Is Mumsnet shutting down GC views? FAO Justine Roberts

[Pluvia]

Mumsnet, are you aware that GC views are acceptable and are held by the vast majority of people in the UK?

Why are you using the 'not in the spirit of Mumsnet' argument to shut down discussions?

In the thread about a trans co-worker you allowed pro-trans arguments presumably from the US, Australia and Canada to mount up overnight. When GC women here in the UK countered with facts this morning you shut the thread down. I didn't see a single offensive post — unless you've changed policy and now think using the medical term autogynephilia is offensive.

This is not acceptable. Maya Forstater's case established that GC views are worthy of respect and yet you seem to be censoring open debate.

I think they all think they are talking to JKR, that’s why they want go to chat…..

But I'm glad you're here, regardless! It's always good to get different views and input.

I am very keen to hear more on third spaces for sexual predators. Please do expand, if you have the time.

Cheers to that 🍷🍷

Sadly I had a post deleted in the end. I don't think it was owing to my bold new use of the 3 letter acronym (not saying it again just in case 😬😁) but instead on giving an example of a difference between a biological fact and a belief. Even though I did it in what I felt was an objective way. Ah well, you live and learn.

I'm not sure of you rationale for not supporting gender neutral third facilities alongside single sex ones? If you are happy and comfortable with mixed sex facilities that is totally your call - but you cannot impose that on other women.

You do realise that apart from making women feel uncomfortable in their own spaces, it would positively exclude certain other groups of women - for religious or other reasons. Now that wouldn't be very inclusive would it?

If by include you mean make no differentiation between male and female ( or include males in the definition of female/woman) then just say so - because as far as most people are concerned, everyone can be included by having discrete facilities and services for those that prefer them to single sex - so that everyone can feel comfortable, respected and included.

People like beachcitygirl do need a voice here, they're so much better at peaking lurkers than gc voices.

Question for you @beachcitygirl Why keep any single sex provisions if you are going to allow any males in?

They have it's being researched. Unless you misunderstood I'm
Specifically referring to prisons per previous linking sentence.
Where risk assessments are performed. Ie third space prisons for sexual predators.

I think that independently run polls if the data behind them are published so people can check the methodology are a very good indicator to the ‘majority’ opinion.

You can claim that you don’t know what the majority think til the cows come home, and declare us sanctimoniously to be discussing in ‘bad faith’, but I really don’t think you can hide behind the ‘until every woman has been polled’ argument.

That is unnecessary even. To be a ‘majority’ belief, it only has to believed by 51%. So no, not ‘every woman’ has to asked.

Even a referendum in the UK would not reach ‘every’ woman in the UK as voting is not compulsory. I find your statement that every single woman should be polled to be akin to fuckwittery to be used to silence other women.

And to be clear, no one is silencing you, just calling out your attempt to wedge open what the majority view is so you can claim it is not the majority view.

Although, to allow males into female spaces, then a majority of women ‘should’ have been asked before it ever happened, and we should have had the future ramifications clearly explained to us. I doubt it would have ever been allowed to happen if that polling had been done decades ago when clinicians told the first post op patients they should definitely use female single sex spaces.

I am confident that when I say things specifically are the ‘majority view’ it is represented of the majority because I speak to many people from a very wide range of views about it and the opinions I encounter are pretty close to the YouGov polls. I am not just speaking to my mates. I would be concerned if I did not find a range of opinions, then I would believe I was only speaking to people in a bubble.

The post I responded to of yours also showed you believe that :

“Supporting trans rights does not mean opposing women's rights.”

And to this I ask, what do you think placing males in female prisons does to those women’s sex based rights?

you talk about people not spreading misinformation and not that we ‘ are not entitled to your own facts’. If you believe that putting male people into female prison is not actively opposing the rights of those female inmates, then you seem to not understand the rights and the needs of those female inmates.

And you seem to be the one making up facts.

What angers me, and still does all of these years later is the colonisation of 'woman'; of women's spaces, services and everything in between; and the ensuing erasure of women and disrspect for their integrity as a distinct class of human being; even down to the language that is used to describe women and their bodily parts and functions. Very angry - and yes, now very radical in sayng " No".

Being censured and cancelled doesn't help either.

Ah, I see.

So what about other spaces? changing rooms, toilets, etc. You think these should all be mixed sex? What about women who can't then use them?

Are these 3rd spaces mixed sex? So all the sex offenders go in together?

Let me clarify. Third space prisons. That is what I was referring to, I thought it was obvious but as a few of you didn't see that. Happy to presume I wasn't clear.

I believe in self Id jn all and every case.l with proper risk assessment done.

