KJK

[Notaflippinclue]

Why the fuck has MUMSNET cancelled her

Who said you were 'part of the problem', Bon fire?

I agree that this is a fortunate position to be in.

Yes, that's why I specifically added that bit in, as a concession to you and other people who have reasons why they really cannot avoid them.

I'm not talking about calling MTF trans people he. I do and don't depending on the audience. I never use she though. On MN misgendering can get you sanctioned, so I'm careful to avoid using either. I also never use the term "trans woman/transwoman" unironically. Again there are ways to get around this, but we all have to do what we can, I fully appreciate that. I don't tell people what to do myself, I'm just saying that I do agree with Kellie that wrong sex pronouns and calling males a type of "woman" are part of the problem.

It's like fucking Groundhog Day, Eresh.

I keep seeing Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men telling Tom Cruise to ask him nicely.

If people cannot cope with someone expressing themselves in a direct manner, using only the number of words necessary to make their point, not pandering, not being fluffy, not using submissive words, not pleading or weaselling then the problem lies with them not the person articulating themselves succinctly and clearly.

KJK on Twitter 😁

And there are a few comments up above which (mostly indirectly) say the same.

I've taken on board the advice about enabling abuse. But equally, I'm not sure how many people who told me that I wasn't listening to this advice had actually read my interactions on the two threads that I was referring to in my post to Alpha (page 5 I think, of this thread). I've re-read what I wrote to Alpha on this thread and in hindsight, I would have made it much clearer WRT to what I felt had been positive from the middle ground and Helen Joyce threads. I can see how the ambiguity of the word "enjoy" really didn't help, for example.

If all we have is platitudes, absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
That's why KJK and others with a similar style and reach are so important too.

Did she actually directly verbatim say that to you? It doesn't sound like her.

I would have made it much clearer WRT to what I felt had been positive from the middle ground and Helen Joyce threads.

I think that's the source of disagreement here, many women clearly didn't feel a male like Alpha being encouraged to derail threads to talk endlessly about Alpha's "needs" and how Alpha only used women's spaces "when actually necessary" was particularly positive. Not sure that's going to change, however you word it.

We are trying to effect change. You cannot do that without breaking out of the trap.

The trap is sexism.

Female socialisation and an expectation that women are second class, service humans, less important, and obliged to cater for/look after/be nice/be polite are all part of the box.

'the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house'

Continuing to pretend that we can fix the problem of women's rights being dismissed, undermined, given away, disregarded while not upsetting people is just not accurate.

There are lots of people who are very invested in dismantling women's rights and boundaries.

They are going to be very upset at any deviation from submissive acquiescence, to put it mildly.

Giving decision makers the false idea that they can straddle some kind of fence is where we get Keir Starmer's sex fudge from.

Either men can access women's rights or they can't.

Either men can change sex or they can't.

Either we are allowed to name sex clearly or we aren't.

*Datun" · Today 10:53

I'm going to hazard a guess that the main thing they suffer from is being fictional.

Oh, so blood relatives of Tatchell's dainty trans footballer friend, who's always getting bashed up by sturdy, brutish women...

I first found out about the dangers of trans ideology on mn about 10 years ago. In that time, we've had hundreds of discussions. We've been polite, tried to find compromise, used their preferred language. The threads have grown from a few users and taking weeks to fill up, to lots of users and just days to fill up.

And what have we achieve? Despite assurances of trans wings in prision, it took a media scandal of a rapist for them to actually do something. People had to say 'thats a man' about a rapist in a wig for the government to be shamed enough to do something.

Nothing gets done unless we call a man a man. If people find that too much to cope with, fine carry on not offending anyone. But they will not achieve anything.

GailBlancheViola

If people cannot cope with someone expressing themselves in a direct manner, using only the number of words necessary to make their point...

Yes, she's very good at sticking to her point and refusing to go down interviewers' rabbit holes and they hate it. Good old plain speech and sticking to the facts is exactly what she needs to do.

Some people will think she's a bolshy sod, but she's had to be, because of her experiences. She speaks about what she knows about and is firm in refusing to compromise, because there IS no middle ground.

Excellent timely piece by Victoria Smith

https://thecritic.co.uk/she-her-or-else/

"It reminds me of the way in which a woman will try to be nice to a man who is harassing her. She will smile; she will be polite; she will ask herself “what’s the point in offending him?”

Eventually, however, there will come a point where she needs to assert her boundaries, whereupon her harasser will accuse her of leading him on. Even if he knows her “niceness” was coerced, he will deem it hypocritical. She should have been honest with him! Even if five minutes earlier, he would have claimed that a smile or a pronoun costs her nothing at all.

When women endorse other people’s realities as an act of kindness, all the latter perceive is that this is now “the reality” — the only one that matters. Hence any future deviation from it is proof either that women are dishonest or that we are cruel. We might have been having our own personal experiences of the world the whole time, but that is simply not taken into account.

