Does anyone else feel that the tone has changed on this board?

[ViceLikeBlip]

This board has been incredibly important to me, especially when I felt like I was losing my mind because no one else seemed to see a problem with self ID, and everyone else seemed to believe TWAW (or, I now realise, everyone else was too scared to suggest they might not believe TWAW).

You guys helped me rationalise my thoughts, and realise I wasn't some awful transphobe, and I've been really grateful to be part of this community. And I really felt like I belonged: we were pro women's rights, not anti trans rights, and we didn't believe that all transwomen are dangerous perverts but rather we recognised that dangerous perverts do exist, and they will readily take advtange of any loophole that gives them access to women.

More than anything, you guys have been an absolute mine of information - facts, stats, latest developments, and you've pointed me in the direction of news articles and twitter rows that I never would have seen otherwise. I'm genuinely grateful for this.

But recently the mood seems to have shifted significantly. There seems to be a lot of open animosity and ridicule towards all things trans. The recent outcry about M&S letting some people put their pronouns on their name badges felt uncomfortably close to clamouring to have M&S "cancelled".

I guess I used to feel like this was a safe space where I was with like minded people, but now I don't think everyone on here can hand-on-heart maintain that they're not anti-trans anymore, and it makes me very upset to see this shift happening (and happening quickly).

@Iliketherainbest that was the greatest objection to the sectioning off of FWR.

We are now pretty much sitting ducks. Various monitors show that on their Twitter feeds, blogs etc. This one board can be pointed to as the seat of all that is bad about women standing up for womens rights. Add to that the restrictions on how we can express what we think many posts do come across as very stilted, more pointed than might otherwise be the case.

It's a shame @prudencepuffin @Waitwhat23 @HoardingSamphireSaurus I came here out of curiosity. I stayed because I found rational, thought provoking discussion. I guess we are all conscious that's a political benefit to 'framing' this place in a particular way. But I assume people do that when they can't win the arguments here on the Board.

@TaliaB1

I wonder if the TRA bullies ever stopped consider that maybe they are culturally insensitive at best, and RACIST at worst, by suggesting Muslim women must put up with penises in their face in women's spaces? In a competition between Woke vs Woke, which would win out in their brainwashed minds? The Meninist TRAs 'right' to have penis-bodied people in women's spaces? Or the rights of a Hijabi Muslim woman - who feels she can remove Hijab in a woman's only space?

This is a question I would like TRAs to answer. In their minds, which one has 'right of way'? Which one has right of way in a woman's space?

But the woke Olympics have been going on for years the only group unable to partake is the white heterosexual man (and this is from a support of female single sex spaces). The trouble is what I see as woke someone else sees as a point of principal, given what feminism has done to men and explicitly stated that it isn't women's issues to think about that (I may or may not agree here). It's hardly likely that TRA or men are going to care much about feminism version of woke. So setting groups off against each other really doesn't help.

That m and s thread where people were objecting to having name badges to prevent misgendering seemed to be deliberately making life difficult for trans and I agree with the op causes me concerns for the future.

I see a difference between what I perceive as an aggressive assertion TWAW from some people and the shy trans identified young girl who says pronouns he/him.

I am not consider myself antitrans but would defend women rights to single sex spaces and to their identification as a sex class, not gender.

I’m sure there are trans that are appalled by how some trans activists behave, I wish they could be more vocal. I also admire the trans identified men who use men’s toilets and are carving a space there for themselves. But it should not be my fight to let people know not all trans are just interested in claiming for them what is women’s. I’m too busy defending children from early chemical intervention, lesbians from sexual abuse by those who have change sexual orientation to gender preference, etc.

Btw I saw a lady duck on the OP replies, so my early deletion might have been for something else.

And this is not a pile on OP, just answers from many points of view to your question about change on the board since it’s split a few months ago.

Not taking us anywhere, but exchange of opinions

That m and s thread where people were objecting to having name badges to prevent misgendering seemed to be deliberately making life difficult for trans and I agree with the op causes me concerns for the future.

I can't help it. HOW?

The only time pronouns are used is when the person IS NOT THERE.

This is a prime example of that "setting one group against another" Women, because it's rarely a group of men online or in real life, that get taken to task for this, are not only being asked to accept transwomen are women but are being told that they must centre that fact even in the absence of a transperson.

So anyone, any woman, who makes a mistake, misremembers, doesn't care to remember, is somehow 'reported' for misgendering? How does that work? Think about what it demands of everyone

If you hear a transperson being misgedered in their absence you must report it somewhere? How else would it be an issue?

Watch your thinking....

