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 will not be fucking kind to people who are not at all kind to me.

This.

Someone claiming to be the wife woke up that short thread to tell us it was none of our business, then that poster was being facile on several other threads. Iirc women's rights disappeared off the drop down last year, bumped for first for secondary education then for Christmas.

FOJN thanks a lot for info.

Don’t worry, OP. The tide will turn, most of the adult population are getting pretty uneasy or just plain 🙄 at some of the results of ‘be kind’.

Then suddenly all the on line forums will be saying how they were always on the right side of history, because that’s what the advertisers want to hear.

Hi all

We have well established guidelines for sex and gender discussions and many posts on this thread were breaking them. A quick look at the feminism boards will tell you we’re certainly not shutting down GC views and the vast majority of posters are able to discuss all aspects of this debate well within our guidelines.

In my experience some moderators are more activist and hard-line than others. I'm not sure if there is a fixed rota and you know who is on and when?

What is the current policy on the previous 'three strikes and you are out'?

Constant lumping of post-op trans people into the same bracket as fetishists is unhelpful and unkind

This is something lobby groups and transactivists achieved when they moved from using separate terminology such as transsexual and transvestite and lumped many disparate groups under the umbrella term “trans”. Are you suggesting that women must do the legwork to change those definitions back in order to protect one of those groups?

Constant lumping of post-op trans people into the same bracket as fetishists is unhelpful and unkind. We de-legitimise the entire argument when idiots appear using coarse, ridiculous language. Whether people like it or not, trans people exist and have a right to exist. Women also have a right to fully single sex spaces, but if people are so anti-trans it becomes bullying, I want no part of that team.

How can you tell of someone is "post op"?

How do you tell the difference between a transexual and an "erotic crossdresser"?

These are genuine questions. Asking anyone personal information about surgery they may or may not have had seems unreasonably intrusive.

De facto self ID means you cannot distinguish between a transexual with a history or gender dysphoria and an erotic cross dresser without being accused of transphobia. Nicola Sturgeon trashed her political career trying to pretend that no one would abuse self ID policies or law only to be revealed as a fool by a man in pink leggings.

No one has ever denied trans people's right to exist, despite the hyperbolic, "trans genocide" rhetoric I can't think of a single case of a woman physically harming a transwoman. Sadly, for us, the same cannot be said of the reverse.

I think Liberal feminism is doing it to itself in certain respects. the sort of feminism which is predicated on there being no differences between the sexes; the obsessional focus on 'equality'. a young generation of women have bee brought up with all of the gains made by previous generations and many have yet to fully realise that sexed differences are real and consequential.

Combined with the contemporray transhumanist project - which seeks to transcend the limits of living in a human body on Planet Earth - which for women means being 'liberated' from pregnancy and responsibility for children.

What women don't realise, by the above, is they are actively seeking their own erasure and the erasure of the female sex - as they seek to assimilate and become just like men; with the perceived freedoms that they believe men have.

Woman is fast being reduced to a free floating theoretical concept - rather than an embodied reality - and a concept or set of symbols which can be adopted by anyone who fancies.

Of course big pharma has a vested interest too - and you will note that the Pritzker family is heavily invested in sponsoring transgenderism in the U.S and further afield. JB Pritzker may even run for Democratic party leader in the next round of elections. The Pritzker's fortune comes from pharmaceuticals - and Jennifer Pritzker is a late transitioning MTF.

In the particular case of this thread, the parts I had read contained posts that were transphobic. I am gender critical but that doesn't extend to transphobia. There were a number of posts suggesting avoiding interaction with a transwoman, or saying they would look for a job rather than work with a transwoman, these are transphobic. I'm pleased the thread has been deleted, I think that's right.

I don't think it is transphobic to maintain single sex spaces, toilets, prisons, sports. I don't think it is transphobic to prioritise safeguarding, to fight sexism and ensure women's rights. However I would happily work with, get to know and respect a transwoman colleague. There's a line here.

MN usually is respectful and discusses these challenges without transphobia. We should get back to that high ground.

Hi Lily, thanks for your speedy response. The problem we have is that once you've shut down a thread we're unable to go back to see what it might be that you took objection. So please, in the spirit of transparency and educating us, show us at least some of the 'many' posts that were deemed unacceptable.

Shutting it down without warning or without deletions seems extreme. If it's MN's intention just to shut down anything it doesn't like the look of I think my original argument, that you are censoring acceptable views, stands.

By the way, are we allowed to use words used by experts in this field — such as autogynephilia, for example — or not? If not, could you please explain why dysphoria, for example, is permitted but other psychological terms aren't? Many thanks.

There were a number of posts suggesting avoiding interaction with a transwoman, or saying they would look for a job rather than work with a transwoman,

The OP, a survivor of sexual abuse was so uncomfortable sharing toilets with this individual (who did not even sound post-op) that she indicated she'd look for another job.

How is that transphobic? It really isn't. It is misogynist to expect women in these situations to 'be kind'.

I can see how that could be interpreted as transphobic but having been in a position where I've witnessed trans identity/status be weaponised by a former colleague I can understand the concerns on the thread. It's not a bunch of what ifs sadly.

I am grateful to MNHQ, for supporting debate on GC issues when there was none elsewhere. But times have moved on. There is now open debate in mainstream outlets like the Times, and on SM - notably Twitter, but even on IG and Tik-Tok.

For a long time, MN was an outlier, in that it supported more freedom of speech than other outlets. Now, you risk being an outlier in suppressing freedom of speech more than your competitors.

Isn't it time to review your guidelines?

