mumsnet mentioned in Observer article about Hampstead Ponds

[IwantToRetire]

Then in May 2016, a group of women organized by Mumsnet held a protest at the Men’s Pond, wearing beards and mankinis to highlight concerns that proposed Gender Recognition Act reforms would allow predatory men to pose as trans women. Those reforms were not implemented, but the flint had been struck.
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/stormy-waters-how-the-trans-debate-shattered-the-tranquil-haven-of-hampstead-ponds

Also at https://archive.is/FKHHn

May 2018, rather than 2016 though.

So what if men can enter any single sex space designated for women if they wish? Really? Honestly… These sowhatbekind women are just. So. Infinitely. Stupid. Callous. Cruel. Unthinking. Privileged.

How can this possibly be how this article ends. So what? Jesus Christ. Really, I apologise Lord, on this, your birthday, for the utter stupidity of the human race. I’m so sorry you died to save us and we decided after 2000 years of thinking, talking and writing that men in pink boob tubes are in fact women. Holy moly.

And of course the women who don’t wish to swim with men have already self excluded or been chucked out. None of which this article mentions

It wasn't organised by mumsnet, it was organised by women who met on mumsnet. Honestly what is the point of journalism these days?

Yes if you read the article you will see that that is my typo.

Have never had this before but neither the original article nor the archive version lets you copy lines of text.

I know. I started of reading thinking she has done research and spoken to different groups, but as the article went on it became clear that there was bias.

Its a shame as the old Observer did reflect GC view, and thought that overall this was just quite bland.

But I dont think the author is unusual in not bothering to understand the structure of mumsnet, nor (and I dont think I am over egging it!) the role FWR on MN has played in current UK feminism, and specifically the GC arguement.

You can bet if it was a left party divergence of views, more effort would have been put into recognising who said what and when.

But on the other had she did say: "... the flint had been struck"

So we are not only terfs, dinasours, but also flinty. Man Friday laid down the gauntlet.

The battle lines were formed!

But I dont think the author is unusual in not bothering to understand the structure of mumsnet, nor (and I dont think I am over egging it!) the role FWR on MN has played in current UK feminism, and specifically the GC arguement.

Agree. I think a lot has been achieved here. I'm in awe of what's been done. So far.

You can bet if it was a left party divergence of views, more effort would have been put into recognising who said what and when.

Heh! Oh, God, yes! Just yesterday I read another tedious piece on Sultana v Corbyn, God know why. What does it matter?

Another inaccuracy: "Gender-critical activists argue that trans people should only use the mixed facilities."

No. Trans-identifying women, misleadingly known as "trans men", should be welcome at the ladies' pond.

There doesn't seem to be a personal email for Phoebe Davis at the Observer, but if anyone is interested in reporting inaccuries this page has the papers email addresses https://observer.co.uk/about/contact-us .

Its not published as an opinion piece, and claims to explain the back ground.

So they would be glad to know of an inaccuracies and correct them!