Page 36 | Could we ban "transvestigating" threads on here?

Christinapple · 2024-12-09T01:00:27+00:00

[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5225715-ilona-maher https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5225715-ilona-maher]] This one for example. Transvestigating is an informal term given to when people play detective and try to determine if a given person (usually a woman) is transgender or not from how they look e.g. photos. I've seen it more than a few times on Twitter anytime a woman who is tall or muscular or "masculine looking" appears. Quite often, women are wrongly mistaken for being trans. As well as being transphobic, IMO this harms all women and reinforces stereotypes of what men/women should look like. And the idea of obsessing over people's appearances like this just doesn't sit well with me.

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:07

@ellenback21 reductive binary question gets a reductive binary answer: no.

Reframing as the actual question you seem to be asking gives us the following:

If a trans woman tells us she is a woman, should we simply take her word for it and let her into our spaces?

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

@TrainedByKittens, @Greyskybluesky don't claim trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis as part of the holocaust and you should be golden then!

Greyskybluesky · 12/12/2024 23:10

@ButterflyHatched
Where did I claim that? Quote my post please.

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:10

Clabony · 12/12/2024 22:55

Many transvestites were Nazi Party members or Officers in the 1930s and 1940s. Information long in the public doman.

It was big recreational thing within the Nazi Party. Well known to those who know the history of the period. It's not newly discovered as claimed.

The "transvestites" in the death camps were in fact Gay Men, some of whom dressed as the opposite sex and Dean has explained this accurately upthread.
Trans in modern day speak as Butters claims was NOT against the rewritten Protocol in Nazi Germany. Because many Nazi men were into dressing up as women and indulged openly and without persecution.

To claim otherwise is to deny the persecution of Gay Men by Nazis in the Holocaust.

Incidentally, Ernst Rohm a leading Nazi, was ordered to be murdered by Hitler, when it was discovered that Rohm was gay.

There were no Section 9 "women" or "transwomen" in Nazi Germany. The British GRA simply did not exist in Nazi Germany in the 1930/ 40's.

To try and crowbar in a different narrative is not an accurate reflection of the history of Gay Men. In my view it is a form of Holocaust denial.

Women who did not fit with the Nazi stereotype of breeding or who were outspoken politically, were also sent to the camps. Roma, disabled, sick, all sorts of people, were sent to the camps along with Jews. The women of FWR already know this.

The "stuffing us into ovens" narrative pushed by a poster on this thread, is dishonest and shameful. To put it mildly.

But all this discussion is a derail from Butter's intial posts about identity and stealth and sex by way of deception of the other party. A criminal offence.

Edited

Like this, for example.

Datun · 12/12/2024 23:11

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 12/12/2024 21:46

You've got a bloody nerve accusing anyone of Holocaust denial after you have repeatedly trivialised the Holocaust. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Show quote history

Deliberate

Datun · 12/12/2024 23:13

ButterflyHatched · 11/12/2024 17:24

Ok I'll remember that next time I see a wall of newspaper headlines demonising me or a wall of abuse on social media or yet another ray of hope stripped away by government policy or another update on hate crime statistics or another instance of everyday baseline social transphobia in the street or the workplace.

I'll remember when I'm called in again to justify the treatment I have been receiving all my adult life. I'll remember the next time I'm a political football in parliament. I'll remember the next time an election is fought over me. I'll remember the next time I'm the first thing that politicians drop. I'll remember as my legal protections once again come under concerted attack. I'll remember as international human rights orgs decry the UK for its treatment of trans people.

Show quote history

Good lord.

Just stay out of the ladies !!

TrainedByKittens · 12/12/2024 23:15

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:07

@ellenback21 reductive binary question gets a reductive binary answer: no.

Reframing as the actual question you seem to be asking gives us the following:

If a trans woman tells us she is a woman, should we simply take her word for it and let her into our spaces?

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

@TrainedByKittens, @Greyskybluesky don't claim trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis as part of the holocaust and you should be golden then!

@ButterflyHatched since you’re throwing around accusations against me why don’t you quote relevant posts by me?

