I am gobsmacked by what I'm reading on other forums

[WallaceinAnderland]

This (my underlining)

"It seems to me, that the core issue that is behind all the bigotry and transphobia is the issue of predatory men. Obviously, I know that certain bigots won't change their minds. I'm not talking about that minority, I'm talking about the easily swayed majority.

"The whole "debate" centres around protecting women. I think we need to reframe it. We need to reframe it so that we protect ALL women (including trans women and women of colour) from predatory men."

I mean, what the actual fuck? Can this person not see their racism?

Another reason we get accused of dog piling and nastiness-

Women are supposed to be nice, to roll over and give in, to sweetly persuade or manipulate people, when necessary.

Robustly standing up for ourselves, loudly disagreeing, is ’being bolshy’ or ‘strident’, unladylike etc. Dog piling and nastiness.

Disagreeable.

You say you are gobsmacked by other fora, but you presumably are aware that the general attitude of respect for trans-identity is the norm throughout most online sites, and that many denizens of those sites would be as gobsmacked as you by a lot of the attitudes on MN, right?

Whilst I agree that "women of colour" was a very poor choice of words on the part of whoever originally wrote that post, the rest of it is neither offensive nor factually wrong; the majority of people do believe, rightly in my personal view, in respect for the identities of the trans-community.

The issue arises, as it has, when those rights conflict - often, but not always, erroneously - with the rights of non-trans women.

Exactly.

So if you ignore the outrageous racism the post was OK? Well they weren't complaining about the rest of the post just the racism. They weren't poorly chosen words, they reveal a warped worldview and it is hard/impossible to ignore that.

Oh and to save you time you can use woman instead of non-trans woman.

It’s just yet another attempt to insert the idea that transwoman is a kind of woman. So lots of listing “types” of women. The hope is that you bristle and think that this dividing is unnecessary they are ALL women and that you might include transwomen in that thought.

A Transwo-man is not a woman though (as has been explained so clearly in court) and the description like others could never justify the invasion of female spaces or erosion of female rights.

You say you are gobsmacked by other fora, but you presumably are aware that the general attitude of respect for trans-identity is the norm throughout most online sites, and that many denizens of those sites would be as gobsmacked as you by a lot of the attitudes on MN, right?

Both the law and every government poll agree that men stay out of women's spaces.

if you're hearing otherwise, you might want to start questioning that, because misrepresentation of the law is what's got us into this situation in the first place.

Placing the identity of males above the actual bodily reality of all females, from which there’s no escape/ denying / choice, even if their own ‘identity’ is ‘male’ is the height of male power and dominance over Women (actual females)

it’s really dodgy maths too.

Im teaching basic categorisation at the lowest levels at the moment, it astounds me how otherwise supposedly very clever people cannot mathematically sort properly.

It's very telling that @WhatNextCatsAsDoctorshas disappeared now they've had their arse comprehensively handed to them.

Just because “everyone else thinks this” (on Reddit) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s “right.” Especially in arenas where you’re actively told off for dissenting views.

authoritarianism exists on the left and the right.

I guess you missed the point.

Yes, I don't think anyone would categorise Reddit as even handed.

The guidelines here are far more neutral

But you are going circular.
To broadly summarise-
The PPs were talking about Reddit banning people and algorithms, and how different MN is.

-You say, MN is just like that!

They say ‘no its not’

-You say ‘yes, it is it happened to me!’

They say ‘but you’re still here, haven’t been banned’.

-’Obviously, But MNHQ don’t like me, I have an MN stalker’

‘But you haven’t been banned!’

-‘I didn’t say I was banned’

and round it goes.

"Off topic, but if there's one pronoun we really need it's a Generic You. "One" just doesn't cut it"
Agreed. Historically, 'you' was the formal/plural form (like vous in French) and thee/thou was the informal form. It's interesting that we chose the formal. And that all those thees and thous in the King James Bible are not 'posh' as people sometimes think, but intimate and friendly!

[Sorry, that was really off topic ]

Genderwoo on Reddit is a special case, not just because of ideologue moderators but also because Reddit corporate policy is involved. There's one robustly un-PC sub that has a hard ban on discussing anything trans related in case Reddit admin use comments as an excuse to nuke the whole sub.

I have a theory, with the hobby related subs, that I can tell the difference between a male dominated sub and a female dominated one if I ignore the subject of the sub and just look at its rules. A male dominated sub will have two or three simple rules that boil down to "don't be an arsehole". A female dominated sub will have an enormous number of rules about things you can't say, lots of them only tangentially related to the subject of the sub, which tell you that power mad moderators are using "inclusion" as a means of exclusion.

