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 when the words 'mother' or 'woman 'cannot used because some women don't want to be women, and, some men do want to be women - then women literally get erased from the language, and lose their humanity as female memebers of the human race in the process.

When 'Woman' can be appropriated and colonised by anyone who chooses it is meaningless - and actual women are disempowered.

I must say that mumsnet is brill for allowing women to find other women whose views aren't completely americanised and unrelatable.

I think it's great to have a space on the internet for confident and intelligent women to discuss all sorts.

I do think censorship should be kept to a minimum though.

Yep. That was the entire gist of the thread.

Some people thought the OP should be forced to overcome her discomfort at sharing facilities with a male person.

I disagree. Women should not be forced to share single sex spaces with males.

That's what I read too, the op definitely said they were using the facilities set aside for females.

I read all the posts on the toilets conversation thread that was deleted, up to about page 18.

I kept looking for an opportune moment to comment but it never came.

I was very disappointed with the thread right from the start because I felt that there was an unnecessary conflation of single sex toilet facilities (a valid and important discussion) and a fear/mocking of a transwoman who "giggles, flicks hair" etc. The two are very different subjects.

Any transwoman can wear any clothes and behave in any (legal) way they like. If that male does so in a caricature of "womanhood" and then gets a contract promoting sports bras, calling attention to the disgust and outrage at their misogyny seems fair game. If that transwoman is attending a workplace to do their job, I would agree that any calling out of their dress/mannerisms is unnecessary and transphobic. At least one poster did try and call that out.

From the start, the comments were toxic and unhelpful in many cases, whether "GC" or "TRA" in style.

Regarding toilets, what I had intended to add was that I would very much add my voice to a call for third spaces. Sadly the prevalence of GAP (please rearrange) in transwomen is high. This also impacts transwomen with dysphoria (as many posters have pointed out) because it skews the view that people have of transwomen. However, as is with the case of all single sex spaces the risk of harm against women is what's being mitigated. It doesn't matter that many biological men or transwomen will have no intention of causing harm to women. The safeguard is there to stop the few that would.

For the sake of Lucy and the women's dignity, IMO the women's toilets should be for the women only. It is very likely that Lucy or any transwoman would not feel comfortable in the men's toilets, therefore a third space is appropriate. If any transwoman believes that this is not supporting all dignities, I would suggest that they need to examine their own reasons as to why it's so important that they use women's facilities. Dignity and safety for all is key here.

Personally, I am glad that the post got deleted. And no, I didn't report it.

Gosh, you're right. Men who have their genitals operated on (whether removal for cosmetic reasons, or cancer), and impotent men are practically women. Maybe even ones who cannot move too fast as well, with a walking stick or wheelchair.

Should they all be in the Ladies? And changing rooms with girls and women?

I'll add irrespective of male or female I'd give anyone giggling and deliberately hair swishing in work a big swerve because it annoys the fuck out of me.

So you think ypu that women should not be permitted to describe the behaviours and appearances that cause a male to be reconised as a male, and not as a woman? That we should just keep quiet about this observations?

*And when the words 'mother' or 'woman 'cannot used because some women don't want to be women, and, some men do want to be women - then women literally get erased from the language, and lose their humanity as female memebers of the human race in the process.

When 'Woman' can be appropriated and colonised by anyone who chooses it is meaningless - and actual women are disempowered.*

Completely. Women isn't a dirty word, nor is mother or breastfeeding. They should not be censored or amended to make a minority feel happy.

Ps I'm not saying all comments were inappropriate, but there were significant numbers that were.

I'm also aware that some people would consider me saying that a transwoman is not a man to be transphobic. I refute this based on my belief that I do not have a gender identity. However, I respect that some people do have a strong sense of their own gender identity and that for many of those people, my comments are transphobic.

It's very similar to religion in that respect. I am an atheist, therefore I do not believe in (any) god. There are many who would consider this statement blasphemy. As I do not have a religion, I do not consider it blasphemous. However, I respect the person's belief and thankfully we have moved on from burning people at the stake for religious heresy. Instead, religious people and atheists rub along together, both sets of people realising that an argument over whether god is real or not is utterly pointless and will lead nowhere. One day, I'd like to think we can get there on gender identity.

'But if you find yourself getting to a point where you are recommending someone avoid someone else solely on the basis of their trans status, I think that smacks of phobia, yes.'

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as recommending avoidance purely due to trans status, I find the idea that men think they can be women abhorrent and insulting, and I do tend to avoid people who I know hold abhorrent and insulting beliefs.

So it depends on the circumstances, but if I got into bother then the order in which I would approach a stranger for help would have a man in a dress at the bottom of the list. If that makes me transphobic then, as Germaine Greer says, I don't care.

