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.

And the benefit to women for men to be treated ‘legally as women’ is what exactly?

No, it’s called,

‘Feminism: Sex & gender discussions’

The punctuation is important, you’ve changed the punctuation in order to misrepresent the nature of the board.

But they aren't women so why should they be allowed to legally change sex? When their sex hasn't changed?

Then you should disagree with the GRA, because in some cases, such as primogeniture, it absolutely treats transwomen as men.

@beachcitygirl
And the other topic is 'Feminism:chat' so get your facts right!

I didn't know that. That's absolutely mental.

Blimey.

Well, at least you haven't tried to hide your rather extreme prejudice. Or even attempt to use neutral terms towards people who disagree with you on some issues.

"for goodness sake let other women speak"

Who is not letting you 'speak'? Or do you want to be able to speak and have your opinion unchallenged on a feminist board on a discussion forum?

Because that is quite a different thing all together.

Isn't it? It's almost as if the rules were written so as not to inconvenience powerful men.

I was responding to your post to me. Was I not supposed to do that?

Disengage? Fuck, that is something to see!

the advertisers are the customers and the posters are the product

No the advertisers are the investors, the posters are the consumers and the owners are the managment and shareholders.

If the managment fails to provide a service that the customers want to use then they leave, and the investors wonder if it is worth continuing to invest, and the shareholders lose their dividend.

Weird innit?

Like, I can get my head round the idea that some people support the idea of trans people being able to change their legal sex, even if I personally disagree…

but still, when you really look at the GRA and see all the indiscrepancies, surely everyone can agree it’s inconsistent to the point of being bonkers bad law?

It literally provides a loophole for privileged males to retain their male privilege!

I just posted some info re: Baron Matilda if Wythenshawe on another thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794270-genuinely-willing-to-discuss-in-good-faith

I see the posters are the content producers in this arrangement. We produce the content. Advertisers are temporary investors.

@beachcitygirl

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.

I think you either have not read much on this board, or are seeing what you expect to see not what is there.

This is based on explanations I have given on other threads:

If Man and Woman simply refer to biological sex, they can be any sort of person. That's the exact opposite of biological determinism. It's literally saing the only thing your biology should determine is...your biology!

However, when you decide Man and Woman is not a fact of the body but an aspect of mind, you unavoidably draw lines between men and women that are about the characteristics of their minds. To me that is incredibly sexist and reductive, especially because you impose those definitions not just on people who actively choose those genderist terms, but on every single person who is known as a man or woman, even though for the vast majority that's simply the historic name for their sex.

To dress, express oneself or live "as a woman" implicitly assumes there is a specific way which women do these things. Gender identity reproduces reductive assumptions society has about what women can/cannot wear, how they are allowed to express themselves, perform or exist.

So while your analysis may currently stop at "if someone wants to do something It's bigoted to challenge them", looked at through a wider lens, gender absolutely is serving the Patriarchy by perpetuating bigoted and reductive concepts of womanhood.

Furthermore, female people suffered millenia of unfair treatment and the social expectations and structures that came from that are still baked into our society. So female-only supports exist in our society now to mitigate that unfairness. I hope one day we don't need them but sadly the very different risks and social outcomes experienced by male and female people shows us that, for now at least, we do.

Similarly, female sports exist not because men and women have different minds, because female bodies have different capabilities to male, and in some sports we simply cannot compete fairly or safely together.

So to insist these Women-only provisions are now open to male people simply because they changed what the word Woman means, from a type of body to a state of mind, is dishonest, because they weren't created in a vacuum just hanging around ready for anyone who happened to claim the name Woman! They were created for female people because they were what female people needed. Their entire existence and shape reflects that need. Male people, whether they call themselves women or not, have no claim on them.

So I want an honest recognition that the aspect of mind that trans women (and indeed, female people who feel they share that aspect of mind) experience is a different thing to being female bodied and therefore does not justify opening up female-only spaces, protections and opportunities to male people who have it, nor justify such male people taking it on themselves to claim they speak as and for "women" and expect their views to be accepted as "women's".

Once that is established, which is, after all, nothing more than a simple and obvious fact, then we can all stop this ridiculous side show of trying to fit trans needs into the pre existing sex-based structures and start doing what Stonewall et al should have been doing all along, which is fighting with feminists against gender stereotypes that constrain people from living happily as the sex they actually are, and working out and lobbying for whatever dedicated support, rights, services and protections (if any) gender non-conformong people need in the meantime until we get there.

