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

Because men must always be given what they want.

At this point I don't think it's more complicated than that.

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.

That's not at all how I remember it. When do you think this addition happened ? I came across the term on this board (albeit it would have had a different name but basically 'FWR') many years ago in discussions purely between feminists. It was more about differentiating from some so-called '4th wave feminists' iirc and - as I've said before - nothing to do with transgender issues at the time.

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.

On that I'd agree with you!

I remember reading about those feminists too.

The feminists coined the term.

Extreme activists dropped the feminist noun and wedged in anyone who wanted a similar outcome, despite not having any feminist motivations or working for details under the same broad outcome that feminists oppose. The groups being wedged into the term also may not reject sex stereotypes, they might embrace and seek adherence to them.

But those activists did it to use guilt by association as a silencing and shaming tool.

And how many posters have we seen who readily continue the derogation started by those early activists, the ones who detached feminist from the term?

Then some go one step further and objectify feminists by further dehumanising tactics.

People on The Right Side of History are remarkably excellent at reinterpreting statements and questions into "what Bad People are really saying" so they are the forces of Righteousness can performatively slay those evil dragons.

Which kind of fits, I suppose, because people on The Right Side of History are also remarkably excellent at detecting which male humans are "sad and harmless ladies inside" - it must be that Soul Vision that Layla Moran has.

Clearly, it's not handed out to people on the Wrong Side of History. Which is why we are stuck with the mundane reality that:

• In the 21st century developed wealthy (mostly European/Western) societies, we are incredibly fortunate that in most aspects of life, people's sex doesn't really matter. Female humans are able to go about their education, work, social activities and so on, with relatively little difference to male humans.
• Indeed, our societies have become increasingly non-physical in many regards.
• However, despite our many achievements, humans are mammalian animals.
• Mammalian sex is determined at conception and is immutable. Mammals furthermore tend to be sexually dimorphic to a greater or lesser extent.
• There are only two sexes, unless you are a fungus.
• Sometimes, our sexed bodies matter - for example: physical strength and speed, propensity to violence and committing sexual assault, being a victim of sexual assault, menstruation, pregnancy and lactation.
• I'm no anthropologist and have not made a study of all human societies, but it seems fair to state that where our sex matters, it is almost universally female humans who come off worse in being discriminated against and being maltreated by male humans. Yes, even in 21st century developed wealthy (mostly European/Western) societies.
• Therefore, where sex matters, it still matters. Some of us have this controversial idea that female humans are full, actual people. And we would quite like our words to describe female people and female experiences and female needs and female wants. And we would quite like our single-sex spaces and sports and, yes, prisons (because even naughty female humans are still full actual people).
• We do not have the Soul Vision to detect which male humans are sufficiently sad and/or ladylike-in-mind to apparently be categorised as Not Male. Or the converse.
• But regardless, male humans are not female humans.

Hate to break it to princess but her views and mine are very, very similar

according to a lot of posters, who appear on this board to tell us how transphobic mumsnet is, shes a massive transphobe

Truth and honesty are paramount.
I’m sorry for people that don’t want to live with the reality of their biological sex but I refuse to accept that I must accede to the demands of those people so that they feel better about themselves.
Men that Transfer out of the masculine category do not become women.
Women that Transfer out of the female category do not become men.
The facade is deceitful and artificial.

Perfectly put 👏

I don't think Princess has fully worked through in her head how incoherent a belief system hers is. I think a fair amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary to maintain it.

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.

This.

I agree.

The incoherence is right there though for everyone to see.

Can you please clarify "anti-trans"? It's ambiguous as to whether it's the ideology or its acolytes that are being objected to. Like "Islamophobic".

But that is not the language that was demanded and given.

And even there the linguistic deception is evident.

No male is any kind of woman. The space has been forced in recent years to amplify the demand that they are women in the ways that tall/short women are women. That trans is just an adjective not an integral part of the compound noun that is transwoman.

Again, this was a coercive act to prioritise one person’s philosophical belief, not one based on material reality, over another person’s belief.

