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.

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.

However I think people react to these kind of views as threatening, because the ideology has made them a threat. If there had been respect for sex based rights all along, we wouldn't be in this position.

They have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. They have protection in law. What nobody has is the right to to compel others to 'understand' them. I don't need to understand a region to live along side that person, the same with gender identity.

But, again it's clear that TRA do not want everyone else simply to understand their gender identity, they want everyone else to ignore their sex. And increasingly, they want everyone else to doubt that sex exists or is definable.

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.

We're here because we've been driven out of everywhere else. We've been silenced, some of us have lost jobs or live in fear for refusing to kowtow to gender ideology. It's really not the place of those people whose voices and opinions can be heard and seen all over Twitter and FB and aggressively represented throughout society to decide that now they must be allowed to say what they want here and not be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate. Say what you want and we'll tell you what we think about what you say. If what you say can't stand up to reasoned argument, so be it.

I didn't mean here. I meant in definitions, in law and culture.
We don't help ourselves by being so prescriptive trans people can't be defined. And it's not intellectually clever or rigorous to set rules that mean people can't discuss what objectively is happening in the world.

"Transgender" can't be defined out of existence to stop the threat to women. Its impossible to do and also its very unfair to people who want the human right to live as they please.

What we can do is make it clear that not everyone has a gender identity, and sex is paramount in certain situations.

Jumping on people trying to discuss the grey space between "woman = adult human female, always, full stop" and "woman = anyone who says they are a woman" is counterproductive

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.

I hear and understand those views. I just think they're bullshit.

Other people are free to believe in Seventh Day Adventism, Flat Earthism, or whatever. I am not obliged and don't find it necessary to make them feel good about their views by not saying I think it's all bullshit.

Actually robust dissent is very important to a healthy democracy. All this preaching about tolerance and kindness only ever works in one direction, I find.

We don't help ourselves by being so prescriptive trans people can't be defined

?

People are free to define themselves however they wish. I am free to not buy into astrology, nor pretend that I respect it as a belief system.

definitions, in law and culture

You can't smoosh together two such enormous and vague definitions.

Law is one thing.

'Culture' is entirely another.

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.

But no right or need to enforce those views on others, demand that others share those views, adapt their lives those views. We have the right to hear and dismiss those views whilst accepting some people hold them the same as with any religion.

It's not the women on mn that need to be told this, it's TRA and governments.

If TRA want everyone to understand or care about their indentity, they are the ones who need to be clear about what it is, and when and why it should override sex as a class. They are the ones who need to explsin why they use the words of sex - male, female, man woman, girl boy, to describe gender identity. Politicians need to explain why someone with a gender identity is given a birth certificate of the opposite sex.

It's all very well you saying that everyone should respect someone's gender identity, but you seem to be ignoring the reality of what TRA is - for a man to be seen socially and legally as a woman. It isn't about acknowledging someones identity, it's forcing everyone to not see their sex.

I find it beyond pathetic to hear whining that the tone of debate is often unkind. It's called robust debate. It makes me weep for mankind. Robust debate helps you hone your argument. If you're argument was weak and someone told you why, try again with a stronger argument! How else do we develop our thinking as a society?

I'm not ignoring it because that's not where the debate started.
The debate was around whether MN silences women and I was responding to a para in the linked article about S&G being an echo chamber. I think it is an echo chamber and several of the responses on here show why.

If TRA want everyone to understand or care about their indentity, they are the ones who need to be clear about what it is, and when and why it should override sex as a class
I'd argue they've been effective at this which is why we are in this position.

I'd argue they've been effective at this

You think?

That they've demonstrated their position logically?

As opposed to pushed it through via obfuscation, bullying snd threats?

I'm afraid arguing about whether or not females are fighting their oppression in a way that personally suits you is like pausing to rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic when what's needed is to stop the ruddy ship going down.

No time for that, and the fact females have been at this for a decade and this is the only place that has launched grassroots movement actually doing something to prevent their rights being totally destroyed, and where people have read the female anger and bluntness and clarity that has led to the articles and women arguing in court and getting the word out as to what is the problem? We're doing a whole lot right here. And nowhere else is coming to help.

There are many, many other places for naicer discussions with more feminine socialised people if that floats your boat.

Yes, exactly this.

I'd argue they've been effective at this

TRA have been effective at convincing politicians that their gender dentity makes them the opposite sex. That's why men are given female birth certificates.

What politicians and TRA have failed to do is convince women that thats in their best interest.

So we have a choice -women can organise and take action, or we can pretend that men aren't demanding that we ignore their sex, instead that they just want us to understand their gender identity - in changing rooms, in hospital wards, in prisons, in sports...

I feel like you are still missing my point.

That's all fine, I completely agree about the impact TRA politics is having on women's rights. They have organised effectively to have that impact and we are playing catch up.

My point was about whether MN is welcoming to a rangevof views. Dogmatic, inflexible or rude responses to people posting in good faith (e.g. I'm afraid arguing about whether or not females are fighting their oppression in a way that personally suits you is like pausing to rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic when what's needed is to stop the ruddy ship going down) is putting up a barrier to new people posting. So it becomes an echo chamber. Which is what the article was about.

I said at the outset I've stopped posting on here because of the behaviours of some posters. I used to be a prolific poster. My personal views are very close to yours and still it gets implied I'm stupid, I don't understand, I'm not a good enough feminist, I'm too new to the debate and should listen. It's such horseshit and I find it offensive.

And it's not all posters - just enough to make it a thoroughly unpleasant experience.

It is the opposite of the nuanced "robust" discussion some of you congratulate youselves for having.

@AdamRyan there are plenty of women who read and understand, I would not be deterred from speaking my mind.

It's such horseshit

So you are here to criticise women for making 'rude' comments.

I see.

pick one phrase and use it to dismiss the whole point. Constructive

My point was about whether MN is welcoming to a rangevof views. Dogmatic, inflexible or rude responses to people posting in good faith

I was here when the prevailing view was 'theres nothing to worry about'. Anyone warning about what was going to happen was insulted.

There were no special rules implemented then, no one accused MN of being an echo chamber, or dogmatic and inflexible. Women had to stay, cope with pushback, and argue their case.

It was only when the majority of posters did realise that men were taking away women rights, and start talking about it, that we suddenly had to be conscious about how we spoke to one another.

Who can say what's really going on, but it's odd that we had to change our chat style as soon as the majority of posters started to criticise laws, politicians and TRA rather than supporting them.

I'm astonished that anyone could take exception to the comment about rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It's not rude, it's not personalised: it simply expresses the frustration that so many of us feel when told that what we're saying isn't the problem but could we do it in a nicer, softer, more feminine and inclusive way.

If you find a response like that offensive or off-putting, then much of MN isn't for you. Have you seen the way women respond on an average AIBU?

I'm astonished that anyone could take exception to the comment about rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Yes. A thoroughly innocuous, polite and friendly response, I would have said. But not offering complete agreement, it's true.

If you find a response like that offensive or off-putting, then much of MN isn't for you. Have you seen the way women respond on an average AIBU?

I don't think these boards are any different to lots of other boards on MN. Baby names and primary schools can be brutal, and as you say, who agrees on AIBU?

<Shrug>

Okay @AdamRyan:

What are acceptable responses?
What is an acceptable tone?
What form of debate, discussion, argument is acceptable?

Are you suggesting we be kind, be more submissive, more supplicant? Trot out the mantra about how hard trans peoples lives are, they are the most oppressed they go through so much before we say anything?

Imo absolute clarity is what is needed, no fudging around the edges, no obfuscation, just cold hard objective clarity, it's simpler, easier and no room for misunderstanding.