KJK

[Notaflippinclue]

Why the fuck has MUMSNET cancelled her

Bloody hell.

Who IS this person who apparently speaks for All Trans People (And All Women Too) and has been sent from on high to apparently fix things for all of us? What organisations are you representing? What laws do you have influence on? What is the significance of having this conversation with you personally?

Other than what it very, very obvious as to what you personally get out of it?

Yes, 'understanding' has certainly been increased, particularly in women here who haven't seen this very special dance before. It is not however the kind of 'understanding' you think it is, believe me.

Get men out of women's spaces, end of. I don't care how those men feel or their inner selves or anything going on in their heads at all, they do not get to use women. If they don't want to use men's spaces that's a whole other problem for them to fix, it's nothing to do with women. There is no amount of 'educating' or 'understanding' that will lead to me thinking yay bin women's equality, exclude loads of them, it'll make sad men happy and the world a better place!' because I'm not a male supremacist with a major problem with women and a belief that bad things are fine to enjoy yourself doing so long as you only do them to unfashionable and unpopular groups. Like women who don't revolve around a happy penis.

That's the end of my interest in the subject. I was interested once, but it's been beaten out of me by the realisation that self obsession does not need an audience.

It just showed there is nowhere this group of male people believe is an area where they shouldn’t go. The absolute male entitlement of traversing anywhere where there is no law, or a physical boundary to stop them, just because they can. Never once thinking of someone other than themselves.

And in the absolute, happy belief that now THEY have arrived, all the little wims can stop jabbering about unimportant stuff and revolve around talking about what that male wishes to discuss and accepting nicely like good girls what that male person tells them they must think and feel and do.

It's abuse. That person arrived and added their abuse to abused women. Who thank God are some of the toughest women you could hope to meet and were having none of it, but that tells you all you need to know about the utter arrogance, the narcissism, the absolute inability to see women as human or even as something other than a resource to use.

'Middle ground' with that? Mutual understanding with that? Are you joking? Fgs read some bloody Lundy Bancroft and get a grip. There's a reason abused women are not made to mediate with their abusers. It's just an avenue to crack on with the abuse. Reasonability takes two parties with the capacity - not just identifying as having the capacity.

I hope the middle grounders/be kinders/tone policers/word policers/mind our languagers will take note, I doubt they will as they are equally as awash with self righteousness as was our Alpha visitor.

I think it goes beyond mere naivety for many of them.

☝️

I'm not sure I've seen anyone on here who has a "need to cling on to kindness". Or anyone who is enabling abuse. Can you elaborate?

Says the poster who fulsomely praised our Alpha visitor for being here, engaging on threads, etc. Try thinking about that and the Trans Widows who had the dubious pleasure of Alpha's intrusion onto their support thread @BonfireLady and maybe, just maybe, you'll understand.

Try thinking about that and the Trans Widows who had the dubious pleasure of Alpha's intrusion onto their support thread

And there was some tone policing then, too, from someone who wasn't even a trans widow.

I saw that disgusting piece of tone policing Eresh, how low these women go (I am assuming it was a woman of course) in pandering to and trying to assuage men's feelings never ceases to amaze me.

Yes, and they completely missed the actual POINT of the seatbelt anecdote, and after tone policing everyone, they posted a long lesson on how to get your child to put/keep the seatbelt on.

OK..... sure.

And in return, please try thinking about parents like me who are faced with needing to take a "middle ground" approach with mental health and education institutions who have been trained to understand gender identity as a truth. Being able to listen, whilst also stating very clear red lines, is essential for what I am doing to support my daughter directly and to amplify that support to help others like her. If I don't listen to and engage in debate with those who hold a different belief to me, I won't be able to achieve this. I will simply be shut down as a problem.

It would never be appropriate for a transwoman to infiltrate a support thread for transwidows. I was unaware that this had happened (owing to the fact that I'm not a transwidow, so am not in the support group) and was referring solely to the two threads that I mentioned.

And from follow on comments.

I hope the middle grounders/be kinders/tone policers/word policers/mind our languagers will take note,

I doubt they will as they are equally as awash with self righteousness as was our Alpha visitor.

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but as someone who has been accused of tone policing on multiple occasions by certain posters on different threads, despite me saying on multiple occasions that I value all voices and all styles (including that of KJK and Glinner), I'm afraid this feels somewhat ironic.

I think it goes beyond mere naivety for many of them.

Please feel free to go through all of my comments on the two threads that I mentioned and pass on your feedback in relation to this.

What is the significance of having this conversation with you personally?

It's that we wims need to be educated and Alpha - with all the confidence and conviction that being male brings - has decided that he is the one to point out where we are going wrong.

Bless 'im.

Please feel free to go through all of my comments on the two threads that I mentioned and pass on your feedback in relation to this.

What? You'll have to elaborate on what you mean, @BonfireLady, I'm sure none of us have time for guessing games.