Mouseonmychair I'm not clear on your comment about points of principle, what has feminism done to men? What is 'the point of principle'?

But digital safe spaces exist, too - I'm absolutely not arguing this should be one for, as in this context, trans people, but on a broader level it shows an interesting disconnect between the digital and physical spaces people inhabit that I think might explain the perceived shift in tone online in this conversation that OP (and others on this thread) have noticed. In fact it's the case on the internet generally - people don't believe it's real.

Where is anywhere that is a "digital safe space" for women? It doesn't exist, so forgive me if many women think it's an unreasonable expectation for this group to be one of the few groups to have one.

I certainly don't denigrate serious mental illness. To be honest most or all of us could do with some therapy and help for something, too - you don't get to middle age without some bad life experiences. But young people are increasingly becoming prey to the idea that some categories of "identity" bestow special trauma status just by virtue of identifying as them, regardless of any adverse life experiences.

So a frail elderly Muslim woman who's suffered gynaecological problems and has never been undressed in front of any other man but her husband, doesn't get the dignity of being allowed privacy from male bodied people in hospital, because the person next to her is a transwoman, whose identity trumps her feelings?

The girl in prison who's suffered abuse all her life and has given birth to a stillborn baby can be put in a cell with a male sex offender, because he's considered to be "vulnerable" by virtue of self-identifying as a woman?

This. The contempt for the feelings and boundaries of women and girls is palpable. It's misogyny writ large.

The whole rhetoric of the "online safe space" trivialises that, and tries to make normal human life a pathology on a continuum with severe trauma. But that ends up not making space for those who are genuinely vulnerable and hurt to receive help and treatment. We saw it yesterday on the 'cis' thread where a poster who had been on the "BeKind" roll also said "but I don't give a fuck about your childhood trauma." It's everyone out for themselves and their trauma these days, even if the most trauma they've ever had is reading things on the internet they don't like.

Yes, that was shocking, and I see it all over social media. I'm supposed to cede my rights, squash down my own feelings and feel "empathy" and "compassion" for people who give not one fuck about anyone else, purely because they weaponise their own pathological issues, while giving no thought to the mental well-being of others. That's abuser behaviour. No.

Screenshots of conversations on here are regularly posted on Twitter as 'proof' of things said here. Someone on another thread made the observation that it's always screenshots - why not a link to the discussion? I've just seen this demonstrated - a comment someone made here about the Forstater case has been posted on Stonewall's Twitter without any context in order to be ridiculed. As pp's have said, there's also a extraordinary amount of comments made, reported and deleted within minutes, but screenshots have managed to be taken in that time. Almost seems deliberate....

It is quite clever really. And like all repeated lies it is probably quite effective. People will see a screenshot of something objectionable and assume that's how things go here.

The TRAs are masters of the "fake news" tactic. Look at all their statistics, from suicide to murder to hate crime to conversion therapy.

The constant misrepresentation of polling results, and the lack of clear unequivocal questions in the polls themselves.

@Iliketherainbest

Relative newbie on the Board. Definitely seen something here which could be new. Noticed it after the Board was split. Emergence of occasional posts which seem to try to 'position' this place in a particular way. Imply or claim posters think or believe certain things which I've not see much evidence of. As if saying it makes it real. Not talking about original OP here. But these type of posts have an emotive and manipulative feel about them. And feel disingenuous. Trolling feels too simple a word for this. But something is definitely off.

There have always been trolls, manipulators, people with an agenda and bad faith posters on these boards. Back in the day, I hear, it was straightforward MRAs who accused us of being misandrists. These days - oh, wait, they're still with us. We got a 'misandrists' earlier, I forgot. We just have extra, now.

Yes, there are many attempts to paint the women here as all sorts of nonsense. It could wear a person down, if it weren't so patently bloody ridiculous.

What many people object to is the tone, by which they mean, they object to women speaking if it isn't conciliatory, placatory, apologetic or flattering.

We do sometimes get people come on and shout at us about how mean and hurtful we all are. It reminds me of my DCs when they are having a wee tantrum. They're very cross. And they expect me to sort it out for them.

(I mean, I do. They're my children. But that does not apply to random anonymous internet strangers).

If you genuinely are distressed by posting on this board or reading this board, I gently suggest you seek help. Elsewhere. If you don't like the tone or the things people say, you are free to challenge them. Expect to be challenged back. This is a discussion space. We're not your mothers. Think of it as 'notyourmumsnet'.

Report transphobia, absolutely. Report anything you think crosses a line into personal abuse. That's rightly not allowed. But don't come on here, insult, smear and attack women, and get furious when we fail to act as unpaid therapists/surrogate mothers/cheerleaders.

