Why is this subforum so intent on removing voices that dont' agree?

[BeeSouriante]

Like I've had three posts removed

Oh so you are agreeing with everyone else, and i guess you think bee is and curiousgeorge

weird take but fair enough 🤷🏻

Did your first comment which said pretty much the same as this comment that everyone bar one ignored (also posted around the same time) not have the desired effect you were seeking?

The majority of women here care about women’s rights and the threats to said rights due to gender ideology so yes, they are going to agree with each other. What a shocker.

If caring about the rights of women and girls is cliquey then count me in!

He doesn’t have a clue what being critical of gender actually is.

It’s a bit of a clique on here where everyone agrees with everyone else

I've never been in a clique before; I'm quite excited😍

You could always bring something to the table yourself to talk about.

Anything in mind?

Mumsnet is a mostly female forum and yet people pop up all the time complaining that it largely centres women rather than being an Old Bailey style paragon of totally equal focus on all elements of society... the irony being, of course, that the reason people think it's obliged to be this pillar of blind justice and perfect morality in everything is because it's mostly women.

And this particular sub forum was set up because MN was one of the few places this issue could be discussed honestly, with clear honest language, so women congregated here, and it was given its own area partly to appease people who wanted it kept out of their way. And yet people still complain because it fulfills its purpose.

Maybe you'd prefer the Supreme Court?

I think (but am not entirely sure) @CuriousGeorge80 is saying that previously posters were not allowed to criticise men who entered in women’s sports and were not allowed to ‘misgender’ posters / tw etc. as part of the talk guidelines. Moderation was more pro TW than pro GC on these boards.

Whether that does or doesn’t represent Curious’s views, that certainly was true. For a long time, regular posters got banned for referring to TW as AGP or for ‘persistent misgendering’ etc. indeed, there was that zealous intern who thought doxing women concerned about women’s rights was the best route to go down.

It’s only relatively recently that moderation has eased up on those aspects.

Otherwise, I think it’s the referral to ‘trans rights’ that is confusing. This is a trigger phrase because often it’s used by TRAs without ever being explained or elaborated upon as to what this actually means (looking at you UCU). Those who are transgender have existing rights under the law same as the other protected characteristics.

This leaves us with the only remaining question as to whether there are any rights - that those who are transgender don’t currently have - that people think they ought to? It’s that question that doesn’t seem to get fully explained by posters talking about trans rights.

Edited to add that the original OP had no intention of further engagement once they got what they wanted by being able to reference this thread in Reddit. Another bit of Darvo.

This board isnt a clique - lots of people with lots of different views post here.

What has happened, over a number of years is discussion. And we've found that the root of the GC argument is nobody changes sex. So that what a lot of posters say.

Trans spaces haven't come up with an underling argument that stands up to scrutiny. So they talk about lots of theories - brain sex, sex as a spectrum, being the most vulnerable, if it looks like a duck, we might as well pretend its a duck, we cant know everyones sex with certainty - the list is endless.

So to some people looking at the boards/subs, here looks like a clique with only one opinion and trans places look like a place where everyone has a different view.

Oh come on, it's a women's rights forum, it is what it says on the tin.

That's like going onto a vegan forum and complaining that everyone there agrees with veganism and it's a clique.

Womens rights actually have been trampled, damaged and 'rolled back' by the political TQ movement and by the trans identified men who chose to take full advantage.

To complain now that these are 'rights' that they are having threatened -

no, they are not rights. They never were. The Supreme Court have verified this.

When a mugger whines and pouts that his rights are being infringed because he's having to hand back what he stole, that he likes having it and wants to keep it and he feels he needs it and doesn't care about the person he mugged who shouldn't matter any way because Reasons - should he be allowed to keep it? Or is it necessary that he learns that there are other people with rights apart from him, and limits to his personal freedoms?

I’m loving the large number of sane and clever women who also have excellent taste in picnicware.

I’ve packed my full set of Melaware crockery for endless cups of tea and some delicious Battenberg.

In the days of Rag Week and Rag Mags and jokes that might be a bit "off" i remember in the Twicker (Sheffield) a joke:

Clique - that's the door a Chinese door makes (it was in the 70s so i guess at the time of the Gang of 4 - not the band - so it was more topical)

I do wonder why people go on about it being an echo chamber or clique here, when we were sent here to discuss women's issues to spare everyone else's feelings. And then get told off for being in a small corner.

ETA: did i miss the picnic? i have some fabulous vegetarian scotch eggs, some walnut/stilton cheesy biscuits and a killer lavender lemonade thing.

I can offer freshly-pulled rhubarb, gently stewed with ginger and a splosh of maple syrup then folded into madagascan vanilla custard and served with a homemade shortbread finger. Am I in?

Mmmmmmm sounds lovely 😍

It's ok. I'm not a specist😃

Indeed

🪲 I find myself wanting a bowl in real life now despite beetle me having licked the bowl clean!

“I just find it a bit odd that if you have some slam dunk lawyerly arguments about which trans rights shouldn't be opposed you would be willing to share them, being a gender critical lesbian and all.”

Your latest response is completely disingenuous. You were clearly accusing me of making a claim which I haven’t. Given people have jumped on me for the language I have used not being entirely correct for this forum to accept I am gender critical, this is clearly ironic.

It’s also interesting to me that only one person has engaged on the actual point I made and has agreed with me in terms of the shift in mumsnet position. Maybe I didn’t articulate it perfectly but actually I think it’s quite sad that the base position of so many people on here has been to jump on me, and to assume I am lying about my viewpoint or background without there being anything of substance to back that up.

I’m happy to accept I used language that other people don’t align with on this site, I will take the learning from that. But the fact that I am ultimately going to leave this discussion, which I entered into with good intent and being gender critical myself, thinking that a lot of people on this forum are not very nice, is actually a bit sad.

I actually intentionally entered into correspondence with you because you seemed decent, but even then you have posted some pithy, untrue statement and refused to back it up or acknowledge it.

I am tapping out now, so won’t be back to see what derisory response people come up with next.

Thank you for this, I really appreciate it.

With friends like these.....

@DrBlackbird interestingly I think the OP has deleted their Reddit thread.

thinking that a lot of people on this forum are not very nice, is actually a bit sad.

Yes, maybe as a PP suggested, you reread the tone of your posts to me and consider the rather unpleasant accusations you have made against me and reflect.

I’m glad you have GC views and I’m sure, as a lawyer, you understand the importance of clear language and how this affects the whole conversation.

Before CuriousGeorge80 'taps out' permanently [I'm sure she didn't mean 'tapping out' i.e. a submission, literally] I might just catch her with this summary of the attitude to trans rights which largely speaking prevails on here:
To women, our rights and no less. To transpeople, their rights and no more.

Please note, you are not being jumped on, I am not being not nice, I am not trying to make you sad, I'm not being derisory, I'm just pointing out that one of the issues you raised, trans rights, as in basic human rights, are respected here.

It’s an anti trans forum too

No lawyer would get so riled about being questioned without there being something else going on in the background. I suspect George has a serious case of Cognitive Dissonance. Either that or really bad toothache.