I made a general comment here and was mostly referring to the officious intervention when Alpha posted on the trans widows thread, but yes for the record I do think you and other people on MN (my use of "many of them" in the bland comment you singled out should make it clear that it's not all about you) are really quite naive.

No one fails to appreciate how hard your situation is, Bonfire; and that of every other parent watching their child in this situation. There is however a very, very fine line indeed between having a reasonable debate, and feeding and encouraging a male who is enjoying the opportunity to use women. In this case, said male, who by now has beyond evidenced lack of good faith, was encouraged enough to march onto the one single support thread that exists for traumatised women to support each other, and further abuse them by trying to use them too to get more food via attention and interaction. With possibly a fond belief of being the answer to their prayers, but quite likely other beliefs and desires involved that those women really, really did not need to be re subjected to.

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but as someone who has been accused of tone policing on multiple occasions by certain posters on different threads, despite me saying on multiple occasions that I value all voices and all styles (including that of KJK and Glinner), I'm afraid this feels somewhat ironic.

If you've been accused for tone policing on multiple occasions across threads don't you think there might be some truth in you doing that?

There have been several posters recently (who appear to be recent arrivals to the debate) who have taken it upon themselves to tell the women of this board that they are just not doing it right and if only they would adopt a different tone or use different words, be nicer, kinder and do as instructed by these posters everything would suddenly be perfect. And, indeed, some of them have gone as far as to blame us for the current debacle.

I understand that you personally have to tread a fine line in your interactions with people outside of this board due to the circumstances you find yourself in, however, why tone and word police this Board?

Do you not see your lauding of Alpha who was using this Board and the posters on it enables them to continue with that behaviour?

Also @BonfireLady I am not sure whether it is a conscious act or decision on your part but you do react and interact very differently to the Alpha's of this world than you do to the women on this Board.

If you've been accused for tone policing on multiple occasionsacross threads don't you think there might be some truth in you doing that?

This was probably a poor choice of language on my part. There have been a number of occasions, where I have been interacting in what I felt was a balanced way, where I was then told I was being "too reasonable". When I then explained that I valued all voices, including respectful debate, I was told to stop policing people's language. To pull it back to the theme of this thread - effectively being told, like I was by KJK, that I'm a part of the problem by the way that I am choosing to interact (from higher up the thread KJK told me that by sometimes using preferred pronouns, I am a part of the problem).

The sad truth @BonfireLady is that the majority of children are in this mess because we (collective we) failed to say "No, go away, you're not qualified" to countless men like this when they started to weigh in on education, the NHS, child healthcare, counselling & therapy for children etc. Because we collectively simpered and pandered, the "stunning and brave" rampaged unchallenged through organisations where children and women gathered, overturning decades of safeguarding / child psychology & professional expertise.
Women on here have learnt to say no to these men when they manipulate and dominate on here with their regressive stereotypes.

"No is a complete sentence" is after all the Mumsnet mantra.

That is interesting Bonfire about what KJK said to you.

Because I have the opinion that using preferred pronouns has as deep knock on ramifications as I do allowing a male poster to continue their posts which amount to abuse of women, directly through boundary violation such as posting on the transwidow threads or indirectly through their using women as a resource and amusement or because we needed to be 'educated'.

It is directly via leveraging pronoun use that Ivy / McKinnon got whichever sporting bodies would listen to allow male people into female sports categories. The logic they used, as a Philosophy lecturerer, was that people use female pronouns for them and many other males who request them, therefore everyone thinks they are female. And how cruel it is to then deny them access to female sports categories.

There is a reason that no should be considered a complete sentence and not an invitation to continue to use women as a resource and to continue abusive behaviour.

Taking the opportunity to repost a link to Barracker's brilliant and somewhat controversial essay about pronouns, first posted here on MN:

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

I want to be alert. I want others to be alert. I want people to see the real picture, and I want those instinctive reactions that we feel when something is wrong, to be un-blunted, un-dulled by this cheap but effective psychological trick. I feel like I owe this to myself, and I absolutely owe it to other women.

And more than anything, I owe this to girls. I don’t want to play even the tiniest part in grooming them to disregard their natural protective instincts. Those instincts are there for a reason. To keep them safe. They need those instincts intact, and sharp.

And that’s why I won’t use preferred pronouns.

I find it appalling that any transwoman would be or would feel that they had been encouraged to join in on the transwidows support thread. I would also find it awful to hear that women had been accusing transwidows of bringing their problems on themselves, if that has also been happening on that thread.

The "middle ground" and "Helen Joyce debate" threads lent themselves well to a transwoman joining in the conversation. I would still say that both threads help any lurkers to get a pretty rounded understanding of the subject - and that Alpha being there was a part of this.

When I saw Alpha on this thread, talking about debating KJK, with bravado, I called it out as game play.

There is however a very, very fine line indeed between having a reasonable debate, and feeding and encouraging a male who is enjoying the opportunity to use women.