@beachcitygirl

"For me it's all about the individual. I believe in punishing the criminals & bad actors. the same as we do for other social issues"

I'm not sure anyone here would describe themselves as being against punishing criminals and bad actors. But personally I have ample anecdotal evidence from my life of 'minor' incidents which make women feel unhappy and unsafe never being reported to anyone. Sexual assaults never being reported to anyone, and if and when the sexual assaulted is reported people minimising it as no big deal, not thinking it should be treated as criminal. Even rapes and gang rapes that are often either not reported, not investigated or not prosecuted.

Every single one of these crimes was committed by a man, not a 'trans person' not even a transwoman.

"I support self-Id 💯"

For me that means that every one of the men responsible for the crimes I'm talking about above - the ones I'm personally aware of and the crimes that I'm aware of from statistics or surveys is fully entitled to choose to go into women's single sex spaces if they want to. And they have if you'll pardon my saying so already proved to my satisfaction that they can't be trusted. The men who hurt us don't respect our boundaries or our feelings. To them only their feelings matter, only what they want matters. And sometimes what they want is to scare us, to hurt us, to see us naked or unclothed, to make us look at their penises even when, especially when we don't want to see it. So I've never seen an argument that I found persuasive as to why it would be that men who were sexual predators wouldn't exploit self id. Note I'm absolutely not saying all trans people are like that, or even all transwomen are like that. That is absolutely not what I believe, what I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that some men are like that. Those men exist.

"In issues with vulnerable women. Eg prisons, shelters etc I believe in individual risk assessments as is currently the case and has been since equality act began."

I believe that the equality act allows for services such as prisons to be segregated by sex where that would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Personally I am strongly in favour of the idea that if you are going to deny somebody their liberty you have a strong duty of care to keep them as safe as is practically possible. That some male prisoners are indeed vulnerable to violence and sexual assault from men is a problem and not a trivial one, I do not personally believe that men asserting that they are tw or enby would be uniquely vulnerable. It's not that I don't think their vulnerability should be taken seriously I do, just I think other men, young, autistic, gay etc. Deserve to have their safety taken just as seriously. I do not personally agree that allowing any man to tick a box as to where he would feel most comfortable being housed is a proportionate means to address that issue, I do not assert that this is what you're advocating for but I have certainly seen people interpret self id 100% as including prisons.

"I do not believe that anyone man or woman who has committed a sexual crime of violence to anyone should be in general population of any prison."

committed or been convicted of? I only ask because like most women I know I've known men to get away with some pretty grim behaviour without getting a conviction for it. Again I'm using the word men because that who I mean. A guy who is being sent to jail is very possibly not a particularly trustworthy guy. If there was a sufficient incentive he might be perfectly prepared to lie. It is certainly no stretch to say that a woman being allocated a TW cell mate will have no knowledge of if he's a lying serial rapist with a penchant for domination and violent porn. Or the loveliest and most peaceable person she ever met. She's going to feel pretty damn uncomfortable not knowing that. That's a burden I don't believe it is fair to place on any woman in jail.

"ie I don't support 3 rd spaces for trans people but 3rd spaces for sexual predators."

The devil is in the detail as they say. I'm not saying you're wrong but I would love to hear more about how you envisage this working alongside a self id 100% culture...

"Vile misogynistic comments on any social media should be reported & removed
Vile transphobic comments on any social media should be reported & removed ."

I don't disagree with the sentiment although I suspect there may be comments which I'd find to be misogynistic and you'd think were ok, and statements where you'd think they were transphobic and I'd think they were ok and reasonable. Sometimes leaving some room to listen to someone and respond to their point is how you can move forward.

"It appears to me that so many women have been radicalised by this issue and have lost sight of what actually angers them ."

Well no-one can dispute a statement of how things seem to you. I myself would say I do know what my 'red lines' as it were are the things with which I cannot just agree to keep the peace. I may not always articulate them well (like anyone I'm only human).

"No matter how many times one asks you seem to get a different answer and as you speak to that worry they manufacture another different issue."

I would suggest that the best summary of 'our side' if you will is that sex is real, binary, and immutable. Sometimes it matters.

If someone is trying to prove to you that sometimes sex matters they may give examples from lots of different times places and scenarios in which they believe that sex matters.

"I suspect many just don't like trans women using the word woman."

Well apart from the word 'just' I suspect you might be right. Almost all words have a range of context dependant meanings and are used in different formal and informal ways. I don't think women objected to anyone using the words women and girls in informal usage. It was when the words woman and lesbian are treated as having been redefined in their primary main and legal usage I object.

Which seems bizarre to me. Hating on a minority and frothing at the mouth over a word

When people are saying and feeling things you don't understand it is often a good idea to talk to them to get their perspective, describing them as 'frothing at the mouth' would, for me, be one of those vile misogynistic comments we were talking about.