Although you won’t be able to because you are lying again and targeting me personally in your false accusations which is harassment.

bluenova · 12/12/2024 23:17

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

What else is there butters? That is genuine. Not fake.

What is this "social contract" you speak about. No woman has ever heard of it.

GailBlancheViola · 12/12/2024 23:18

Reframing as the actual question you seem to be asking gives us the following:

If a trans woman tells us she is a woman, should we simply take her word for it and let her into our spaces?

Nope, that is not the question that was asked, you want to change the question because you don't want to answer it.

A transwoman is not a woman so telling us they are is wrong.

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

And how does one tell if the belief appears to be sincere? What is the concerted effort required? What is the social contract women hold themselves to?

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

What do you mean?

This is all such nonsense. Laws cannot be based upon and enacted on such nonsense.

GailBlancheViola · 12/12/2024 23:20

Datun · 12/12/2024 23:13

Good lord.

Just stay out of the ladies !!

Show quote history

Yes. Simple solutions are available that would give everyone the safety, privacy and dignity required but they don't suit and we know why.

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:20

TrainedByKittens · 12/12/2024 23:15

@ButterflyHatched since you’re throwing around accusations against me why don’t you quote relevant posts by me?

Although you won’t be able to because you are lying again and targeting me personally in your false accusations which is harassment.

Show quote history

I'm not, my friend.

I don't believe you have been claiming trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis, have you? If you have been then I apologise, I may have missed it - it's been a long thread and there's only one of me. If you haven't, though, then just keep on with the not claiming trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis and we're golden!

FlirtsWithRhinos · 12/12/2024 23:21

@ButterflyHatched

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

So, given that the "social contract that we hold ourselves to as women* is a not an actual thing, just a fantasy projected onto women's(1) inner lives by men(1) looking at us from the outside, no more part of womens lived reality than teenage sleepovers with pillow fights and braiding each others hair, or busting boobily down the stairs, that means never.

Took a long time to get there but thank God we finally got the cleared up.

Thank you everyone for your participation, taxis are waiting at the exit.

(1) original sex based meaning, obviously

GailBlancheViola · 12/12/2024 23:22

Keep out of spaces, services and sports for women, leave our language alone and then we'll be golden ButteflyHatched. See, easy.

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:27

GailBlancheViola · 12/12/2024 23:18

Reframing as the actual question you seem to be asking gives us the following:

If a trans woman tells us she is a woman, should we simply take her word for it and let her into our spaces?

Nope, that is not the question that was asked, you want to change the question because you don't want to answer it.

A transwoman is not a woman so telling us they are is wrong.

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

And how does one tell if the belief appears to be sincere? What is the concerted effort required? What is the social contract women hold themselves to?

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

What do you mean?

This is all such nonsense. Laws cannot be based upon and enacted on such nonsense.

Mercifully, the Equality Act 2010 spares us from arguing the minutiae of definitions from base principles by clearly stating:

The Equality Act 2010 says that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment.
In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex.
To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.
You can be at any stage in the transition process, from proposing to reassign your sex, undergoing a process of reassignment, or having completed it. It does not matter whether or not you have applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is the document that confirms the change of a person's legal sex.
For example, a person who was born female and decides to spend the rest of their life as a man, and a person who was born male and has been living as a woman for some time and obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, both have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Thankyou, Harriet Harman!

TrainedByKittens · 12/12/2024 23:27

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:20

I'm not, my friend.

I don't believe you have been claiming trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis, have you? If you have been then I apologise, I may have missed it - it's been a long thread and there's only one of me. If you haven't, though, then just keep on with the not claiming trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis and we're golden!

Show quote history

Why did you target me in your post and insinuate I’d been making holocaust denial posts?

Of course you can’t find any as I didn’t make any. More lies and flinging dirt at women in the hopes it might stick. We see you.

’I’m not, my friend’ interesting statement to make, I’ve only ever heard men use this expression

Clabony · 12/12/2024 23:28

I'm getting bobble hat vibes. Which will only make sense to those posters who've been here a long time.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 12/12/2024 23:28

ButterflyHatched · 10/12/2024 22:51

Mrs Justice Yip called the murder "exceptionally brutal and planned" and partly motivated by "hostility" due to Brianna's transgender identity.

