What do people get from coming here to 'scold' us?

[CassOle]

My first (not completely serious) thoughts are: their arse handed to them and screenshots.

However, is there more to it?

Why do some long term posters come back again and again with the same arguments that haven't worked before? Do they think that it might work this time?

Then there are the 'my Trans friends are lovely' scolders. Do they really think that we should forget safeguarding, biological reality, single-sex provision etc. becuase they have lovely friends?

Lastly, the thread ploppers. If we are lucky, they might even reply. The one last night might have been getting sexual kicks from it, but we have had other ploppers who just appeared to want to tell us how mean and nasty we are.

None of these (that I have seen) have brought good, well reasoned arguments to back up their points. Maybe that is what causes people to scold and run, or plop and run, as when the arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny (or they have the screenshots), they stop posting.

This then brings me back to the long term posters who are TWAW. I would not like it if they were driven off this board, as it is a public board and as long as the T&C are kept to, they have every right to post. It must be hard posting against the main opinion on any matter, so they must get 'something' from it. Maybe Chris et al will be kind enough to explain this from their point of view?

Ah! I didn't see that. Am on my phone at work and so skimming through comments.

I feel a little bit like you're framing a gotcha - you're finding a particular writer who defines womanhood through submission which is not a take I'm super keen on - much like I also don't like "woman = someone who is likely to be a victim of sexual violence and also have babies" which sometimes feels like the predominant narrative on MN.

You're then taking that definition and using that to define all trans identities and how trans people (you assume) view women which I don't think is accurate.

You then take a broad term like 'womens spaces' which could mean 'group therapy for victims of sexual violence' or could mean 'crochet and knitting craft evening' (both womens spaces that I go to) and ask me to come up with an 'all fits one' response, assuming that the trans woman (I guess a woman?) does agree with Long Chu.

And I don't think that's a helpful framing.

Do I think that there are women's spaces that some trans women aren't the right fit for? Yeah. I do. I think access clash can be a thing. Do I think gender is a complex beast, different people have different understandings of it, most MN posters also believe in gender (as per the many posts about 'male styles of communication' etc) and in many cases single gender spaces are able to make room and be more inclusive? Also, yes.

However, we are now shifting from 'why do people post here' which is a question I was willing to answer to 'what is a woman' which is not what I came here for so I shall depart. You may, of course, feel very satisfied that dumb TRA has been vanquished by your superior intellect and celebrate with a cigar and cocktail or something. :)

Thanks for the reply Sometimes.

I agree that you should be able to post your opinions on the subject on the site. Having it laid out by people who disagree is helpful. I have thought deeply about what it would take to change my mind on this subject. For what it is worth, I believe that every person has a value of one person. I don't think of trans identified people as having a lower value. I just know that human beings cannot change sex, because that is the biological truth.

@SometimesSnoozing Im saying that I don’t want any men in female spaces at all, because a lot of men, however they identify, see women like that. By what mechanism are those men you see as “trans women” a different group?

@ZeldaFighter the OP on the deleted thread made only three posts (including the OP itself), posted using explicitly sexual language within those 3 posts, did not engage properly with any of the questions asked, did not ask any questions of us, and the Mumsnet deletion message said they were deleting the thread because they could see the OP had already deleted their account. It's maybe a bit sad the thread wasn't left to stand, but I'm guessing that was because of the sexual stuff and the posters who called it out as relating to that paraphilia I think we still aren't supposed to talk about explicitly.

But thanks for the acknowledgment that I wasn’t doing a “bait and switch”. I don’t smoke and I save my cocktail drinking for more significant victories, like the Supreme Court ruling that as we know, men don’t belong in women’s spaces even when they really really want to be there.

I don't think of trans identified people as having a lower value. I just know that human beings cannot change sex, because that is the biological truth.

I think the majority of GC feminists take this view. And quite honestly, I struggle with something so straightforward and self evident being seen as controversial.

I think if you come on to a board calling women "cis" when they've asked over and over again not to be labelled as such, you're going to get pushback.

Not to mention the snarky comments and cherry picking of other posters' comments.