They could have created a term for themselves. But they didn’t because the aim was to be fully accepted as being a ‘woman’.

And if there is a new law that no one can transition, meaning that sex markers on ID cannot be changed, and identification is returned to recording the correct sex, what of it? If people have been living life where they have not been honest about their sex when sex was important to the situation, don’t those people have to take responsibility for doing that?

If someone has lived their life without deceiving others about their sex when sex matters, why would anyone then need to know? Surely then all they would know about someone is their name and treat them as an individual as they normally would.

There seems to be a whole lot of twisting about to not have to face the incoherency of those beliefs.

I just think Princessconsuelabananahammock9 is stuck between a rock and a hard place. She wants to protect her partner from being ridiculed or judged for their masculine presentation but accepts that other women are entitled to SSS.
Buck Angel is a woman but the ‘look’ is masculine and fully accepts it’s ‘his’ issue to deal with and not that of society to accept how ‘he’ feels.

Sure. And I can empathise.

What posters should not be doing is accusing those who disagree with them of being ‘anti-trans’ based on what can only be seen as a personal set of criteria. Because there is no criteria generally accepted by society on what should be considered as anti-trans except genuinely transphobicly driven hate crimes. Not correctly sexing. Not legitimate excluding of people.

And not when hypocritically, that same poster could be considered just as anti-trans for ‘not believing trans people are real’ because they personally define who is and isn’t transgender themselves.

I take @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 in good faith and can see they are in a place most are not

The contributions can put another perspective

I know it must be hard. I do think legislation hasn't worked well for society, women and children in particular

We can see the outcome in education and in DU behaviour in a tribunal. That exists because it's systemic and institutionalised

That harms us. And I think we should reverse legislation and try another way

Yeah I don’t necessarily think they posting in bad faith as such.

I do think it is an act of bad faith though to miscategorise a board and posters as being anti-trans for the reasons given.

I do think it is an act of bad faith though to miscategorise a board and posters as being anti-trans for the reasons given.

I don't think it's the correct conclusion either

Yes. Having people who present as the opposite sex creates problems, in some situations, unfortunately.

For example, if Princess' partner looks very male, that may cause alarm in women's spaces. However, it wouldn't be safe for a transman in men's spaces.

I don't honestly know what the solution is.

Because it's a sex based issue, and no matter what 'gender identity' someone has, when we are separating/segregating by sex, it's sex that matters.

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

Nothing

Once they had arranged their lives in a way which did not involve harmful deceptions which resulted in a negitave result for others.

Eg

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.

Calling someone by a unique (or near enough) idenfifier is not being kind its functional.
It is done to gain and engage that one individuals attention. Being able to name an individual is not a "human" experience its a function of having a more complex language base. Whales use names and a lamb can pick out and respond to its mothers call.

Even in small (human) groups if 2 individuals have the same sounds as an ID the group will modify one or both to enable them to be individual specific.

A name once also known by a third party reduces the need for complex descriptions.

Sexed pronouns replace a single identifiable person and in some languages were used to also describe the closeness of the relationship or other social connections with the speaker.

'Kindness' is accepting that the choice of words used to describe a person is the speakers choice not the person being described to a third party. We can hope the words used are 'nice' and 'positive' and even created some limits. We created terms like dictator and tyrant to communicate our distaste for the idea that one party should be allowed to control another partys speech.

Harm comes when the namechanger insists that the name change gives that person the right to direct and even control how others use words to communicate information about her/him/them to third parties

Per example the NHS case why did one party ask for a court ruling to compel the other party to use specific sexed words when that party could have asked that all parties use the names on record.

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.

Thats a slide from a persons name to the implication of what should be the social norns complex social interactions.

You have stated that you break humans into a 3 classes female, male, and trans. Ans that you have a very clear set of rules around how an individual qualifies for the female, male, and trans groups.

Individuals dont get to set rules and then force everyone else to follow them.
So you end up with two groups at once with lables of trans allie and transphobic bigot.

