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

Any attempts at force teaming are just bloody rude. Leave women out if it, and give us back our language as well as our single sex spaces.

Uncommon Ground Media
'Forced Teaming, Feminism, LGB and ‘Trans Rights’
May 25, 2020 Dr Em

(extract)
Forced teaming is a term employed by those who work on abuse, grooming and predation. It was originally coined by Gavin De Becker in his work The Gift of Fear and is also used as a concept regarding criminal activity such as con-artists and romantic scamming. The predator will create the idea that there is a shared goal, or an attitude of we are all in this together, we are allies, in order to disarm, gain trust and manipulate his target. The social contract that most people have been educated or raised in – that we should try not to offend others, be polite, be accommodating – makes forced teaming incredibly difficult to resist. In general, we don’t want to be rude and say ‘actually, your problems or goals are different to mine and so no, we should not work together’ or ‘no, I don’t feel comfortable with this’. The shared goal can be, on an individual level, as small as a man helping carry shopping to a woman’s apartment in order to gain access and rape her. Forced teaming confuses our intuition and disarms us to threat. Jennifer Lombardo wrote in Abusive Relationships and Domestic Violence ‘people use words such as “we” and “us” to trick others into thinking they are part of a team’ when they aren’t. It builds trust when none should be there. Forced teaming, when applied to movements, can be as large as many men claiming feminism should work towards their goals not women’s, or that the LGB should work towards heterosexual entitlement." (continues)

uncommongroundmedia.com/forced-teaming-feminism-lgb-and-trans-rights/

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella.

The former is a subset of men and the latter is a subset of women. Regardless of cosmetic surgeries or other interventions and despite any and all attempts to change language to subjectivity so that it is impossible to use with clarity.

This is not only my protected belief but also material reality.

Hope that helps.

This comes back to mumnet censuring the more accurate description "Trans identified Men" - they do so on the basis it offends TRAs. But it isn't about offence - it is about colonisation. Mumnets handed over womanhood because men said so. A huge coup for TRAs because it hides the reality.

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity, be described as a man and vice versa?

MN deleted a thread I started about a TRA who was asked to sign a GC petition and had a fit of the vapors as a result. This wasn't 'in the spirit' either. I don't know what this means. Maybe 'in the spirit of being nice to people'? even people who hate us.

But look, MN, I didn't run across her in the street and decide to mock her because she was upset: she had a very public melt-down on Twitter, telling us she was sitting on the bus or tube weeping. She made it public herself. Therefore, I am allowed to comment publicly on her meltdown, and that includes commenting critically. I did not advocate or threaten violence towards her. Surely I am allowed to say that I think her behaviour was excessively self-regarding and self-promoting, in fact a performance of being upset rather than actually being upset. When people are actually upset they crawl away and hide for a bit, like animals do. They might come back later and tell you all about it. But they don't immediately advertise it to everybody on Twitter while it is still going on!

I was also skeptical of her being so upset about being simply asked to sign a petition. She talked with the person who was conducting the petition, she said. There was apparently no heated exchange, certainly no coming to blows. So, why get all weepy about it? Why not just report the exchange, and say, as she said she herself thought, that you think you had the best of it?

Lastly, a number of people on MN not only shared my reactions, but wanted evidence that someone had been collecting signatures for such a petition. Threats against GC people, both generally and against specific named individuals, have been made on Twitter and other public venues. It would take a brave person indeed to try to get people IRL to sign a petition of this kind. Who were they? Would they come forward, please?

Yes there are number of people who can publicly say things but we can’t publicly rebut what they say. Even if, for example, they’re attempting to become a Member of Parliament. Or do an interview with the most famous talk show interviewer in history .

I agree, Aparallaxia and I am sorry that your perfectly reasonable thread was deleted.

Or do an interview with the most famous talk show interviewer in history

Who is that?

Elliot Page on Oprah.

Of course, many thanks.

That wasn't who I thought it was

That deletion was ridiculous, maybe the monitors were all having a quiet night in last night.

