Thinking about the troll threads

[HartSeven]

The troll-type threads that keep popping up, along with the sub-threads that attempt to derail other threads, are a bit of a puzzle. What is their purpose?

Obviously some are meant to annoy or disrupt and don't seem to have any other point. Those point-scorers (they wish) are never going to have much effect apart from being minor irritants, and anyway they give other Mumsnet users heaps of opportunities to set out basic arguments and enlighten possible new readers.

But I think there is something else going on, at least some of the time. There was a recent really long thread that was a lot sadder, once you ignored the absurdly patronising tone of the OP. It seemed to be trying to do three things. First, explain how sad a so-called "trans child" must feel about being their actual biological sex to elicit sympathy. Second, to use debating points and arguments to convince others that not only is dysphoria an innate, born-with condition in every case but there is just one permanent cure in the form of transition which always works and can be the real deal, so if you're sympathetic to the sad child you must agree. Third, to deal with disagreement by characterising it and any counter-arguments as based on irrational hostility and bigotry.

(1) got sympathy - sorry you're feeling sad but the best treatment is help to deal with reality (2) of course got nowhere as it wasn't, and could not be, backed up by evidence and reasoned argument. That always happens and always will. Activists can't persuade others through reason and evidence and they do know that. That thread was full of repeated assertion and attempts at emotional manipulation. So I reckon the real purpose of the thread is (3), when the arguments fail to persuade people, to make out that it's all because the other side are hateful bigots.

What's really sad then is that it seems to be about coming on here to prove to themselves and their supporters that everyone hates them. After the demise of "no debate", since they can't win debates or acknowledge other perspectives or rights, maybe this is the new strategy, to evoke disagreement so as to pretend it's all "hate".

I think one of the problems that makes the case for more debate, is that it is extremely difficult for some to realize that you have to have exclusionary language if you are to have any meaning whatsoever.

So, for example, there was a post recently on a lesbian forum that noted the new definition for 'lesbian' is: 'non-men who love non-men'. There was a loud outcry of agreement about how deranged that was - how that erased women, redefined lesbianism, and centered men. This is a central theme of the forum so the outcry was to be expected. But somewhere along the way in the discussion, there was a post by a non-binary female who said that she strongly agreed, but personally thought the definition: woman-oriented people loving women oriented people was closer to her truth. Once again there was a large outpouring of support about how valid the poster was and how the poster's concerns should be taken into consideration.

But that brings the situation back exactly to what the problem originally was: anyone is free to identify into 'woman-oriented', included non-women, e.g. non-binaries of both sexes - 'women' has been robbed of any meaning as has 'lesbian'. And all this to make some people feel valid and included. So basically the entire thread nullified itself. The only way that those contradictions can be worked out is repeated discussions, hopefully with the GC side being compassionate, persistent, but firm and unbending about definitions.

There are also the threads that are carefully engineered to sound innocent and wanting to engage, and it becomes very quickly evident your bingo card will fill and then the well known posters begin the groundhog game for kicks.

Using women. For validation, entertainment, a prop, attention, it's always for these men all about using women.

I hate to be negative but discussion and progress would require two sides able to give ground.

On one side - well, how much dignity, privacy, equality, access and safety should women sacrifice compassionately so that men can express their inner selves in the way they would like? It would involve actual removal of women's legal rights now to give them less so that men can have more. And what might that act as a precedent for?

On the other - you're interacting with someone who by definition has chosen to believe in an alternative reality. Sincerely, yes, but the belief is that anything except unqualified enabling is 'hate', and that there can be no mutual respect or tolerance. It's a position that gives no tolerance or acceptance for women's diversity, cultures, needs, traumas or any of the other words beloved to the ideology but only ever applied to the one who wants to be served by others; it's not extended to the servant class.

This is largely about the difficulties of when you have allowed people to define their own reality through feelings and wishes and hopes and dreams and self expression and caring about their inner self and self perception - you do eventually have to present a boundary, and it will then be seen as cruel and unreasonable. When you provide someone with a right to call themselves a lesbian if that expresses their inner truth regardless of actual facts because you wish to be kind and supportive, someone else acquires a responsibility. In this case, homosexual people to shut up, go underground, and deal with men who feel aggressively entitled to sex from them and have no interest whatsoever in 'kindness' or 'supportiveness' or 'inner truth' or anything beyond 'gimme access to your body, you got no right gatekeeping it from me'.