I am under no illusion that believers in trans ideology would avoid people like me. Are they misogynists? Quite possibly. And so therefore it's best if they avoid me.

Excellent point, I said similar in another thread about why certain ones are deleted. It isn't the GC views, it's the mocking, dehumanising replies.

But sex is real.......and we cannot progress until that is acknowledged and spaces set aside to cater for women and girls in particular are protected.
Then , as you suggest, the obvious way forward is third spaces, services and open categories.

That just leaves teaching private belief or contested theory as fact to chldren......

*But inherent in ‘trans status’ is the fact that it involves trying to control others

not healthy to be around.

It’s fine, indeed sensible to avoid controlling people who don’t respect your boundaries*

Delurking to say that I entirely agree with @BernardBlacksMolluscs on the above.
In my wider social circle there are plenty of women who call themselves non-binary and insist on they/them pronouns. I'm not ashamed to say that that I avoid them, apart from friendly greetings, and would absolutely not pursue deeper friendships with them.
It doesn't make sense to me to be friends with people who are so intolerant that they want to control my thoughts and my language.
It's not phobic, it's protecting your own integrity, boundaries and mental health!

Nope. I don't think that at all. However, the transwoman's (wigged and frocked) appearance and
(giggly) mannerisms were irrelevant to the subject being discussed. It would simply have been enough to state that they a transwoman.

The description of the transwomen in the original post on the toilet thread (which has now been deleted) was unnecessary IMO and invited a whole different theme in to the conversation. I think that this is what went wrong.

I would have very much supported a discussion about "GAP", men and risk in single sex spaces.

It was the OP who presented the issue of a new male member of staff using the women's toilets in a thread starter. Who is to say her expresssion or description of her issue is wrong and 'inappropriate' for discussion?

Perhaps you could have started another thread to take the issue forward in a way or manner you preferred?

However, I respect that some people do have a strong sense of their own gender identity and that for many of those people, my comments are transphobic.

Ah well, that's probably the difference between us.

I don't respect trans ideology. Quite the opposite. I have nothing but contempt for the ideology, including advocates for it, and proponents of it, as it has wreaked untold damage on children, teenagers and women's rights.

I disagree with it, profoundly as it is based on sexism. But also when it is used as a justification for cross dressers to require women to validate them.

Because, and I've said this before, men who demand specific access to women's facilities are not interested in the actual facilities.

It's the women in those facilities who provide the validation. If all the women got up, left and used a completely different toilet, the focus would switch to the new toilet. Because the women are crucial. Without them, it's just a room with four walls and ceiling. Hence a third space never being something that TRAs are interested in acquiring.

Any ideology which advocates the use of women as a resource for the benefit of men, does not deserve any sort of respect, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean, on an individual basis, that I think men who identify as women should be denied any basic human rights, of course.

Just not women's rights.

I don't interpret this as a lack of respect for women...and actually I can't help but wonder if there is a core misogyny that underlies this interpretation.

We're going to be stuck then, because I think sex matters profoundly. Here's Alice Sullivan to explain why:

I think anyone who doesn't see how insulting it is to think that a dress and make-up = woman, or who thinks it's okay to require people to call them by pronouns they have no claim to, or who thinks it's fine for male-sexed people entering women-only space, is the misogynist around here. Everything about that behaviour smacks of male entitlement.

My life is built around women. I run events and groups for lesbians (real old-fashioned same-sex-attracted lesbians, not straight men who identify as women). I have decades of voluntary work behind me in women's centres and women's rights campaigns. But perhaps I've been fooling myself, perhaps I've been a secret misogynist all this time. Please detail how it is you've come to your conclusion that I have a cold core of misogyny.

AGP men 😁. Unless you're referring to those who work in a clothes store.

Just trying to avoid the comment being deleted 😁 I went with the idea that if you know, you know.. 😉

It's my understanding that we allowed to talk about AGP as a concept, but depending on the context, HQ might take a dim view of you directly accusing someone of it. A known person, not some abstract 'random bloke at work' that no one knows

well yes this actually. This is part of why I was looking for clarification of what people were objecting to with the word 'avoid'.

Not my cup of tea / I don't think we'll be friends is not equal to cannot behave professionally or politely with such and such.

And it is for this reason that I am here.

Respectful conversation, which can and inevitably will lead to some respectful disagreement. Whilst learning some different perspectives along the way.

What does “not in the spirit of the site” actually mean?

Does it mean we all have to go along with a lie like the emperor’s new clothes?

It would be more helpful if mumsnet hq left the thread in place but highlighted any posts they deemed contravened the site rules so we could understand what sort of comment is being censored.