AIBU in thinking the special talk guidelines are out of date?

[TinselAngel]

Post Forstater and in the current climate where the assault on women's rights is being discussed everywhere, AIBU to say the special FWR guidelines are no longer necessary?

MN no longer needs special rules to appease the activists who monitor the site, in order to maintain its ability to host the debate, when it is no longer the only site where the topic can be discussed.

I posted the something on the Trans Widows Escape Committee thread a couple of days ago, and it was deleted, it was my first ever deletion on that thread in 6 years. As an experiment I posted the same thing on Twitter and nobody batted an eyelid there.

Is it time we women of FWR, and in particular trans widows, were allowed to speak freely?

Beware of tone policing others posts as you may well find that they will do the same to yours.

It has happened several times before on other threads. I've been viewed with suspicion due to my "reasonableness". I can empathise with this, given the tactics from the Denton files and other similar agendas that have been exposed by people like Helen Joyce on her book, Trans.

At one point I was told that I sounded like a barrister who was simply enjoying the intellectual game. I was also asked what my agenda was. That was a simple one to answer:

1. help my gender-questioning autistic daughter to avoid harm
2. help other similar children and young people in the same way
3. add my voice to the wider debate and help to drive a change to support women and girls

Could you answer my question about giving the benefit of the doubt please @BonfireLady , thank you.

I could, but it would be very pointed at one person on this thread and I could be wrong. Therefore, out of respect to this person (and I respect much about this person), I would rather not.

I am very happy to accept that the problem with interpreting the tone lies with me. I am just struggling on this one particular example, within a wider context of posting history.

If you are asexual then surely thats a natural state of being with no sexual desire.

If you have sexual function removed thats doesn't mean your sexual desire isn't there, it means it can't be relieved.

One has this innate state of neutrality the other is an innate state of lifelong frustration.

Conflating the two is a misrepresentation of asexuality to suit the needs of another group. Just like intersex is presented to suit the needs of another group. Or homosexuality to suit the needs of another group. Or racism to suit the needs of another group.

The common theme here is the trojan horse of exploitation of compassion.

We are also not talking about when it is normal to develop sexual feelings. Young kids walking around saying they are asexual aren't necessarily asexual at all. They are just kids yet to develop. I certainly wasn't attracted to anyone before about age 14 and remember thinking how weird I must be cos I wasn't remotely interested in famous movie stars. Kids are being conditioned to believe they have a sexuality before they are physically mature enough to have one, in too many cases. And thats being led by adults who clearly have lost their memories and brain cells OR want to sexualise children before they hit puberty. And in the context of trojan horses I find this part particularly disturbing.

We have lost sight of what is normal human development in the midst of frankenstein ideas about how you can change your body to suit your desires. You can't. You can give it surgery but it is not changed - it is just cosmetic. Even more perversely advertising or promoting cosmetic surgery to minors in the UK is not allowed. And yet here we are with what is seemingly presented as an essential part of the curriculum.

Remind me again: Why are we encouraging cosmetic surgery with excessive rates of complication. particularly in minors? Not only that but its cosmetic surgery promoted with the promises that it will have 'changed your sex' when this is simply not possible. From age 9.

It's a normal and common usage when talking about the history of castration of humans, which sometimes just involved the testicles, but in other cases also the penis. Castration of captured soldiers, historically, for example, would often mean removing everything.

Trying to remain generic, but explain myself better (I can appreciate the importance of this), I don't think that the person it was said to has come back on the thread.
This could be for many reasons e.g. they are doing something IRL and aren't currently on MN. However, one possible reason is that they perceived the tone to be inappropriate to them so they disengaged from the discussion. If that's the case, it's an unfortunate outcome.

While meanwhile plenty of activists were promoting a 'children as sexual beings' agenda ...

Both asexual and sexual. Schrodinger's children indeed.

"say what you like (including facts about biology and biological sex) but consider the impact of your words on others who don't share your views"

Is this an equal expectation of both sides of the debate though?

I am unwilling to obfusticate and use language to cover up facts and reality on the grounds that others may find it uncomfortable. That does not mean that I'm without sympathy for the discomfort.

But I am deeply concerned that this discomfort is being used to control others. And when I obfusticate to be kind, I help a political agenda I have increasingly severe problems with, and am enabling its progress in controlling and subordinating women and harming children.

I am also deeply concerned that I almost never see or hear anyone exhorting trans activists to consider the impact of their words (and indeed actions) upon the feelings and emotional wellbeing of women. This unequal high standard applicable to some but not others, again furthers the abusive dynamic and enables harm. It also tacitly enforces compliance with a belief and political system regardless of consent, on the grounds that it is morally right and to disagree with it is morally wrong and abusive. And that those morally wrong should have lesser rights. We can see the impact of this constantly in the real world impact, and those women who have passed through the 'be kind' stages to realising that kindness is danegeld are not 'unkind' or 'wrong' for having reached that stage or in communicating their views.