And, as has happened, to have homosexuality re defined as 'anything anyone wants so long as its not actual homosexuality because that's evil and they should be excluded and hurt if they won't stop'. Which is yes, a different reason than was given forty years ago for excluding and hurting, but the experience, prejudice and intolerance is the same for homosexual people. It happened through kindness and well intentioned relaxing of boundaries. That was not reciprocated, but seen as a licence to use.

I think it is often “non binary” people complaining that forces this type of awful language.

Yes, this is a common tactic.

I engage because I would genuinely like to discuss squaring the circle of competing rights and what that might look like. But no one ever wants to do that.

And I’ve honestly had some hideous things said to me when I detail why I feel single sex spaces are so important to me.

I’ve been on MN for about 18-21m and watched the threads, engaged in good faith (still oblivious to which are clearly the TRA/Trolls in some cases).

However, I think a comment someone made on a now deleted thread sums it up - these people have not reasoned themselves into their positions, so you cannot reason their way out of it. I used to hope that a discussion would lead to just one OP having a lightbulb moment where they finally take on board the impact of TWs in women’s spaces - that it dawns on them that they are compounding pre-existing trauma in vulnerable women, or causing significant initial trauma in women of certain faiths/ethnicities when they discover their space/privacy/dignity has been encroached upon by male presence.

But not one single bloody time on MN, X, or elsewhere, do I ever see them acknowledge the impact on women and girls or, consequently, open themselves up to considering that a compromise (3rd spaces) may be needed.

The concerned women who consider themselves to be allies and defenders of trans rights - kind who are speaking purely out of a desire to be kind, protect the vulnerable and be on the right side of history - may well have second thoughts in time. They're not likely to announce this on a thread even if it does come as an instant lightbulb moment, which it probably won't. That would be embarrassing. But the comments can niggle at them over time and once you start to see the misogyny you can't unsee it.

You can spot the male trolls who are steeped in misogyny a mile off, though. They will never care about women other than as resource providers for their own desires.

4th space please.

3rd space is for disabled people.

Yes, of course! 🤦🏽‍♀️

I find the spammer threads can be quite useful, up to a point, they can reveal a lot about the spammer, much more than they realise I think, and they provide an insight into the mind set of the Pretendatarians.

I'm now convinced it's pointless talking to them because they not interested in listening, I don't concern myself with finding a way to fix things because some people are so broke they can't be fixed.
I'm only interested in regaining all that's been taken from us, no matter what it takes, their problems are their own, and they're on the own when it comes to finding a solution to them or not, don't care.

I'm only interested in regaining all that's been taken from us, no matter what it takes, their problems are their own, and they're on the own when it comes to finding a solution to them or not, don't care.

Yes, that is pretty much where I am. I would include regaining the safeguarding of children.
The rest is just an intellectual exercise as far as I am concerned.

I’ve been on MN in general and FWR since it was called ‘Feminism and Women’s Rights’. My perception is that there are far more posters on FWR than in the past, but there are also more posters in general on AIBU, Chat, Parenting etc.

And I’ve just had a look at Active, and got to 10 FWR threads before I got bored scrolling.

This.

It is interesting FWR is now getting a lot of 'but reasoned discussion and debate and listening' now, after ten years of debating and listening and being doxxed and shouted at and insulted for doing it. #Nodebate was the mantra for years.

That absolute refusal to accept that women needed this to work for them too, and there needed to be give from the trans lobby as well as taking, is what drove the long, long court cases that ended in the Supreme Court confirming the law. It was caused by the behaviour of the trans lobby and the difficulties and damage caused to women by not permitting single sex spaces. If there'd been some discussion and willingness to listen and the capacity to care and do a little reciprocating, it probably wouldn't have needed to go to court - but we know it did. And it repeatedly does.

So the law has been clarified: women's single sex spaces include no men, at all, at any time. This is the same for all men, regardless of identity choice or certificated sex, and additional gender neutral spaces should be provided to accommodate those who prefer not to use sex based spaces. That's clear. It's not complicated. It's not what those men want to hear, but it's necessary for women's needs, equality and access to be equally met to mens.

It's too late for discussion at this point. It's over. It's done. The discussion can go and happen in the gender neutral spaces with those interested, and I wish them a lovely time.