"I'm always open to respectful debate and disagreement but also like others I get cross when people deliberately engage dishonestly or try to "gotcha"'rather than discuss. Or when they try to speak for me and other women like me who are committed to self I'd for our trans allies."

Thank you for sharing your perspective but I see no allyship whatsoever from the trans movement or ideology. If I believed it was kinder or more inclusive I would be on board. I do not, I have considered it carefully and find it fundamentally flawed in terms of sexism and homophobia.

I also notice you did not even bother to comment on the bulk of my post which dealt with your rather bizarre assertion about polling.

I only asked you questions concerning your own 'misinformation' and the facts you seem to making up yourself.

But crack on with the hostility that you are now hypocritically dishing out.

Disengage? Like fuck!

Sorry but that's not right. The advertisers are customers not investors. Investors provide money to a business in return for either a dividend, interest or growth in the value of the investment. Advertisers buy space from MN in order to place their brands and products in front of an audience - the posters. Some posters are also customers as they pay MN for a premium service.

Why? I mean genuinely, why is this necessary? What's the point? What is it that being legally recognised as "a woman" gives a trans woman practically? It's not like she didn't exist before she was recognised.

It seems to me that all the "woman" things a male person can achieve in practice probably shouldn't have been attached to being "a woman" in the first place. I'd much rather we put effort into making more "woman" stuff acceptable for men, and vice versa, than create a whole legal status of "man who is legally a woman" simply to avoid having to really challenge society's sexist structures and expectations.

Haven't RTFT, life is too short.

Re the thread that suddenly dematerialised, as soon as I saw mention of AGP on it I reckoned it was sailing close to the wind.

If being a woman becomes a thing of self-identification, what about all those many, many people who don't have a gender identity, the abstract gendered soul type, but who used to define themselves as women because they are female? What are they now?

Are they required to believe in a gendered soul? Isn't this like religious beliefs, not something we would expect to see in a secular society?

And if we really do away with all names for the female sex, what happens to our chances of fighting sexism and misogyny which are based on someone's sex or apparent sex? In the alternative scenario where it is menstruators and birthers and individuals with a cervix or people experiencing menopause which will be the focus of analysis, how do we even notice that all these 'people' are, in fact, largely the same group?

Sex discrimination and sexism will become hidden in that each separate incident is viewed only on its own.

I also don't see why we would even have names for people who like pink vs. blue or who want to wear skirts or not in that alternative world where 'women' and 'men' are essentially either undefined or deeply sexist concepts.

@beachcitygirl
Can you read? I said no one knows what the majority of women feel.

And yet you claim that men know exactly what it feels like to be a woman.

I think a lot of women are now reflecting on the last wave of femisim and whilst obviously welcoming of the gains that have been made, are also re-assessing a lot of the old dogmas around biology and gender - mainly as a result of trans ideology, but also due to some of the damaging and negative impacts of things such as porn and 'sex positive' feminism.

Sex based differences are very resistant to ideological impositions it seems - and one of the reasons for that is because women often do make different choices ( or would like to be able to afford to) on account of their embodied reality, or according to taste and preference; especially once they have children.

Call that biological determinsim if you like; and it is to some extent ( inspite of individual variation and difference) for the reason we are embodied beings living on planet earth in a biologically female body. I for one am far more accepting of that now than I may once have been when younger.

Do you have children?

Denial of gender, clinging to femininity and masculinity, outdated cliches

You clearly haven't a clue what you're reading.

" Denial of gender" - gender stereotypes. Yes, they're sexist.

"Clinging to femininity and masculinity" - nope, that's gender stereotyping. If you mean male and female, then yes. Male and female is the entire reason this site exists as mothers are female.

And as you'll see on the relationship board, being a woman means you can be at huge risk of domestic abuse and sexual abuse and left with nothing to your name.

I call total bull you've been on this site for longer than a few hours.

Is that call as a result of the recent controversy about Isla Bryson in Scotland - or have you always thought that way? Because as far as I'm concerned everyone that has up until recently supported gender self Id has suggested that people should be sent to the prison of their choice according to how they identify. There were never any sub texts about predators and sexual abusers.

In fact during the committee stages of the GRR such exemptions were specifically and categorically ruled out.

I attach alink to the 'Keep Prisons Single Sex' website on which you can find accounts from female prisoners housed alongside males. It need not be a sex offender for women to feel extreme discomfort at best, or intimidated and threatened at worst:

https://kpssinfo.org

lack of understanding of gender. Denial of gender

I'm always confused by this slightly odd misconception that if I just understood more about what was going on between the ears of a man, I would gladly surrender my equality, access and humanity to his betterment.