I don't believe any prisoner who commits a crime of sexual violence belongs in the general population of a prison with others and so sexual predators should serve there sentence in a seperate third space.

(Not trans people )

@Helleofabore read my comments before asking the same question again and again. Or disengage.

Again: what do you plan to do for the women excluded from women's spaces in your vision of mixed sex facilities to enable men to have full freedom of choice?

Is your inclusiveness a men-only thing?

suggestionsplease1
If you are coming from a place where you see it as aspirational and desirable to be a woman maybe you interpret it differently.

'Woman' as aspirational. Wow. How bloody inconvenient the matter of sex must be to people intent on having what they aspire to. What a pity womanhood isn't a thing that can be bought and sold. What a testament to the fact that for so many men, women aren't fully human people.

Does anyone remember Oli London who went to teach in South Korea and thought he'd like to be Korean too, so went off and had pretty major cosmetic surgery to make him look a Korean boy band member, then announced he identified as Korean? No niggling thoughts about colonisation or cultural appropriation. No deep understanding of what it might be to actually be Korean. He couldn't understand why so many people were appalled.
Bizarre that this younger generation is busy colonising and appropriating what it likes the look of while pulling down statues of old colonials.

And @suggestionsplease1 has the nerve to tell me I'm the misogynist.

Male: small gamete, XY. Female, large gamete:XX. Sex decided at the moment of conception. The moment the midwife says 'It's a girl' we can have a fair go at predicting her life. We can have a pretty good idea of how tall she's going to be, how long she's likely to live and the range of conditions she's like to die of — which don't include prostate cancer. We know she'll almost certainly earn less than if she'd been a boy and retire on a smaller pension. We know that she is much, much more likely to suffer rape and sexual violence, or to be sexually harassed than if she'd been a boy. And on and on and on. As Alice Sullivan said, it would be easier to list the things not determined by sex than those that are.

We don’t want an echo chamber at all - we need pro trans ideology posters, it’s how we demonstrate to lurkers that GC arguments can be backed up by evidence and transactivist arguments are empty appeals to emotion (using morally questionable false analogies that usually veer into casual racism).

I’d be content with spaces reserved for tervern females but I worry they would become overcrowded.

This sub forum was created by Mumsnet HQ because women such as yourself didn't want to be exposed to what went on it becausse it is largely critical of gender as a constructed identity.. So 'Feminism chat' was set up to cater for and include everyone who wished to discuss women's issues and/or feminism as they perceived it without having to be subject to views they don't like or approve of.

Not everyone identifies themselves as a feminist, which now tends to have a whole lot other implications - especially by those who consider themselves 'inclusive' or liberal feminists - which is why the forum is all also called 'women's rights'. That is what I'm interested in here. Women and their experiences and their dignity and integrity as women. I'm not interested in including males in the definition of women - it doesn't make any sense at all.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs of course they are not mixed sex. All women in the women's wing/prison all men in the men's wing/prison.
And with proper risk assesment.
But that's for experts on prisons to work out the details .

I can't imagine we'll see many women sexual predators. There are only a few around that's why they make headlines.

The other thing with prisons is that there is no political will to spend money on prisons. Let's face it, prisons should never be the hotbed of violence, drugs and abuse and yes sexual exploitation that they currently are even when single sex. That is down to a lack of
Resources
Care
Cameras
Lack of single cells
Lack of any empathy for prisoners
Overpopulation
Some prison guards

A
General public that isn't perceived by politicians to care.

To be fair money and resources cure most issues with prisons. No politician will spend it tho. Not a vote winner.

Absolutely. And to be clear, I do welcome supporters of self ID etc on here.

I was just pointing out the history of the boards on here.

FWIW I was always and remain opposed to the split.

@Pluvia do you think that women earn less because of their sex or because of the social structures created around attitudes towards their sex. ?

female sex offenders get single sex spaces?

but no-one else does? not rape survivors, not women who adhere to strict abrahamic religions, not women who value their privacy and dignity?

doesn't seem fair really

So that'll be something along the lines of 95% men, 4% transwomen and 1% female, all in together, yeah? All of them sex offenders.

How do we think that's going to work out?

Fwiw I have been reading these board for a long long time and haven't read a single good sense reason to oppose self id from anyone.

It seems to split into a few camps.

But no one lists what their actual issue is. What they actually believe is happening with a change to the law.

I see innuendo, fear, biological determinism of the sort feminists despised only 20 years ago) bigotry, anger, upset more fear, lack of understanding of gender. Denial of gender, clinging to femininity and masculinity, outdated cliches

But not one single person who is open to changing their mind if given answers to their queries and worries. And who can state those worries simply and clearly.

Aye, right.