TRA Trolls - can we just say NO?

[BlueEyedBogWitch]

A full thread of NO’s might be more powerful than trying to reason with someone who is not interested in reason.

Just one ‘NO’ each, until they get bored and go away. Every time.

After all, it sums up our arguments very succinctly.

Hear hear, I also support women’s spaces.

It’s interesting here, it’s good to step outside the echo chamber every now and then and see what different people think when they aren’t being polite. I find MN and Reddit to be both fascinating. But you don’t as often get both sides of an argument on Reddit so it does feel a bit repressive and repetitive. Whereas MN has loads of different views, it’s more unpredictable.

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.

Firstly, the irony of posting "step outside the echo chamber [my emphasis]" on somewhere like MN is hilarious, but we'll leave that aside for now.

I can't speak for Reddit as I don't look at it, so obviously your experience with it trumps mine, but I would like to focus in on your assertion that MN allows for all sides of an argument. I don't think that's true.

I think MN, and most of its posters, would like to think that - I really do - but the facts speak for themselves.
We have thread after thread after thread where posters who raise their heads above the parapet and suggest anything that goes against the close-minded group-think that pervades here in such abundance are immediately singled out, jumped on, and attacked. There is rarely, if ever, a concerted effort to consider what that poster might be saying, or to understand it. Arguably, that skill is essential to any functional, grown-up society.

Obviously, not all MN posters are cut from the same cloth, but I don't think anyone can truly - hand on heart - say there isn't an ugly, rabid, anti-trans and pro-GC sentiment here that is truly despicable.

Perhaps consider why this keeps coming up? (Also, my words were “the usual few” not “the usual suspects” - that’s a quite different implication.) If you’re so very concerned about SA survivors, you don’t need to harangue them. You can simply say, “I’m sorry” and get on with your day. However, you’re more concerned about how the posters on the board might appear to others. That is not a good look.

posters who raise their heads above the parapet and suggest anything that goes against the close-minded group-think that pervades here in such abundance are immediately singled out, jumped on, and attacked

You are trying to make written disagreement sound abhorrent by using metaphors of physical violence.

ugly, rabid [...] truly despicable

Could just say you strongly disagree. No need for this overreaction.

I've thought about your response and, ultimately, am disinclined to change the tone or content of my words. My apologies for that, but they stand.

However, it's only fair to explain why.

On the one hand I absolutely agree with you that terms such as "ugly", "rabid", and "despicable" are negatively charged, of course I do. I also agree that such words should be used sparingly.

But this is where our agreement diverges. I also believe - rightly or wrongly - for calling out such attitudes and behaviour and appropriately labelling them. On that basis, I think the words I have used - the one you specifically and quite rightly felt compelled to call me out on - are both accurate and proportionate to the point I was making.

I shall go further; I truly believe there is a small, hard-core section of MNetters who are utterly abhorrent in their behaviour toward anyone who espouses attitudes, or they even suspect of espousing attitudes, they disagree with. You see this time and time again throughout the threads.
I further believe that these people ruin the boards for everyone.

I'd suggest that any upright member of any society has a moral duty to call out such aggressive, ugly behaviour and rightly condemn it for what it is.

So, I've thought about your response and, ultimately, am disinclined to change the tone or content of my words. My apologies for that, but they stand.

More vague slurs, insult and insinuation.

so you support female only spaces? Awesome. So we are agreed. Any space designated women only should not include males, however they identify. See, we’ve solved the problem. .

More slurs and insults.

'Rabid"
'Ugly'
'Despicable'.

I agree that’s why I call out those posters who stand with those sending threats of violence rape and death to women who are defending their sex based rights. I think they are abhorrent and misogynistic as well as racist.

i think the posters demanding make access to female spaces must really hate women, otherwise they would be condemning those threats made to women wouldn’t they? The fact they see nothing wrong with males making threats to women just for saying no is shocking as I’m sure you’ll agree.
the fact is males are not female so have no reason to be in female spaces, and males will nerve be women no matter how upset they get. Shame for them but there it is.

