I’ve had an idea

[Nellodee]

On another thread, someone was saying that people who don’t agree with women this board get shouted down. I absolutely don’t think that happens, but I can see that if you are a sole voice of disagreement, you may feel under a barrage of opposing opinions and not have time to respond to each one, and I can see it could become frustrating.

So, what if we had a thread where we invited opposing opinions, but nominated a single regular to field responses? They could pass the baton onto another if they were getting tired, going out, etc, but the main thing is, only one person would be allowed to respond at once from the gender critical side. I think we have plenty of people who could respond to multiple “non-echoers”.

If anyone thinks that’s a good idea, we could use this thread to nominate people who might be willing to take in such a role.

We could call it “The Echoeless Chamber - Mumsnet invites you to not be shouted down”.

That is a pretty good idea. I have seen threads where new posters have, after a period of polite patience, been ripped a new one as they refuse to engage with sensible questions over and over and this has been interpreted as a pile on. This way would also make it harder to dodge sensible questions. It would be hard to police tho. How would you stop interlopers.

I think regular fwr mumsnet posters would be happy to demonstrate how to keep out of places where we’re not supposed to be, even anonymously in the internet. And non-regulars are the ones we would be inviting.

I’d love to see someone who can be civil and support their posts with evidence explain why we’re wrong. I’d read it without commenting.

Never go into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Wouldn't work.

They come here with nothing but #bekind and 'but my friend is lovely'

In the 5 or so years I have been on these boards I have not seen one even remotely intelligent argument to convince us to go along with pretending a man's feelings make him a woman.

I think this is a good idea, I seldom comment on this kind of thread. It's frustrating seeing questions being asked and not being responded to. I can see that a bona fide poster could feel shouted down. It could also lead to short threads as many posters don't come back after starting the thread.
I'm all for giving it a go.

It's frustrating seeing questions being asked and not being responded to

Yes it is, but they don't answer because they can't provide a coherent, logical one. The narrative that we are all big meanies is what they want.

A thread like this would both prevent posters feeling shouted down and also not allow them to evade difficult questions. It might take a while to get started, but whoever is in the drivers seat could keep adding a couple new questions. At the very least, it should mean that no one can say they avoid paying for fear of being shouted down, and would show that if mumsnet IS an echo chamber, it’s not due to a lack of willingness to engage on our part.

Avoid posting

Sure: I’d be in. I’d have a couple of questions to kick off with.

Go for it, Tabbycatstripy!

About to have tea (northerner here) so won’t be able to add anything more for a while.

Nice idea but I'm not sure it would work in practice - it's really hard to get compliance to polite suggestions from Ms Bunbury and I fear this might be similar. Chances are, a well meaning person who didn't know the rules would wade in with a good point and then there would be justified 'waah you said there wouldn't be a pile on'.

1. What historical precedent can we look to for the sort of definitional category expansion that says males can literally turn into women? Why should natal females accept this definitional category expansion?
2. Assuming the strongest argument for treating transitioners as their acquired gender in all contexts is empathy/kindness, why is there so little empathy for female concerns?

1. What compromises seem most likely in this space? Where do people think we will end up?

I think we try very hard to explain what we are trying to say, with examples, in a framework of language none of us might have chosen. Most of the sealions that come on to goad, or to gather screen shots, or to NAMALT, or to whatabbouterry, or to spread lies and disinformation think simply disagreeing with their brilliant ideas is phobia or persecution. I don't think that sort has ever gone "wow, I've changed my mind from listening to your persuasive intelligent and referenced arguments" Mostly they just run.

I suppose the virtue of this idea is that we could direct oppositional posters (or whatever you want to call them) to this proposed thread.

It’s pointless. They aren’t coming here for a rational discussion in the first place.
They come for one of four reasons

1. To mansplain to us that we are womaning wrong
2. To tell us to shut up, surrender our rights and “be kind”
3. To post goady inflammatory statements, hoping to grab screen shots of an angry or “transphobic” response.
4. To tell us that they have one trans friend or relative who is “lovely and gentle”, therefore it’s all lies about the transgender rapists in women’s prisons, assaults in changing rooms etc. How they think one anecdote beats multiple documented hard data beats me, but I’m just a poor simple feminist hospital doctor…

Can't help but think of Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument please".

@Babdoc
Out of curiosity...
Talking about your Q4. At what point would you think it would be ok for a trans woman to be allowed in female spaces, like prison and changing rooms etc.

Not disagreeing at all, purely curious. Should it be just when they have female reproductive parts etc?

What about making a template of agreed questions to ask. Put them on a thread. Then if a poster comes on, we ask those questions in turn. Other posters could be referred to the template thread, and asked not to pile on.

One person could be nominated Question master for the thread, and doesn’t move on to the next question until we are satisfied that the first query has been adequately replied to.

Who wants to change their name to Terfmoniter/headgirl etc?

I once had a debate of that kind with a large number of MRAs. Like playing fifty chess games simultaneously. It was very interesting, but tiring in terms of typing.

mamabr, there is no surgery that can give a man “female reproductive parts”. No man, however cosmetically altered, ends up with a uterus or ovaries. My surgical colleagues are good, but they’re not that good!
And in my opinion no men should ever be in women’s single sex spaces, or sports, however they identify or whatever surgery they have undergone. They retain male physical advantage and male sex and violence offending rates. Over half of transgender males in prison are there for sexual offences.
The answer is for men to be more welcoming of transwomen in male spaces. We divide according to sex, not gender identity, and women have separate spaces for good reasons of safety, dignity, privacy and fairness.

I think it's an excellent idea, OP. I do get a bit frustrated at how woolly the general arguments get because everything gets dispersed and diluted.

It sort of happened a bit with Andy Lewis and this other guy, using this 'letters' template:
letter.wiki/conversation/1232

but I think that's a bit of a cumbersome method for the odd random poster. One or two posters on here should be fine, with maybe a few knowledgeable people in the wings who can be referred to?