She stated that it involved elements of transphobic hate by Ratcliffe and sadism on the part of Jenkinson.

Weird to see the desperation with which they are being defended here. Transphobia exists in the UK. It features daily in almost every mainstream newspaper. It exists in almost every pub, street and workplace; it exists in healthcare organisations; in family homes and in the halls of government.

It is enough of a problem that the UK gained a derisive nickname to highlight the pervasive grip of transphobia on its population years ago.

It is enough of a problem that multiple human rights orgs, including the UN office of the high commissioner for human rights, have been motivated to publish reports about it.

You are defending a pair of sadistic killers who were literally documented making transphobic banter about a trans girl they were planning to brutally murder. One of them was clearly and demonstrably obsessed with her and found her transness beguiling. She leveraged the other's clearly stated transphobic views in order to convince him to help her. It's all right there in the text.

The process of inciting political violence against particular demographic through hostile rhetoric is called stochastic terrorism. This process has been ongoing for over decade in the UK.

The rest of the world has been watching. They are concerned enough that they are now regularly raising the alarm.

Show quote history

You are defending a pair of sadistic killers

No one has defended Brianna's killers. People have analysed their motives. Analysis of a killer's motives is not defending that killer. Defending them would be claiming that Brianna "had it coming" or similar, which literally no one has said. To the contrary, on a parenting website, posters are likely to be appalled and also concerned as to how to determine whether one's own children might be at risk of committing or being targetted for a similar crime. That's why we are avoiding the at-a-glance conclusion of "transphobia" and digging deeper. That's one hyperbolic statement from you.

It features daily in almost every mainstream newspaper.

Like fuck it does. Have you read Metro, Guardian, or Independent recently? That's a second hyperbolic statement from you.

It exists in almost every pub, street and workplace; it exists in healthcare organisations; in family homes and in the halls of government.

I think what you really mean here is "employers and service providers are recognising that sex still matters and that the law allows them, and in a couple of instances requires them, to apply sex-based exemptions". Losing privilege feels like oppression when you've got used to having privilege, and being allowed to waltz into female changing rooms was a very desirable privilege for a particular subset of males. A third hyperbolic statement from you. I find it hard to take seriously people who resort to hyperbole repeatedly.

Mrs Justice Yip called the murder "exceptionally brutal and planned" and partly motivated by "hostility" due to Brianna's transgender identity.

Mrs Justice Yip's interpretation isn't the only opinion out there. The police didn't consider transphobia to be a motive for those murderers to choose Brianna. We all read the messages and followed the case and we can make our own minds up. My view, based on the appalling messages we all saw, is that Jenkinson saw Brianna as very pretty far more than as trans, and wanted to take Brianna's eyes in the same way that a lepidopterist wants to capture a beautiful butterfly only to kill it and pin it to a board. I remind you that Brianna was Jenkinson's second choice of victim, which is not consistent with transphobia as a motive when the first choice victim was not trans.

Greyskybluesky · 12/12/2024 23:29

Clabony · 12/12/2024 23:28

I'm getting bobble hat vibes. Which will only make sense to those posters who've been here a long time.

Edited

What's that?

Clabony · 12/12/2024 23:34

@Greyskybluesky a previous visitor to the site long ago fond of a particular head attire.Who we don't talk about.😎
I may be mis bobbling. Perhaps it is essence of bobble?

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:35

TrainedByKittens · 12/12/2024 23:27

Why did you target me in your post and insinuate I’d been making holocaust denial posts?

Of course you can’t find any as I didn’t make any. More lies and flinging dirt at women in the hopes it might stick. We see you.

’I’m not, my friend’ interesting statement to make, I’ve only ever heard men use this expression

Show quote history

I didn't. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was implying otherwise - I was responding to your original statement on the subject with a reminder not to.