For instance, if you go on a sub about TV costume dramas, you won't know it's forbidden to question colour blind casting until you get hit with the ban hammer.

It seems absurd to say MN has a more "male" approach, so maybe it's just a more neutral, more early 2000s internet approach. Which is good. I'm not saying there are no bits of MN where there are dominant viewpoints, but there's a clear difference between a setup that allows for robust discussion and one that actively shuts down discussion.

I replied to your comment only: “I don’t see shouting down and shutting people up” in that, in effect, I have been ‘shut up’. I’ve said none of things above, BTW.

She didn't.

Your argument was you can't debate here.

Our point is you ARE debating here unlike on Reddit where we'd be banned in two seconds flat.

You aren't banned.

Only about the topic of … being silenced.

Amazing how being silenced looks an awful lot like... not being silenced.

You’re having a fairly detailed argument about being silenced for someone who’s suffering from being silenced.

If you don’t mind my saying so.

I’m a little uncertain here, as you are flipping between being extremely literal and being extremely liberal. I’m more comfortable with literal, detail oriented people staying that way.
When people flip flop between hyperbole and literalism it’s hard to reply.

But that’s just my reading. I’m more inclined towards hyperbole, interpretation and reading between the lines myself. I could be describing something that isn’t there.

You aren't being silenced. We can all read what you are saying...

The trouble here is that ultimately if you are trying to make us believe an untruth, people aren't going to buy it here.

If you continue to centre males on a feminist forum you are not going to get a warm reception because your expectation is literally asking women to put aside their own interests.

If you then persist in circular arguments rather than answering questions then all you do is piss people off. That not debating, that's dodging the argument and the core of the problem we are trying to address.

At the heart of this is how CAN the law work for women and other groups.

If you believe that trans people should have rights then fine. But do you believe women should have rights too? If so how do we actually legislate that and make a distinction between the two - because we have to. Otherwise one group gets disadvantaged. That relies on definitions. These matter, but that's the point that everyone wants to run away from, pass the buck on or twist and lie about (bad faith).

Using the argument about 'nice' males doesn't work either. The law exists because we recognise there will always be people who aren't nice and will try and harm others for their own selfish desires. Human Rights law is the ultimate defence against this.

Women asking for private spaces to minimise risk and trauma to themselves (and children) is just about the least selfish legal requests. It's totally in line with the principles of human rights. Yet at every step we've been told this is unreasonable as a request because a group of males don't like it and should have special treatment because they are the nicest ones.

That's ridiculous if you understand why the law exists.

We can't define in law 'good people' in a way that excludes 'bad people'. We can only define on clearly identifiable feature which are neutral but identify risk / harms.

Women are at risk of sexual abuse - it's their sex bits that are the target. Validating males as women makes a mockery of those identifiable risk factors and the net result will always be harm whether it be physical or mental.

If you want to be respected here and taken seriously you need to engage with the legal definitions point. If you can't or won't because you keep going on about how it's not fair for men or run around in circular arguments avoiding the question of how can we get the law to work and why can't women centre themselves rather than putting men first, you are always going to get short shrift.

That's not silencing you. That's blowing up shit arguments which deliberately don't want to engage with our core point that women matter and women have rights too and it's not being anti trans to say this. It's merely asking why do we have to put ourselves in a position where we become collateral damage to males and how many of us is it acceptable to harm to indulge the fantasy, we all know is a lie, of men.

Put simply; just answer the bloody question instead of giving bullshit politician style replies.

When people flip flop between hyperbole and literalism it’s hard to reply.

It's the galloping goalposts of The Right Side of History.

Instead we get 'im being silenced' as deflection because you don't want to engage on the key point.

You aren't.

Crack on, the soap box is here and it's vacant. Stand on it and say your piece.

Just don't expect us to agree.

'Being silenced' is not the same as being robustly challenged for having a weak argument or avoiding the core point. That's just you having a shit argument and it being too weak to answer our concerns.

To be fair MN is optional not compulsory and most of us are here in our leisure time, so not looking for a downright unpleasant experience which having 50 people tell you your arguments don’t make sense is (even when, perhaps especially when, they really don’t make sense)

I think if one is used to everybody gazing adoringly at your pronouncements and unquestioning agreeing with everything one says, then any lack of reverence must come as a shocking and horrifying experience. Let alone actual disagreement!!!😱

So when The Righteous say they're being silenced or piled on, they probably do honestly believe it (after all, they believe far weirder shit like sex being a spectrum).