Has MN become just another platform that silences women?

[Sparklybutold]

www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2022/05/mumsnets-founder-justine-roberts-it-is-a-place-where-women-can-speak-the-truth

What are your thoughts? Interesting piece above but my experience using MN has seen threads being deleted if women actually talk about there experiences within the real world. It feels that ‘hate speech’ has become muddled with the political agenda to silence women who dare to speak there truth.

'Born in the wrong body'

A software problem treated like a hardware problem.

The challenge I find is that that there are very sharp minds here and if you make a point that is not fully thought through you will get called out on it, and internet being anonymous that can feel like a personal attack when it is not meant to be.

There are also really strong views held by many and those with less strong views will struggle to have a constructive dialogue. Probably because the strong views are based on science / data vs empathy and both stand points are driven by fundamental value systems which when challenged lead to defensiveness.

And of course there are troll here and they are upsetting, in a thread with 10 comments and 1 troll the poster is left feeling bullied. But that is the internet and you have to expect that.

Finally - have not thought out my views, just stream of consciousness so fully expect to be set straight!

When I started here some years ago I read and listened and got up to speed and did some background reading before venturing an opinion. I got dusty answers on many occasions. You listen, you learn, you pay attention and then one day you find yourself giving someone using the lazy 'born in the wrong body'-type response a flea in their ear for not arguing better.

I went to university in the early 80s, when you were expected to be a grown-up and think things through for yourself. F:S+G is very like that. Everyone's assumed to be an adult who will take responsibility for the words they set down. Don't run away because someone's pointed out the hole in your thinking. Grab a seat and start reading and learning.

I think this is a very important place for women, and I appreciate the work MNHQ do in keeping it going.

Yes, there are some limits on what we can say and it's a pain in the butt, but Mumsnet is one of the few online spaces where women's issues are discussed robustly and with a wide pool of knowledge and experience.

This.

Part of the issue is that when this topic is discussed in other places, people get pats on the back for arguments that may not be entirely water tight, but support the ideological stance.

You won't get that here. Arguments need to be supported by logic and evidence.

the strong views are based on science / data vs empathy

Well, I would suggest that I have bags of empathy. For anyone who is being spun a lie that changing sex is possible, any child who feels their body is somehow wrong and are being - jesus christ - encouraged in that view that they ought to take steps to change their healthy, perfectly fine body, using unevidenced and possibly very dangerous medications and surgeries. Or women in prison or on hospital wards who are endangered by males, or women with certain religious beliefs or personal histories that mean they are self excluding from public spaces.

Yes, feminists here try to look for evidence, corroboration, we like to test theories and seek other alternative views to try and check the strenght of views. But that doesn't mean that our reasoning isn't also informed and tempered by concern for women and children and yes, empathy. That's the absolute crux of it, really.

I know 2 mums who have been banned for saying something that is not woke
So yes I agree

True empathy isn't about corroborating fantasy however. It does no one any favours to deny the realities of biology.

Part of the issue is that when this topic is discussed in other places, people get pats on the back for arguments that may not be entirely water tight, but support the ideological stance.

You won't get that here. Arguments need to be supported by logic and evidence.

Exactly. Bring the logic and evidence and be prepared to debate them. If you can't, because you're not confident in them, that should tell you something.

I can't, because of the conditions you set.
But this is why trans people claim GC people "erase" them (ridiculous term).

Transgender people clearly exist or there would be nothing to debate. But by setting rules like you have, it becomes impossible to define a trans person.

With no rules, my definition would be:
"A Transgender person is someone who has an internal sense of their sex (referred to as their gender identity), and that internal sense differs to their biological sex".

I have no issue with that definition, in the same way as I have no problem with other people describing themselves as Christian when I don't believe in God.

That definition would work for me as it suggests not everyone has a gender identity, people can just identify with their sex. And makes it clear there is a definition between someone's perception of themselves and biological reality.