Why, who were you thinking of?😆 This is the point isn’t it? People talk a load of bobbins openly in public but we have to tiptoe around here wondering if we are allowed to talk about the bobbins or not.

The article on forced teaming was particularly interesting for me as I have autism. I don't feel a need to 'belong', be accepted or to feel part of a community and immediately feel suspicious of people who use 'us' when I clearly don't feel any affiliation with them.

This came up yesterday - either on this thread or another on the Feminism board - and made me very uncomfortable about the poster (about whom I had already had reservations).

The article on forced teaming was particularly interesting for me as I have autism. I don't feel a need to 'belong', be accepted or to feel part of a community and immediately feel suspicious of people who use 'us' when I clearly don't feel any affiliation with them.

I appreciate you feel that way, as do many autistic individuals I know. However, I have also seen others refer to the autistic community as a means to bully other autistic people - "The autistic community believes that... ergo you are wrong".

I feel exactly the same - I’m not interested in being part of any ‘we’ that I myself haven’t initiated.

Leave me well alone!

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Helle that is a thing that fascinates me.

Why do the people with dysphoria accept being lumped together with people who's motivations are, well, different?

A lot don't. And a lot are "stealth" partly because of this.

@WhatKatyDidNot

Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella.

The former is a subset of men and the latter is a subset of women. Regardless of cosmetic surgeries or other interventions and despite any and all attempts to change language to subjectivity so that it is impossible to use with clarity.

This is not only my protected belief but also material reality.

Hope that helps.

Perhaps I didn't word that very well, it hasn't come across as I meant.

I was trying to suggest that legislation should be changed to take cross dressers, self id'ers and the like out of the equation as far as safe spaces go.

I believe if would be useful all round to return to a point where there is a very clear distinction between a person who in simpler times would have been a "transsexual" and the rest of the people under the trans umbrella.

@callmeadoctor

Is body dysmorphia the reason that people are trans? Should we just call people, persons with or without a penis? Then toilets/ hospitals/jails could segregate that way?

This is what confuses me. There is no consensus among GC people on who should be allowed in women's spaces. Is it penises, biology, prostate glands, gait, a GRC or being a trans man? Without consensus your argument is weak.

Oh there very much is a consensus. No men in women’s spaces.

I believe if would be useful all round to return to a point where there is a very clear distinction between a person who in simpler times would have been a "transsexual" and the rest of the people under the trans umbrella.

You seem to be doing your best to tell us what to think. It's increasingly apparent why you were keen to belittle Trans Widows Voices on a different thread.

There is a consensus. No men in women's spaces. That's it. Born male? Then go to the male place. Or campaign for separate provision. I don't really care. I don't even want to help you with that anymore as I care so little. The only thing I know is that trans 'rights' is not our problem.

@TinselAngel

I believe if would be useful all round to return to a point where there is a very clear distinction between a person who in simpler times would have been a "transsexual" and the rest of the people under the trans umbrella.

You seem to be doing your best to tell us what to think. It's increasingly apparent why you were keen to belittle Trans Widows Voices on a different thread.

I'm not telling anybody what to think, I'm simply sharing my thoughts within a debate.

I don't think I have ever belittled anybody ! Unless expressing a different view to yours is considered belittling !

Saying that you are bowing out of a debate and then linking said debate into another where you can continue with only like minded people re enforcing your argument says a lot about you though.

I don't seek to minimise your or anyone else's experience I simply say that not every journey will follow the same path.

@Jorrris

There is a consensus. No men in women's spaces. That's it. Born male? Then go to the male place. Or campaign for separate provision. I don't really care. I don't even want to help you with that anymore as I care so little. The only thing I know is that trans 'rights' is not our problem.

Agreed

@Jorrris

There is a consensus. No men in women's spaces. That's it. Born male? Then go to the male place. Or campaign for separate provision. I don't really care. I don't even want to help you with that anymore as I care so little. The only thing I know is that trans 'rights' is not our problem.

Complety missing my point though, I am hoping things can change in respect of women's rights not Trans rights.

I wish people would understand not all Trans people are in favour of what's happening, why do we all have to be the enemy.