I agree entirely. That's why I set out clear lines when engaging. And why I remain grateful to all the amazing women who have been on this board for years, from whom I've learned tons. Likewise to KJK for everything she does. Yes, she has a different style to me in the way that she interacts but I'm totally OK with that. The thing I'm not OK with is being told that I'm a part of the problem, simply because I interact differently from the more direct way of talking. No still means no when it comes to crossing others' boundaries or pulling vulnerable children and adults in to a compelled belief that we all have a gender identity, but that doesn't mean I can't listen to why someone feels that they have a gender identity themselves. I value the opportunity to do so, in the right threads of course (never a transwidows support thread, for example). There is nowhere else where I can have these kind of conversations, with the level of debate and challenge that we can have on this board.

Yes, absolutely.

Now we've got lots of different voices saying no in lots of different ways. There is a huge strength in this.

Biological sex is observable both before and at birth, no matter whether someone believes we have a gender identity or not. DSDs have been proven to be attributable to either males or females.

So from that point on it's a case of stopping gender identity belief being compelled as truth in law, education and healthcare. And there are lots of different ways to achieve this.

Sadly despite all those saying no, we've made minimal progress with these organisations completely embedded in countless schools, encouraging adults to socially transition children, teaching gender nonsense as fact, and undermining safeguarding & the emotional health and wellbeing of children.

My tolerance of men who arrive on here to lecture, admonish, wheedle or spout regressive nonsense is at an end. They are part of the problem and if they choose to descend on a feminist board where women congregate, then they won't be pandered to by most of us. It's long overdue that they are confronted with the grim reality of what they're promoting.

It also needs to be faced that not all arrive with the honest intent of enlightening women, spreading the blessed word and seeing them all turn into good little service humans, and are not here with any intention of actual conversation. It's just a puddle of female attention. You trot out the lines and off they go, nurture, sympathy, scolding, believing, pandering, simpering, stroking....

I really do suggest reading Cakelady's blog end to end. And Lundy Bancroft's Why Does He Do That. The entire psychology works on Issenadai's blog. And then spending a few days reading the relationship board. This is rather like doing the pick me dance when your husband who left you for another woman tells you he's trying to decide (and enjoying both of you while you both wait for him to come to the wonder of his own inner decision and deign to tell you). It's all scripted. All of it. It's just the same old same old.

Sadly despite all those saying no, we've made minimal progress with these organisations completely embedded in countless schools,

Strongly agree.

Just look at the # of times since 2016 that someone has posted FWR thread titles with some variation of "The tide is turning," "A new dawn?," "People are waking up." Lots of relatively new posters say, "Oh, my friends and family are more aware" or tell some personal anecdote about a sotto voce conversation in a pub and generalise from that.

But, here we are, many years on, political parties, policy makers, our major services and organisations are captured in plain sight. They are staffed by self-interested careerists, cowed or true believers, and the class of people least likely to be harmed by luxury beliefs espoused. Women are being erased as a sex class with associated rights and to loud applause. In a legal and social sense, women are deracinated.

It's a Zeno's paradox of reasonableness.

"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.

Women are comprehensively trained to behave well. To acquiesce, smooth, tidy the rough edges, keep everyone happy. This works reasonably well until we diminish ourselves in order to maintain this facade of peacableness.

We diminish our needs and desires, our ability to be honest, speak out, name the problem of male abuse, in order that some men are encouraged to be honest and open. Women are always halving our needs/desires/rights, in order to 'meet them in the middle'. The idea of 'reasonableness' always seems to involve us being nice to men who are categorically not nice to us. In any way. They are not interested, at best we are invisible - more often, we are a resource.

This took me a long while to learn, and I'm still learning. But this is about boundaries.

When we are 'reasonable' and attribute value to honesty, integrity, consideration, critical thinking, etc, we like to imagine that others are the same.

I'm afraid that often they are not. Yes, sure, we can give the benefit of the doubt. But at a certain point, when it becomes clear that someone is deliberately taking advantage of that, it becomes either naivety or some kind of masochism, or even masochism by proxy. What is it to try and seek 'middle ground' with someone who is categorically refusing to respect women's boundaries? Someone who insults us, demeans us, and refuses to even pretend he will listen to us? Someone who actually gets a kick from all of that?

Some men seek to push at and overcome boundaries. Subconsciously or consciously. It's a need, echoing that of 'queer theory', to subvert, provoke, disturb and transgress.

This inevitably involves transgressing the boundaries of other people. This is also an intrinsic part of most paraphilias - they are predicated on non-consensuality. (Paraphilias are almost entirely confined to males. Most women seem to find them really baffling).

Lastly, a situation that is set up where a certain class of person is entitled - in fact encouraged -in the transgression of social boundaries, is always, always, always going to attract disordered people. They may be personality disordered and/or sexually disordered and frequently both - there's a lot of overlap. Narcissists feed off other people's attention, discomfort, input, flattery, rage etc.

Yes, women on here may be abrupt, rude, bad tempered, tired, and sometimes intemperate. I love them all the more for it.

yep.