Once that is started to happen the social ability to manage on a case by case basis was distroyed.

If there was a change in law around "transition" once the person with the vagina or penis has not abused another parties rights where sex matters nothing changes.

....
Princessconsuelabananahammock9 · 10/02/2025 12:45

Maaate · 10/02/2025 07:19
I don’t have an issue with protecting women’s spaces and keeping “trans women” out of women’s sports.

You're as much of a "transphobe" as the rest of us.

Not quite because I don’t believe being trans precludes someone from employment in emergency services.
Nor would I deliberately call someone a woman just to make a point.
....

Being trans in any service puts two rights in conflict. One is an Employee the other a ServiceUser

The Employees ability to do the task can not over rule the ServiceUsers rights.

The Met police "took to" women in frontline roles and by the 70's developed different standards for a female and male in the same role. These were task specific on how to manage a ServiceUser sex specific task which were previously carried out by males (mainly around physical searches). By the 90' a male wanted to be managed under the female standard so the resolution followed your belief system:

....
Princessconsuelabananahammock9 · 10/02/2025 12:55
I don’t believe trans women or trans men are female or male.
I believe they are trans.
The trans means something.
.....

And they created a third female-with-limits standard

The problem now it the managers are now saying they have removed the third standard.
And that some officers can pick and choose to apply rules designed to protect first the ServiceUser (and by default the service proivder)

In the NHS case
The hospital went with male women.
The employee is going "I am not male or female or trans but We (humans) are all some other sexless and as yet unnamed group"

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.

Nothing changes here when it comes to using names becauses the sex of the body is the substantive issue not if Sue should or should not be called Sue.

Now Sue may want to be called she or her or girl or woman or female. And Sue can ask and be refused too.

What should not happen is that Sue is allowed to use the words as a powerplay while demanding rights that Sue (on the basis of sex) is not entitled to.

Obviously you and others do.

Thats a not so subtle multi-layered personalised attack without evidence that Helleofabore is not using someones name.

I personally don’t take someone else’s preferred gender presentation as an attack on my rights.

In the Met case wearing the bobby hat or not or a skirt was never a problem for the ServiceUser. Is still is not.
However being strip-searched by a member of the opposite sex because he or she is insisting its his or her right rather than an obligation for it to be done?
Most people would see that as an attack on their right.

The hospital case has an employee insisting on a right of having other staff ignore their training around ServiceUser Informed Consent which is also a contractual obligation and the legal rights of the ServiceUser not to be assaulted and/or battered.

The substance of the issue all comes down to why one person’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality being be prioritised over anyone else’s beliefs

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

Not sure why you think anything would have to happen?

Not sure why they think anything has already happened.

The word "transition" is very misleading actually, because it implies that someone used to be something and is now something else. But nothing material has actually changed. Certainly not their sex.

I took it as being changing ID back to correct sex and any implications around that.

I don't think I see any other issues.

Princess has asked about this before on another thread and I gave an in-depth answer with some questions but did Princess read it? I really don't know. There was never any engagement about that post. I hope there will be some with these posts. Because I would like to understand what the changes are.

Here would be my concerns.

If people don't want to feel deceived does my partner now have to announce to everyone he's trans? If you refer to him as a man is he obligated to correct you?

He uses the men's washrooms because he looks like a large hairy buff man. Should he be entering women's washrooms even though he looks like a man?

Would he still have access to medical care as a trans person who requires testosterone? Or would he be forced to detransition?

If people don't want to feel deceived does my partner now have to announce to everyone he's trans?

Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? At a book group, no.

Also, your language is obfuscating and shows you can't get to grips with what people are saying, and that your position is inconsistent.

They are not concerned about "trans" it's about biological sex. You know this. You've stated several times that you know it isn't possible to change sex. Stop creating straw men to fight.

OK.

I honestly don't know how my response has offended you.

I am not sure exactly what you mean but clearly my responses are frustrating you.

Those are my concerns.

I apologize for an offence I have caused and will be signing off now.