God try my Facebook, people are screeching "bigots" all over the shop. It's like feminism never existed. When did men's rights become more important than women's rights? You cannot argue with them, I guess s lot of them are very young and don't remember the time as recent as the 80's when women had to get their husbands agreement before they could make a big purchase or get a credit card.
I come over here to get some sanity.

This is all very ideal world scenario though isn’t it? In an ideal world men wouldn’t be predatory towards women and girls, 2/3 women a week wouldn’t be murdered, and misogyny wouldn’t exist.

Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world and society has to work for the majority, because in general, it is impossible to manage these things on a case by case basis. Contrary to what we’re constantly being told, TIM have NOT been using women’s facilities for decades, that’s a lie being put around to undermine women’s rights to single sex spaces. Your casual dismissal of the ‘much milder discomfort from women’ than compared to the ‘much more harmful to trans people’ is very telling, and indicates that you agree with men being centred in every area of life. Women have been told since the beginning of time by men, and some women like you, that they must step aside and put the needs of men first. I would respond to that with the words of Sarah Robles, bronze winning Olympic medalist in 2021, No Thank You.

I see.

Do you realise that you then enter their threads signalling that you are an ally? Yet, you are not an ally to the feminist discussion here as you acknowledge.

So, in effect, you are judging how people react to your posts here compared to carefully treading posts on threads where you signal you are an ally before opening discussion.

And you don't see how the two situations are disparate and no longer comparable?

Your casual dismissal of the ‘much milder discomfort from women’ than compared to the ‘much more harmful to trans people’ is very telling, and indicates that you agree with men being centred in every area of life.

I always find it so interesting that people like the poster in question are so keen to be allies to transwomen, but don't seem to feel any obligation to be allies to women.

And fundamentally, women are far more at risk from men than TW will ever be from anyone. The statistics bear this out in an u deniable way.

No. There is no gotcha in Eresh's post.

The point is, if even one group of the male people who seek access into female single sex spaces express this opinion about female people, why do you think they should be allowed to access that space.

Because how does any person know whether the male person accessing that space has that opinion of women or not?

Strong safeguarding principles using risk assessment utilising legitimate discrimination categories need to be applied. Meaning that no male person should be entering in a space designated as being for female people only.

It doesn't matter how it is 'framed', that is blunt and accurate assessment of how accesses female single sex spaces.

They also posted a "look at brave me, I posted on Mumsnet but they were all meanies so I deleted my account" thread on the trans uk reddit, with a link.

The Mumsnet thread had been deleted by the time the third or fourth comment had arrived.

I think that reddit thread has been deleted now too.

I thought the most self-revealing comment in the original post was the bit about "I have a group of women friends I have women-chat with in the ladies'". It's so performative.

Thank you to L00py and Sometimes for engaging.
What I am looking for is not an explanation as to why trans people need rights over and above their basic human righta that they share with all other citizens - I'm happy to accept that they do (albeit trans rights are not as important to me as some other issues); the crux is why it is better that males, however they identify, should use female rights and spaces instead of their own, trans, spaces.

Do you understand that 'case by case' doesn't actually work? And that what you advocate for leads to female people being harmed.

It is clear that you want to be able to be seen as being reasonable and considered. But this post above and the reliance on 'case by case' means that you are not actually paying as much attention as you think you are.

And you probably don't have any arguments to support your position other than emotional reasoning. Which relies on emotional manipulation. I think your arguments reflect more on your own comfort level of your self perception than actually considering carefully what female people need.

The concept of 'gender identity ideology' as you put it, being homophobic is a concept that is touted on places like FWR, but of course it is not held on the ground in the real world where there is a very high level of affinity between trans and gay people.

It is an online tactic used as part of a broader 'divide and conquer' strategy of the community and to create a fraudulent narrative that there are broad and deep levels of antagonism - of course this is not the case.

People within LGBT circles tend to high levels of support for each other, acknowledging that gender identity and sexuality are complex areas which do not always fit into neat little boxes. If someone born as a natal female who is lesbian and then at a later point determines that transman is a better fit for them that is not homophobic, that does not diminish my own sexuality or identity as lesbian, or suddenly make me think that, this being the case for them, that suddenly transman must be a better fit for me! For goodness sake!