Not verbatim. But telling me that my assertion (which I still stand by) that we should each be free to choose what pronouns we use for someone was why ground had been lost.

I posted a comment because she wasn't just saying "he" in the thread, like many other posters were, she was telling Rachel Johnson what she should/shouldn't be saying.

Ground has definitely been lost because of the compelled language around preferred pronouns, I totally agree. But each of us is still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons.

It comes right back to there being different ways of doing things and on this particular thread, Rachel Johnson was commenting on something in a GC capacity. I can't see the original post any more but it was in relation to something that Janice Turner had written. From what I understood from Rachel Johnson's comment, it looked like Rachel was supportive of a GC view but also wanted to draw a clear line in the sand because of her own previous involvement with India with specific reference to pronouns. Personally, I would completely understand why she chose to use India's preferred pronouns if she didn't want to muddy the waters and/or risk undermining the Channel 5 legal warning that she referred to.

Ground has definitely been lost because of the compelled language around preferred pronouns, I totally agree. But each of us is still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons.

Yes, and if KJK makes the choice to call prominent people out on something she thinks needs highlighting, that's a choice she's free to make too. And you can't really wonder at her response to you, as you freely made the choice to challenge her.

TL:DR freedom of speech is great and people are allowed to challenge things they disagree with. Both you and Kellie.

Giving decision makers the false idea that they can straddle some kind of fence is where we get Keir Starmer's sex fudge from.

Agreed. But having decision makers understand the issues is the key bit. If they don't like what they are hearing (too direct or not direct enough) they will switch off.

The problem is that when you allow the AGPs to gallop around FWR in their size 10's and women engage with them in polite and ladylike discussion, you are confining Trans Widows to the Trans Widow thread like it's a ghetto.

We don't want to engage on threads that our exes are on. Given this is a feminist forum I always hope (often in vain) that women will feel they can learn more from us than from our exes.

Anybody here who thinks they can learn more from our exes than us is entitled to that opinion, but it is not a feminist one.

Put simply, you can have us or them. Which do you value more? Alpha's incursion onto the TW thread was a perfect illustration of this.

Buy me! Buy me! Buy me!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CMJZ43VZ

Agreed. But having decision makers understand the issues is the key bit. If they don't like what they are hearing (too direct or not direct enough) they will switch off.

Do you seriously think the TRA side went to the decision makers and asked nicely or indirectly? Do you really think they caved because TRAs said pretty please?

Seriously.

Decision makers understand the issues all too well, don't be fooled that they don't they merely picked which side they thought was easier to shit on without them fighting back which is why they are like rabbits in the headlights now that women are fighting back and being direct about it.

Agreed. But having decision makers understand the issues is the key bit. If they don't like what they are hearing (too direct or not direct enough) they will switch off.

They cant. Politicians and other decision makers cannot switch off to their responsibility around safeguarding, even though plenty of them try. What they to do is pretend safeguarding isnt being compromised.

If society continued to call men women, politicians will as well and use that to pretend safeguarding standards are being met.

When everyone stood up and said isla the rapist was a man, politicians had to admit it too, and put that man into the male estate.

While people are lying and saying Willoughby is a she,they are allowing politicians to ignore the safeguarding fails that they have legislated for.

Everyone who calls a man she takes a step to allowing that man into the changing room with little girls. Because we know thats their aim, they tell us time and time again. Should we just sit back, wait for bad things to happen, and then call the man 'he' then? Or do you think we should do it earlier?

When everyone stood up and said isla the rapist was a man, politicians had to admit it too, and put that man into the male estate.

YY.

Not sure about this. I think the TRAs have been very devious (or indirect) in their mangling of language definitions and their assertions that everything is transphobic. Many people (myself included) didn’t realise what they were (are) doing. If you spotted this ten years ago, it must all seem very obvious, but many people still think that ‘gender identity’ is more important than sex, that it’s rude and unkind and therefore wrong to point out biological reality, that transgender people are the most vulnerable, that a hierarchy of oppression is the arbiter of morality etc. And of course, that women’s rights are not an issue, that they don’t matter. Muddled thinking by decision makers is surely an issue here?

This is what you say to children. "My ears only hear nice voices".

This is what misogynists say to women. "You'd be listened to if you weren't shrill or hysterical".

IT's SEXISM

If you want to ask nicely for little girls not to be subjected to blokes with their tackle out living their 'best lives' (and fuck the little girl's best life, she's a tool in this, not a person) and for women to not be excluded from women's spaces so that any male who wishes in the moment can LARP about in there, then you crack on. You see if you get heard where all other women tried and failed.

And meanwhile I'm going to be blunt and plain and I don't care now if male feelings get hurt, because women have been actually raped while we try and explain that women are human too, and can they have a few rights please if no one minds, in our nice voices. *

Muddled thinking by decision makers is surely an issue here?

David Lammy, one the the MPs at the centre of the GRA believes that men can grow a cervix.

These decision makers aren't bright.