I think MN are doing a pretty good job but they have a lot of threads to moderate and sometimes it will be a blunt instrument which can be frustrating. I don't think there should be a blanket ban on the 3 letter paraphilia for example, context really matters.

But I agree with moderation that allows discussion of ideas, law and policies but takes a dim view of targeted attacks on individuals.

I can't get on with Twitter because too many people just lie or throw out comments which they can't or won't substantiate. On FWR you don't get away with that, and nastiness and attacks are not tolerated so it feels like you can have a go.

Having said that, I mostly lurk! But I have learned so much on here, it has reminded me what critical thinking and proper argument is like after years of my brain being a bit stuck in mum mode.

"A Transgender person is someone who has an internal sense of their sex (referred to as their gender identity), and that internal sense differs to their biological sex".

That definition could apply to people who don't identify as trans, and will not define lots of people who do identify as trans.

I don't disagree with you, Wildflower.

A lot of ground could be covered in those conversations by just asking people what they mean when they say x, y or z, rather than assuming they mean something.

It's often not a matter of being rational, it's a matter of assumptions about what others think. I've seen instances where people were actually agreeing, but they continued to be subject to arguments.

Hmm. How so?

Also, does it matter to the definition if someone does/doesn't identify as trans?

For example, we know what "gay" means even though there are plenty of men who have sex with men and don't identify as gay.

For 'trans' to work as a definition in any sort of legal or practical way, it has to mean 'anyone who says they are trans' really,
doesnt it?

Someone could be suffering from completely crippling gender dysphoria, but if they don't tell anyone or change their presentation, they're not going to want or need any of that legal protection or admission to opposite sex facilities

Alternatively, someone could have no gender incongruity at all, and simply decide they'd rather use the other changing room.
If they tell us they're trans, then we have to accept that and give them all legal protections etc.

Yep agree re: definition

Re: second part, disagree. If you used a definition like I suggested, you could still have single sex spaces and facilities where required. Changing rooms, sport, hospital, prisons etc.

Obviously TRAs will hate that, but that's why I think a definition that separates identity from sex is important.

Also it means that its not assumed that people have a gender identity at all which I personally would like :)

You mean, even if someone says 'I'm transgender!', you'd say 'Awesome! Live your life however you want, but as your birth sex hasn't changed, please continue using the appropriate single-sex facilities'
?

I think most of us on here would agree with that.

We have protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment already, which is pretty close to your definition, but it doesn't work.

TRA don't want separate definition for sex and gender identity, where sex is used as way to differentiate between men and women, boys and girls.

Yes!
I don't see the point in arguing with people about their "spiritual" (for want of a better word) identity

I don't see the point in arguing with people about their "spiritual" (for want of a better word) identity

I agree. However the problem is that this has acquired importance over and above tangible and consequential characteristics like biological sex. We're being asked to give people's spiritual identity enormous importance.

So sometimes these arguments draw people in when they probably shouldn't, but I see why it's happening.

The bottom line for most people on here is, whatever your views on gender (your own or anyone else's), there are areas of life where sex needs to take priority. If that is established, then people's spiritual identities are far less consequential to others.

The bottom line for most people on here is, whatever your views on gender (your own or anyone else's), there are areas of life where sex needs to take priority. If that is established, then people's spiritual identities are far less consequential to others.

Exactly. I don't care how people want to think of themselves - material reality has to take precedence.

Yes. Agree. There is also a need to allow people who have strong views that gender identity exists and is important, to feel those views are heard and understood.
Sometimes on this board those views are not tolerated in any form and I don't think its helpful. It can be aggressive and come across as hyper critical.

I agree that individual modding decisions are sometimes unreasonable. Having been a mod myself, though (on a different site), it’s incredibly difficult to get it right every time.

Over all, I’m very grateful to @mnhq, for protecting freedom of expression, when it would have been so much easier for them to shut us down.