Impartiality would be that that all use the language of their choosing, relating to their beliefs. No one would encourage or discourage either viewpoint.

Conflating the two is a misrepresentation of asexuality to suit the needs of another group. Just like intersex is presented to suit the needs of another group. Or homosexuality to suit the needs of another group. Or racism to suit the needs of another group.

The common theme here is the trojan horse of exploitation of compassion.

I completely agree. The sole intention is to shut the discussion down.

With regards to being sensitive to the word castration in some medical contexts:

I think actually this is appropriate, and is a pretty normal part of what you might describe as pastoral care of individuals. A doctor with a good bedside manner is going to try and be clear, but also not use a word that may, for specific patients, cause them to become frightened, shut down, and stop listening.

That's a judgement call in individual settings with individual patients, and it happens all the time in medicine. Doctors talking to regular people may sometimes use very colloquial language too, if that is what the person will understand.

The thing is, that does not usually transfer into general discussions of the topic among doctors, in journals, or, I would argue, on discussion boards, bar some very specialized support threads. I don't believe anyone should be asking in threads that are not explicitly pastoral for that kind of restraint - and that is whatever side of the discussion they are on. It makes it impossible to discuss issues properly.

This could be for many reasons e.g. they are doing something IRL and aren't currently on MN. However, one possible reason is that they perceived the tone to be inappropriate to them so they disengaged from the discussion. If that's the case, it's an unfortunate outcome.

Up to them really. Not anyone else.

I am also deeply concerned that I almost never see or hear anyone exhorting trans activists to consider the impact of their words (and indeed actions) upon the feelings and emotional wellbeing of women.

Well, quite.

And yet we are told to moderate our tone and language to get what we want, as if, all that does is signal weakness and an area to exploit which they do.

With regards to 'bluntness'.

Bluntness is associated with rudeness. I don't buy into this. Bluntness is more about being to the point and being factual with a lack of emotion. It is actually a very cultural practice. If you go across Europe, you'll find that it is the British who are obsessed with not offending whereas other nationality can't be arsed with the frilly knickers that accompany utter bollocks and just are blunt and to the point. Its not the same in other places.

TRAs want to add emotion to the debate, because it is what fuels compliance. Remove the emotion and you are left with descriptive words that in themselves do not cause harm. It is the emotion attached to words where it becomes a problem.

In encouraging bluntness, I emphase almost 'disarming' words from this emotion.

Thats why the use of medical terms is particularly useful. These are descriptive words.

It is also why we should be mindful of instances of where ideologues try to emotional load words and debate. MN rules tend to focus of this - they are all about discharging emotion. If you understand this principle and look to debate logically without emotion it becomes incredibly hard to justify deletions.

Arguing emotionally does tend to be easier to do in the short term. It fires people up. And that fire driven charge can be difficult to break down especially in politics. Logic is harder to get the disengaged to engage with. However there is the Wall of Reality which all ideology must hit at some point and thats where logic is rock solid.

For example, and very ironically, if you describe surgery on minors with excess complication rates and dubious ethical oversight in those clear logical dry terms it tends to provoke an emotional reaction all of its own, which is difficult for those who cite it as a neutral act to regain the narrative from. Because shit just hit the wall of reality. It is not the language that is charged with emotion though - it is the ethical void that the emotional language is trying to disguise that is the problematic part - when bullshit hits the wall of reality, it pisses people off.

And in this sense isn't derogatory, nor can anyone pretend it is because its not about individuals but a promoted practice or ideology thats deeply problematic.

Its a pattern that I think repeats throughout politics meeting the real world.

Break the cycle of emotionally driven charges that someone makes by getting them to ask logical questions in their own heads and they drive themselves mad. You don't tell them what to think. You explain what is happening in a factual way and wait for reality to hit. Eventually you hit a tipping point or crisis of some sort.

Its why Mermaids lurches from scandal to scandal and Stonewall is liable to follow the same path (having originally been built on the foundations of reason, it is gradually tipping this hard won credibility down the gender neutral toilet.

Where I do fear things going is with the conflation of the online harms act under the next government in a way that everyone sees coming - a misuse to enable censorship. So thats why I largely support 'self regulation' on MN to prevent it falling foul of that.

I think women here actively see, understand and call out the pattern of gaslighting and emotional coercision using language to control pretty well. They then use it to their advantage by understanding they can't fight that head on, and instead are better to use 'cold served' response of bluntness and cool logic in response.

Women know its happening. That doesn't mean they are ruled by it. Women have survived it for centuries by knowing how to undermine it.

If you go across Europe, you'll find that it is the British who are obsessed with not offending whereas other nationality can't be arsed with the frilly knickers that accompany utter bollocks and just are blunt and to the point.

Agreed. I know this well, no sugar coating, no craven apologies just say what needs to be said.

