible to 'create a vagina' out of a penis.

@FloralBunting - absolutely certain I didn’t say ‘create a vagina out of a penis’.

You said create a vagina, which is what I quoted. I'll grant that sometimes the surgeries use bowels not just penis. But it's still not possible to create a vagina.

It's a surgically created wound that needs to be dilated regularly or it will heal over. That is in no sense a 'vagina' whatever the marketing says.

You can keep on givng this answer but it never sinks in. Challenging women based on physical appearance could result in a good handbagging too. The GC argument is like a stuck gramophone record.

You use a term like Handbagging? A rather misogynistic term and then accuse people of having arguments like stuck gramophone records.

I guess your lack of well thought out and considered argument could be the issue as to why your 'answers' never sink in.

And the very fact that Without being able to peer in their underwear how would you know? points out behaviour that rather proves any 'GC' point doesn't it.

That you cannot see that it points out that behaviour is not our problem. So, please, crack on making it.

On the Hubbard threads I was very careful to use surname or first name to avoid pronouns.
However, not only could this have created confusion as to what the problem was(explaining someone is an xy individual to people unfamiliar with the facts is difficult without saying something someone will find offensive The way to say something in plain English has been compromised and that muddies the waters. I know more than one person in real life that thought Hubbard was a transman, because facts were obscured)

Me not using pronouns also meant when I talked about it in real life, I used she. Again, this confused someone unfamiliar with the issue. Luckily tackle could be seen in photos so misconception could be remedied.

The point being that policed pronouns hamper my ability to talk about it clearly, just like banning the mention of ago. I also found that the pronouns at times muddy my own thinking. Too busy correcting myself to follow my thoughts through.

I think this is very deliberate.