Half the problem is the elevation of twitter as "the official home of political debate" because for some reason that particular social media site is used by heads of government and prominent names.

However as we all know it isn't a level playing field at all, it's a very weird forum because it allows users to manipulate what they see through blocklists and the moderation skews a certain way. So images of CSA are fine but stating humans can't change sex is not.

At some point in the future theses will be written about how one website managed to become so influential. The last general election is a good example of how far away twitter is from actual public opinion, with Labour activists genuinely confused as to how the vote played out versus what they had been seeing online.

Personally I don't use it and I don't know anyone who does. Am I in some kind of anti-twitter bubble?

I don't think it's you who is in the bubble. I think someone posted that only a minority of the U.K. population is on Twitter.

The TRAs are masters of the "fake news" tactic. Look at all their statistics, from suicide to murder to hate crime to conversion therapy.

This is a really difficult thing to counter, even when all the data is clear and shows they are lying. It doesn't help that people don't understand statistics or percentages or crimes per 100,000 etc. It's too easy to point at one incident and use emotional language to paint a picture.

For example nobody would argue women's safety when apprehended by lone male police officers is a problem statistically, but the murder of Sarah Everard is still important.

If we're saying suicide in trans identified teenagers is vanishingly rare, in the face of even one actual example it looks like a callous argument.

It's why the "but women do it too" line is still so effective. We could list off reams of crimes committed by men, but then Rose West or someone gets rolled out and we are backed into arguing about numbers when MRAs can talk about her victims and focus on the human tragedy.

And the media doesn't help, because female criminals are more newsworthy, and trans suicides are also newsworthy, so although sites like Women are Human aggregate stories about crimes against women, those stories never get the same traction in the press.

This is a really difficult thing to counter, even when all the data is clear and shows they are lying. It doesn't help that people don't understand statistics or percentages or crimes per 100,000 etc. It's too easy to point at one incident and use emotional language to paint a picture.

Yes I agree.

It's for this reason that I think we should focus more on women's feelings and privacy and dignity, rather than statistical safety. We won't win with reason when they are using emotional blackmail.

Fear of being sexually assaulted/harassed/humiliated by males is not something women should have to put up with in female only spaces.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It's for this reason that I think we should focus more on women's feelings and privacy and dignity, rather than statistical safety. We won't win with reason when they are using emotional blackmail.

I agree, the statistics are very important when lobbying politicians, demanding impact assessments and pursuing litigation. In actual discussion we have to use the same influencing tactics they use. If they want to talk about the human factor, we have to talk about it too.

Of course then the problem is that sad men outrank sad women, and mens sadness needs to be accommodated, discussed and ameliorated, whereas women's sadness is just life, right?

Women being hurt, violated, abused or ignored is just so boringly normal. Whereas men as victims are rare, special, tragic. Their emotional problems are acute and important, whereas women's are chronic and ignored.

You see it in discussion around paedophilia, boys who are victims versus girls who are victims. Boys don't get told by judges that they are precocious teases.

And PTSD - ninety odd percent of rape victims have symptoms versus twenty percent of ex-servicemen. The demographic with the highest prevalence is prostituted women. Who do the public think of when they think of PTSD?

Arabella Scott
Great post!

@FlyingOink

Half the problem is the elevation of twitter as "the official home of political debate" because for some reason that particular social media site is used by heads of government and prominent names.

However as we all know it isn't a level playing field at all, it's a very weird forum because it allows users to manipulate what they see through blocklists and the moderation skews a certain way. So images of CSA are fine but stating humans can't change sex is not.

At some point in the future theses will be written about how one website managed to become so influential. The last general election is a good example of how far away twitter is from actual public opinion, with Labour activists genuinely confused as to how the vote played out versus what they had been seeing online.

Personally I don't use it and I don't know anyone who does. Am I in some kind of anti-twitter bubble?

If I was PM I'd have all MPs come off social media in an individual capacity and go back issuing statements through official channels/journalists.

Not only do they end up with a skewed picture of what British people think politically it also contributes to the threats and harassment they receive for doing their job. The flip side of that is that it encourages less than professional behaviour in a number of MPs too.

I'd keep generalised accounts for info/ press releases e.g. Office of the PM or Home Office twitter just not individual MPs.

If the government wanted a way for the MPs to interact with their constituents (and I mean their constituents, not some anon avatar from the US or Russia) digitally it could be done. Easy enough to create a .gov site where MPs and the public could interact but it not be owned by Silicon Valley and not have pile ons from goodness knows who.