Arguing emotionally does tend to be easier to do in the short term. It fires people up. And that fire driven charge can be difficult to break down especially in politics. Logic is harder to get the disengaged to engage with. However there is the Wall of Reality which all ideology must hit at some point and thats where logic is rock solid.

Btw this is what happened with Andrew Neil. He wasn't interested and engaged. Until he was. And something hit his wall of reality and pissed him off.

This sums up for me what so many of you are saying.

I cannot abide this mind-police and language-police, especially as it is covering up sterilisation and castration of children and young adults.

Those are facts.
We must be able to discuss the facts, and as many others have pointed out; the distortion of the language is precisely so that the facts cannot be discussed properly.

Reading this board and having it all layed out plainly - and repeatedly - has really helped me to formulate my own feelings and thoughts around this matter. It has been so helpful and educational.

There has been some really good debate on here and some excellent points raised. All very helpful food for thought on how to navigate conversations where there is broad agreement on the key principles but not necessarily on the way things are discussed. A good debate is balanced with all of that in mind.

I shall leave (flounce off?) with food for thought: I just opened up an interesting (and frankly awful) thread about silicone being injected directly in to women's breasts in Japan in the past. A very shocking article and it's important to get it out there and talked about so that the harms done to women in history are out in the sunlight. However, I'm not commenting on the thread because the opening post, and another within the first few posts, talks about really starting to hate men. Personally I find that disrespectful and distracting from the actual issue. Today's men are not responsible for the actions of previous men..It's important that today's men learn from the past but I'm not sure how many will want to listen to the information if it's an anti-men environment right from the word go. Not to mention giving some great screenshot opportunities for those that want to represent this board as man-hating as well as trans-hating. But I won't go on the thread and "police" the language.

Reading this board and having it all layed out plainly - and repeatedly - has really helped me to formulate my own feelings and thoughts around this matter. It has been so helpful and educational.

Yes; it's taught me object lessons in plain speaking, honesty, and assertiveness.

The way we frame and phrase things affects our thinking process. Piercing insight generally doesn't come when we are trying too hard to appease or second guess. Some care brings clarity; too much caution obscures it.

Disagreement, having your ego pricked, being discomfited - all of these are healthy in open debate.

BonfireLady

Today's men are not responsible for the actions of previous men..

I wouldn't worry about unfairly maligning today's military personnel with the sins of previous generations- today's overseas military posts are still known for the abuse of local women, and no-one talks about that. Even male United Nations Peacekeepers have abused women and children when mobilised to wartorn regions.

As previously discussed on this forum, history has shown that people find it easier to abuse people from other cultures/countries, because it's easier to other them. This includes men who secretly want to rape.

Start by reading this agonising post from a woman in Romania, and zero in on the male soldiers at the US military base, and their role in funding sex trafficking. nordicmodelnow.org/2020/03/02/the-cost-of-western-europes-rampant-prostitution-the-genocide-of-romanian-women/

Mind you, reading that back, it makes it sound as if the US military is safe for American women. 25% of women in the US military have been sexually assaulted by a military male.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/magazine/military-sexual-assault.html

From the thread @BonfireLady mentioned:

"So many women suffering at the hands of men because of their sexual wants. Mens wants always trump the needs of a woman it seems, even in this day and age."

It's both true and highly relevant to the subject.

Thank you for those links @NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision. Shocking.

For the sake of balance, here's a member of the UK forces abusing a Kenyan woman referred to as a "sex worker". It's not solely an US military issue. As mentioned before, UN Peacekeepers have raped women.

Her name was Agnes and she was 21. She entered the sex trade to earn money for her baby, who was five months old when her mother was murdered by soldiers from the local UK army base. They hid her body in a septic tank.

extract

The family of a Kenyan woman allegedly killed by a British soldier in 2012 have told the BBC of their anger and despair that no-one has yet been convicted of her murder.

The UK defence ministry says it has been co-operating with a Kenyan inquiry into Agnes Wanjiru's death following allegations of a cover-up reported by the Sunday Times at the weekend (subscription required).

Her body was found in a septic tank at a hotel in central Kenya nearly three months after she had spent an evening partying with soldiers.

The 21-year-old left behind a five-month old daughter, who is now being cared for by her sister Rose Wanyua in the town of Nanyuki, 200km (125 miles) north of the capital, Nairobi.

[...]

Ms Wanjiru, who dropped out of high school and later became a sex worker to look after her baby, was last seen by witnesses on the night of 31 March 2012.

She was walking out of a Nanyuki bar accompanied by two British soldiers.

[...]

For decades, locals have complained about the British army, which has a training base in Nanyuki.

A lawyer who represents them told the BBC many of the issues go unaddressed.

"Even with our local police, you will just report a case, and then nothing goes beyond the investigation stage," Kelvin Kubai said. "Most of the locals do not have the resources and financial capacity, to enable them pursue justice on such grounds."

BBC

That's horrific.