The OP was expresing her fear that she couldn't speak to anyone at work about her discomfort and concern at an obvious male using the single sex facilities - to the extent that she felt that she had to look for a new job.

That was her feeling. Who are you to censor that?

Personally I advised that if she felt that strongly she should definitely approach her team leader or boss. -because they need to know, and that it may also open the floodgates for others with concerns to express them too.

Further to my earlier point Lucy is clearly male - even if nobody is saying it out loud due to fear of censure. Getting to know this person would make not one jot of difference to the fact of their maleness, and the OPs discomfort at them using the women's facilities.

I feel for the OP of that thread. She can't voice her concerns at work. She can't discuss her concerns here either. She's not even, according to some, allowed to look for another job as a means of avoiding a situation which is causing her distress.

Does she have any options at all?

Certainly not if voicing one's honest perceptions and experineces is out of the question and can be shut down as 'transphobia'. I don't believe anyone who calls them self GC but who then goes on to call out such honest self reporting.

i have experinece of males in women's spaces and i will not be told that my reporting of my experiences and feelings are 'transphobic' - because if trhat is the case then what is being suggested is that women's concerns, feelings and observations simply do not matter.

There’s general Mumsnet “not in the spirit” and there’s Sex and Gender “not in the spirit” and it’s clear there’s a different benchmark for the two.

I'd just typed out a response when it got zapped. I was massively fucked off with how many people were seriously suggesting "just use the disabled toilet". Amazing how hurting a man's feelings is so much more important than the protected characteristic of disability.

I'm also intrigued as to how it could be perceived as being "transphobic" to avoid a trans colleague in the workplace? By "avoid" I mean maintaining a professional, polite relationship but not engaging in conversation about personal issues or wishing to socialise outside work. There are a couple of colleagues I currently "avoid" in this way, mainly because I find their conversation (endless boring family dramas) tedious as fuck. I would also find having to do pretend pronouns tedious as fuck.

" I'm pleased the thread has been deleted..."

So was it you who reported it?

What do you honestly think will be achieved by such actions? Do you not realise that censure of open and honest discussion will simply radicalise people and make them even more determined.

And in the long run do you envision women having to submit to their own discomfort and erasure in order to be kind to, and prioritise, males that seek to trample their boundaries? Is this what you envision?

Or perhapsare you suggesting that if women are just kind and get to know males who are identifying or presenting as women then the issue will disappear of its own accord?

However I would happily work with, get to know and respect a transwoman colleague.

And if they were using the women's toilets and you felt uncomfortable? Would you still happily work alongside them? I highly doubt it. Why does a woman's discomfort matter less than a man's feelings being hurt? If women are loosing women only spaces, because of a trans woman at work, is it not best to not work in a job where there is a trans woman?

For the record, the general thrust of that thread wasn't transphobic. There were however a number of posts suggesting:

-that companies should not employ trans people because they were, by definition, 'mentally unstable'

-that stickers be anonymously posted around the workplace, to create a hostile atmosphere for the trans person

-that the OP should interact with the trans person as little as possible, in case they raised a trumped-up grievance

There were also a number of posts openly mocking the appearance of trans people.

Whatever you think of this (and there were some people defending it, and some calling it out), no-one can be surprised if MN - a private company reliant on sponsorship - doesn't want to be a harbour for that kind of thing.

I am gender critical but that doesn't extend to transphobia. There were a number of posts suggesting avoiding interaction with a transwoman, or saying they would look for a job rather than work with a transwoman, these are transphobic.

I don't think I agree with you. I have no issue with people dressing or presenting however they wish. I don't do standard femininity myself, don't wear skirts or make-up, might be regarded as dressing like a man. No issues with a man in a skirt and eyeliner.

But I do have a big issue about being compelled to go along with a lie. Perhaps you don't suffer from the cognitive dissonance many of us do when required to pretend in public that we are not seeing what we are seeing and that all our senses are telling us is wrong? Do you have no empathy at all for the rest of the staff, compelled by peer pressure to go along with someone's fantasy? Why should avoiding the discomfort of one individual require the collective discomfort of many?

I think trying to avoid things that make us really uncomfortable and that put us in a position of having to collude with a lie is a sensible manoeuvre. Evolution has made women, in particular, incredibly sensitive when it comes to distinguishing male from female. Why would you have women suffer in order that a man doesn't have to deal with the consequences of his choices?

In the particular case of this thread, the parts I had read contained posts that were transphobic. I am gender critical but that doesn't extend to transphobia.

No reasonable person wants trans people to have fewer rights than anybody else, nor to be treated with any less respect; but the problem is that the 'transphobia' word is thrown around so much that it has ceased to mean anything anymore.

Simply being GC is framed as being 'transphobic' these days. If both somebody making violent threats and unfounded accusations against trans people and a woman peacefully stating that she is not willing for her legal single-sex spaces to be opened to male people and thus removed are 'transphobic', then the word has no practical meaning.

If the TRA side could be honest in distinguishing actual transphobia and actual violence from people peacefully expressing opposing beliefs, we could get a lot further.

Outright refusal to debate, discuss or tolerate any different beliefs or perspectives - obviously not about how people identify but rather about the practical applications of those beliefs that directly infringe on other people's beliefs, rights and freedoms - is only ever going to end in antagonism; and reacting with shutdowns, cancellation, refusal to debate, name-calling and (in some cases) violent threats will naturally cause people with conflicting beliefs to assume that you do not have the courage of your convictions and are thus just trying to force your views wholesale on to society, to the detriment and intolerant bigoted denial of conflicting views.