And even if it wasn't too late at this point, and women hadn't had to fight through the courts with years of evidence that has stacked up of how this has disadvantaged, harmed, excluded and oppressed women, a) you would never get those men to agree that evidence existed or mattered or should impact on a man because to them women just aren't important - and this is why the law exists as there are men and women who don't believe in women's equality and give it very very grudgingly only when forced to as so many agencies including the PM is demonstrating - and b) it would have to start from the premise that there have got to be accessible facilities for all, equally, and no one can be left without a service.

As this includes women who need a single sex space/resource/service, the conversation is now over: you will never get the gender ideologues to agree to permit that. Those women have to lose everything for some men to be happy. And that's plain unacceptable. So where will nice 'discussion' take that?

According to many activist posters, it's just to endlessly wheedle and special plead for those men with the aim that women accept and agree that those women just don't matter next to the needs of men with trans identities and must be sacrificed in their better interests, and we accept a society that isn't equal or diverse and where some tax payers can't have services because more powerful members of society felt miffed about accessible services for them being allowed to exist. As in the case of Sarah Summers.

There is probably a stronger case for Human Rights there than the supposed right of a man to access a non consenting woman in a state of undress as his gender identity trumps everything of hers.

Fab post @FortheloveofPetethePlumber .
In particular this:
"That absolute refusal to accept that women needed this to work for them too, and there needed to be give from the trans lobby as well as taking, is what drove the long, long court cases that ended in the Supreme Court confirming the law. It was caused by the behaviour of the trans lobby and the difficulties and damage caused to women by not permitting single sex spaces. If there'd been some discussion and willingness to listen and the capacity to care and do a little reciprocating, it probably wouldn't have needed to go to court - but we know it did. And it repeatedly does".

I've noticed that I seem to post more snarky posts than I used to - and realise it's that familiar feeling of dealing with whiny teenagers "ah but", "not fair" and all the rest. It's just exhausting seeing the determination of grown adults insisting on their right to access girls undressing etc.

Just wondering after reading responses to the OP what in fact is the value of FWR for those who join in? (There is no way of knowing if for instance only 25% of those on FWR respond to these threads or 80%!)

Was that the attraction to join FWR to spend time arguing with TRAs, knowing you wont change what they think? As a substitute for not being able to do this IRL?

Does this mean FWR is basically a form of therapy ie opportunity to let off steam. (This isn't meant to be a negative comment but a recognition that is often said on threads about moderating what any of us say IRL.)

Amongst other reasons.

It’s a lot of things to a lot of people. People will use it for what they want to.

Yep.

For the lurkers
For the unsure
For those new to all this
For those who have concerns but are unsure of where to find the information/how to formulate responses
For the witty, funny, erudite responses.
To amuse myself by pissing about with haiku/ poetry

And this is just one part of it all. Most of us are actually doing stuff in rl too.

I was actuallly wondering if anyone had thought that would be part of being on FWR.

Obviously we all use it for different reasons.

Partly asking as however long ago it was I first signed up, from having been a reader for some time, I dont remember it as being an element.

Now it clearly is, so more overt to those more recenlty joining.

And in fact to such an extent that someone has started another thread to this one on the issue!

In the beginning, around the time of Spartacus & Man Friday, it was about realising I wasn’t alone in thinking the ideology was both mad and dangerous.

It’s now about staying up to date, continuing to learn from those who are wiser and more erudite than me and finding out how I can contribute in real life.

I started using FWR to stop myself going mad as I couldn't understand all the ppl who I agreed with on pretty much everything else, confidently state men in dresses were women and not just that, even more oppressed than actual women. I thought I was losing my mind.

FWR saved my sanity

It’s definitely a comfort place, I’m happy to argue in good faith, have a laugh with the witty women (and a few men) and generally chat about women’s rights. This issue is dominant, because it reflects society.

I joined FWR to discuss feminism and women’s rights. Back when no one seemed to have any problem knowing what a woman was. Back when ‘gender critical feminists’ could focus on ways to get rid of harmful gender stereotypes (toys will be toys etc). Back when the scolders and trolls were oldfashioned MRAs and blokes (and some women) ‘just asking questions’.

Plus ca change…

I suppose what I am saying is that it feels like an intrusion on what seemed to be a positive, proactive online space, even if on occassion it was giving support to women having a really bad time.

I've been caught out a few times by troll threads or trolls hijacking threads, but try and just unfollow and ignore.

But it has changed interacting even when first logging on and looking at new threads added etc..