Mumsnet listed as Anti-Trans

[Hoosemover]

there a list of organisations and Mumsnet is on it. Along with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

x.com/twisterfilm/status/1888255119449268674?s=61

Gender critical is another label, you have to know the label to choose to apply it to yourself. As gender as an ideology started relatively recently (and previously it was the polite way to say sex) the label recently came into existence.
I don't follow the ideology and neither do I take onboard the label gender critical.
I still want equality, women to have rights that give them equality including spaces away from men where relevant (loos, prisons, wards etc.)
The creation of an ideology doesn't take away the reality that already existed.

If someone doesn’t believe trans people are real.

Or that they are lying and deceitful if they pass as the opposite sex.

Or that they would refuse to refer to them as the
sex they present as if they found out they were trans.

How can they not be anti-trans?

You don’t seem to be able to answer why one person’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality should be prioritised over anyone else’s beliefs?

Your arguments have rested on kindness going one direction.

People are real. It is a tropish, hyperbolic and emotionally manipulative statement to keep cycling back to ‘trans people are / are not real’. People don’t cease to exist if someone doesn’t believe their statements about their identity.

If a person who is the opposite sex to when sex matters doesn’t disclose that they are the sex they are, how is this not deceptive behaviour? And if a person acts as if they are the sex they present while knowing that others have specified that someone is of the sex the person is materially not, how is that not deceptive? How do you personally smooth over this inconsistency that is rather obvious to others?

Do you think your position is coherent?

Shall we just call your position anti-woman and keep pointing out where your opinions and values are inconsistent with supporting the full range of women’s needs?

Because you don’t seem to be able to answer some very pertinent questions that go to establishing the foundation of the opinions you have expressed here. Yet you demand your philosophical belief is respected and from that position you then expect to vilify and derogate others who don’t agree with you. And don’t agree with you on what is the very nature of respect.

“f someone doesn’t believe trans people are real.”

What, like declaring that only those people who have had medical treatment are transgender people?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement ?

It’s obvious we will never agree on this.

If someone tells me they prefer to be called by another name from their legal name or whatever I’ll do it because yes I think being kind matters and I don’t think it harms me.

I wouldn’t object because it’s deceitful.

I don’t view it as deceptive. If someone presents as a man or woman, I’m not concerned with if they have a vagina or penis.

I am all for protecting single sex spaces and sports but I don’t see how addressing someone as they prefer is a great inconvenience.

Obviously you and others do. I personally don’t take someone else’s preferred gender presentation as an attack on my rights.

I’m going to leave this thread now but thanks for the conversation.

I learned some interesting things about the origins of gender critical feminism.

That can mean one and the same thing though.

I agree that the presence of a female person who identifies as a trans man or non binary in women's spaces isn't usually a problem. (Although it can be if they pass convincingly enough as a man that their presence is distressing to other women.)

How can you protect single sex spaces and sports if you're not allowed to use factual language to distinguish between male and female people? Genuine question.

In what way is it not lying to say that you are female when you are actually male?

A lie is the opposite of the truth. The objective truth is that they are male and always will be.

I think referring to trans women and trans men is the way to do it.

Even if there was a new law that no one could transition what happens to those who already have?

The trans people I know are well aware they are not biological men or women. They are trans.

Have a good night.

Passing as the opposite sex is 'lying'?

It's something to think about. What are your thoughts on Rachel Dolezal?

Like Beth Upton who stated under oath he was a woman?

Ok.

Not only did Upton state he was a woman but that he was female, and biologically female. Which leads me to wonder whether I am similarly a trans woman.

The problem is that half the population doesn't know whether a trans woman is a male person who wants to be female or a female person who wants to be male. It's confusing. And deliberately so, in my opinion. Because on some level I think trans activists know that if everyone understood that a trans woman is a male person who says they are female, the number of people who would agree that they should be allowed in women's spaces would be very low.

I don't understand your question about what happens to them. Nothing happens to them. Nothing has in fact happened to them except a change of name/pronouns and maybe some cosmetic changes to their body.

If they are well aware that they are not actually the opposite sex and yet they say they are, surely that is the very definition of lying?

Gender ideology may be fairly new, but the imposition of gender stereotypes and roles is age old. It was embedded into cultures and written into laws.