We allow for complexity and different identities and experiences, the existence of trans people is not homophobic, any thought that it is stems from an authoritarian approach.

In terms of statistics we are talking about such a small percentage (less than 1%) of the population that these numbers will not dramatically shift figures in any particular direction. Of course we know that transwomen score poorly on all the measures that are looked at in terms of women's well-being and parity with men, so if they are being included in the figures for women they will bring down the overall performance scores for women on these measures, instead of bringing them up. Even more impressive than, that these countries where there is gender self ID in place are scoring so highly for women.

I sometimes wonder if the Feminism and Women's Rights board think that 20-30% of people in these countries who have 'M' on their passports from birth are suddenly putting down that they are female in random questionnaires and studies, in schools, employment, tax returns, GP records etc just for shits and giggles. These are pretty sensible countries that we are talking about here, I really do not think that this is the case.

That said I do believe that there is space for careful recording of these differences, for example, under natal sex and present gender identity. This would enable statistics to be recorded in a more nuanced manner on these issues and I believe plenty countries are already doing this, and I believe that there ideally should be a harmonized international approach to this.

Oh did they... so the predictions were spot on.

The statement was :

"I have women friends that don't care and are happy to go to the bathroom with me and have girl talk."

There was much in the OP that was concerning. The mention of losing vaginity, the passivity, the crying through puberty.

But the power play was very clear.

"For those that will refer to me as he/him in comment, I will ignore as that's a sign of intentional malice and there's languages that don't have pronouns (e.g. Japanese). Gender neutral terms (they/them) are acceptable."

and

"My hope is that those that are willing to engage in a discussion will do so and those that have an immutable opinion can go elsewhere."

yeah? Nah mate..

@MyAmpleSheep ah, I hadn't seen that on reddit, thanks. It wasn't "women-chat" though, it was "girl talk". Which turned out to mean comments on social dynamics and then (of course, that was just the lead-up to) make-up tips. If you can believe that.

I neither care nor want to know why they pop in.

But I've got to admit it irritates me when posters reply to them. Then start arguing with them so the interesting original conversation gets lost.

Why do posters not just ignore them? Don't get it. Can't argue with pigeons.

The concept of 'gender identity ideology' as you put it, being homophobic is a concept that is touted on places like FWR, but of course it is not held on the ground in the real world where there is a very high level of affinity between trans and gay people.

This is by no means a universal take. I have many lesbian friends and acquaintances who are appalled at the pressure to accept men 'transbians' into their dating pool.

Nancy Kelley, head of stonewall called these women 'sexual racists' for wanting to assert their same sex attraction. Would you not be outraged at that if you were lesbian?

oh yes. The make up tips.

I suspect that that was started by that male person in the toilet. I suspect much of those 'girl talks' are initiated by that person. I would be interested to see what their friends and colleagues thought about the discussions. If they actually happened.

Well, last night, I posted the first reply to the OP because the OP was saying it wanted a discussion, but actually just invited people to ask the OP questions. I thought a genuine OP wanting to do communication should have questions for us. If, by some long shot, this person was actually genuine, they would have thoughtful questions for us and would listen to the answers; but mostly, I thought it might be useful to draw attention to the fact that that was not what was happening.

It is tricky, though, because if they go unanswered, it does look (to lurkers, for example) as though we have no answers, yet I totally recognise the derailing when it happens on threads that had another purpose (as opposed to ones like last night where the whole thread was about it - I just don't click on those if I'm not in the mood and suggest others adopt the same policy). Maybe we should have a rota, where only one designated replier for the day replies, with anyone else saying no more than "I call [designated replier]"! Too much organisational effort though, in reality.

I am lesbian. Every individual has the right to discount sexual partners for whatever reason they choose.

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

Kelley is saying that discounting men, because of their sex, makes lesbians 'sexual racists'. I honestly cannot fathom why you, as a lesbian, think that's ok. Or why you support the erosion of women only spaces for lesbian dating. It blows my mind. It's like the bad old days all over again.

Is this the right room for an argument?