Normally I wouldn't have considered it to be a necessary warning to make, but several other posters on this very thread have been twisting themselves in knots trying to imply that trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis in a way that is, at best, demonstrative of a very upsetting and unhealthy reflex. I don't believe you have, though.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you have any more language policing you'd like to get in tonight or shall we leave it there?

Travelodge · 12/12/2024 23:35

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:07

@ellenback21 reductive binary question gets a reductive binary answer: no.

Reframing as the actual question you seem to be asking gives us the following:

If a trans woman tells us she is a woman, should we simply take her word for it and let her into our spaces?

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

@TrainedByKittens, @Greyskybluesky don't claim trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis as part of the holocaust and you should be golden then!

What exactly is this "social contract" that you say I hold myself to?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 12/12/2024 23:37

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:07

@ellenback21 reductive binary question gets a reductive binary answer: no.

Reframing as the actual question you seem to be asking gives us the following:

If a trans woman tells us she is a woman, should we simply take her word for it and let her into our spaces?

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

To head off the inevitable sneering over what making a concerted effort looks like, no I don't mean 'wearing a dress and lots of makeup' or any other image that may be conjured as part of the usual tiresome body of transphobic stereotypes.

@TrainedByKittens, @Greyskybluesky don't claim trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis as part of the holocaust and you should be golden then!

To which I would answer: If her belief appears to be sincere and she is making a concerted effort to adhere to the social contract that we hold ourselves to as women, then yes. If not, then no.

What social contract is this? I don't recall signing any "social contract" nor "holding myself" to any such thing.

Once more for those at the back: "womanhood" is something imposed on us because we are born female. I didn't ask for endometriosis, pregnancy scares, cat-calling, periods and the associated agony, boobs and the associated torture contraptions bras, sexual assault from primary school onwards, sexed pay gap, etc. Being a woman isn't something that we opt into, sign up for, identify as, or choose.

Datun · 12/12/2024 23:38

Clabony · 12/12/2024 23:28

I'm getting bobble hat vibes. Which will only make sense to those posters who've been here a long time.

Edited

Yep

Greyskybluesky · 12/12/2024 23:40

Greyskybluesky · 12/12/2024 23:10

@ButterflyHatched
Where did I claim that? Quote my post please.

@ButterflyHatched
Would you quote the relevant post by me as proof of your accusation please?

Datun · 12/12/2024 23:41

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:27

Mercifully, the Equality Act 2010 spares us from arguing the minutiae of definitions from base principles by clearly stating:

The Equality Act 2010 says that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment.
In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex.
To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.
You can be at any stage in the transition process, from proposing to reassign your sex, undergoing a process of reassignment, or having completed it. It does not matter whether or not you have applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is the document that confirms the change of a person's legal sex.
For example, a person who was born female and decides to spend the rest of their life as a man, and a person who was born male and has been living as a woman for some time and obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, both have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Thankyou, Harriet Harman!

Show quote history

Mercifully, the Equality Act 2010 spares us from arguing the minutiae of definitions from base principles by clearly stating:

yep, that characteristic will be the next thing to go. Watch this space.

absolute coup for transactivists getting that put in.

TrainedByKittens · 12/12/2024 23:42

ButterflyHatched · 12/12/2024 23:35

I didn't. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was implying otherwise - I was responding to your original statement on the subject with a reminder not to.

Normally I wouldn't have considered it to be a necessary warning to make, but several other posters on this very thread have been twisting themselves in knots trying to imply that trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis in a way that is, at best, demonstrative of a very upsetting and unhealthy reflex. I don't believe you have, though.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you have any more language policing you'd like to get in tonight or shall we leave it there?

Show quote history

There is nothing I have ever posted anywhere that would suggest I might need to be warned not to make holocaust denial posts, by making such a targeted warning to me you have made a very clear insinuation that I had.

You have cleared up nothing. You have made a nasty allegation that is completely untrue.

We can see what you have posted and so can everyone else reading this board, they can also see what we have posted and they can see the difference between what you allege we’ve said and what we’ve actually said. I say difference but you have just made up allegations that don’t have the slightest bit of truth in them.