Women were denied the vote, the right to higher education, entry to the professions etc etc etc merely because of what were (albeit not then called) gender stereotypes, not because of any genuine unfitness for these things.

The term 'gender critical feminist' may be fairly recent but I was one before I'd ever heard it.

I don't believe that people on FWR are anti trans individuals.

The overwhelming view I see here is that trans believers are victims of the ideology, and are pitied for being vulnerable people co-opted into believing a damaging outlook.

But it is a harmful and dangerous belief system, and if people come here to justify it, to spread it, and to tell us we're wrong or misunderstand the damage it's doing then they can expect to be robustly and clinically challenged on why their beliefs are shallow nonsense, and how deeply they are damaging society and the vulnerable individuals on whom they prey.

Gender critical is a new and unnecessary label which has been added to "feminist" by people who are not feminists (because they embrace rather than reject gender and prioritise the wants of male people over the rights and needs of female people) but claim to identify as feminists.

It's the equivalent of "cis", in fact.

In both cases you have the original group (women/feminists) who are given a new label by the new group (male people/gender believers) because the new group want to use the original group's original label despite not meeting any of the relevant criteria for inclusion in that group. So the original group gets linguistically displaced.

But let's be clear about this.

If you are not gender critical then you are not any kind of feminist. And if you are not female then you are not any kind of woman.

I have real issues with dishonesty @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 so anyone asking me to deliberately lie... I'm not going to do that automatically, I'm going to think hard about whether it's the right thing to do.

Why do you choose to use two words to describe the two sub-class of each sex?

Are you not aware that that choice is a political statement used to explain and excuse why a member of the oppoisite sex should be misclassified?

They are biological men or women. Because we are all biological men or women. Not quite sure of your point here.

If they aren't biological men or women what are they?

I didn’t say I wouldn’t use their name.

I asked why one person’s philosophical belief should be prioritised above anyone else’s. And you still cannot answer that question.

You seem to have twisted what I have said and asked rather badly. You are claiming I have said things that I have not.

Here are the questions about ‘deception’ again?

If a person who is the opposite sex to when sex matters doesn’t disclose that they are the sex they are, how is this not deceptive behaviour? And if a person acts as if they are the sex they present while knowing that others have specified that someone is of the sex the person is materially not, how is that not deceptive?

Or is it that you don’t believe a female person should have the right to have a female only carer? Or a female only prison officer to strip search her? Or a female only therapist?

You have just dismissed those who do.

It seems another inconsistency too. On one hand, you agree that there should be single sex spaces and sport, but on the other you don’t believe that when it matters that people should have the right to know that the person they are sharing space with or being presented with for a same sex service is the same sex as they are.

It is incoherent to state that we should have single sex space and sport but that we shouldn’t expect someone who presents as the opposite sex to be honest about their sex when it matters.

And no. I am not going to agree that you have the moral right to declare that I am anti- trans because of a list of your personal and inconsistent criteria.

@SailorSerena . The very definition of feminine is
adjective
1.
having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women or girls.
"the snowdrops gave a feminine touch to the table"

No blame to the snowdrops, dragged into this ridiculous list of stereotypes without their consent.

They are neither female nor feminine. Each flower is an arrangement of petals that protects both the male and female sex parts of the flower while permitting access by the insects that facilitate moving the small gametes in the pollen to the large gamete in the ovule.

Of course, snowdrops flower when it is very cold, and sometimes there are no insects around, and the plants can also propagate asexually by offsetting small bulbs, clones of the original plant.

So whether considering the asexual reproduction of the bulbs or the male and female sexual aspects of every flower, there is nothing 'feminine' about snowdrops.

I believe the group of feminists in the past coined the term for themselves. They failed themselves ‘gender critical feminists’.

It is activists who wished to use guilt by association who stripped the feminist from the term. They did it by misusing and misapplied the term which then made it meaningless. But they also used it as a pejorative.

‘gender critical’ was the adjective in this case that preceded ‘feminist’ the noun. Of course, people can be gender critical - meaning literally that they are actively criticising gender and in that case it is used like a verb.

Why should one person’s philosophical belief about themselves, one that doesn’t reflect material reality, be prioritised over anyone else’s beliefs?