Oooh do you think we could get “frothing”. I only need that for a line.

'Abhorrent'
'Ugly'

I think the PP is referencing the TRA contingent. The ones who call women nasty names and mock rape survivors, and say women getting death and rape threats must have provoked them. That’s the only posters I can think of with abhorrent and ugly attitudes.

I shall go further; I truly believe there is a small, hard-core section of MNetters who are utterly abhorrent in their behaviour toward anyone who espouses attitudes, or they even suspect of espousing attitudes, they disagree with. You see this time and time again throughout the threads.

Well yes. Most women here do not support an ideology that decimates women's sport, depriving thousands of women of livelihoods, money and titles, they do not agree that raped and abused women should be forced to recount their ordeal in groups containing men, they are appalled that vulnerable women, over 60% of whom already have head injuries due to domestic abuse, are forced to share their space with violent men, with no means of escape, they disagree that women should provide their bodies to men as a means of validation, or to accommodate a fetish.

This is the feminist board.

And - they vehemently disagree with mutilating the bodies of healthy children and young people, are appalled at an ideology that pretended puberty blockers were harmless and reversible, that irreversible wrong sex hormones should be a desired pathway to an impossible outcome and that homosexuality is akin to racism.

This is Mumsnet, by parents for parents.

And they are absolutely bloody fuming that if they voice any of this, they and their children are treated to the most ugly of threats, from the most despicable of misogynists, voiced in the most rabid way possible.

Who is posting any "hate" let alone "indiscriminately"?

I think this poster is using the same dictionary as Tan. Words mean whatever they want them to Mean at that particular moment 😀

Cor, a fresh delivery of incoherent nonsense arrived overnight then

You all sound exactly like you've swallowed a dictionary and a thesaurus at the same time and then ran it through ChatGPT. You are all identical in the stilted way you speak. None of you are able to speak like normal human beings. Trans cultists cannot communicate like normal human beings, but I think that is what the cult does to someone, it makes them sound robotic with cult speak. Btw, interesting posts for someone who only joined today...

I don’t hate any body.

I have never engaged in mud slinging (I don’t think anyway). I don’t post slurs. I ask questions to understand. I accept that trans people are trans if they say they are because of how they feel. I accept they exist.

I don’t know how to distinguish between that trans person and the predatory male and I’d like some one like Tandora who works in the field doing research to tell me are we anywhere close to a way of doing that so that people who present as trans can be definitively diagnosed? Are there scientific papers I can read that are analysing results in this field?

I just want women’s single sex spaces.

that’s it. That’s all I want. I don’t want my daughter to have to get changed in front of a man in a changing room or have a boy in a dorm on a school trip.

I want to know when I ask for a female clinician I get an actual female.

and I’m entitled to that. I actually want to debate what a third space would look like and how that would be implemented.

No I’m not. I was quite clear that a small group of women ( the “usual few” which you are insinuating is posters on this thread, of which I am one) shouldn’t be being accused of something which I would find abhorrent (which FWIW I’m not sure I believe, because I don’t consider you a particularly reliable narrator of what goes on on these threads) without evidence. I consider this “keeps coming up” because there are a group of “usual few” TRA posters who don’t approve of women here and for some reason can’t just scroll on by.

It kind of reminds me of the Freeman on the Land spiel. Look it up, it’s ace! They honestly believe if they use just the right words and shout loudly enough, they’ll get what they want. They just need to find the right words. And no one else outside of their movement can possibly understand it as it’s all so terribly complicated.

I agree. Rabid trans ideology and its misogynistic, reality, logic, science denying and women hating ways are very ugly. Controls so many that they feel the need to come here and regularly scold women.

Thank heavens for the rule of law which is the essential for controlling these nutters individuals

Perhaps some on this thread should rather be asking themselves their very own searching questions. It’s ok to disagree. It’s ok to debate and argue in good faith. It isn’t ok to smear women and insinuate they have done things they have not.

Mr Mead in Alberta is the one that springs to mind. The case is worth reading.

Thundercat call went out on Reddit perhaps.