How is the trans issue ever going to be resolved?

[PassportPanicFuuuck]

It seems as insoluble as the Israel/Palestine question when the two "sides" want directly opposing things. I've heard the arguments that trans people "just want to pee" and that "no-one would go through medical/surgical gender reassignment purely to abuse women", plus the mantras that "trans people exist", "trans rights are human rights" and "trans women are women" and it's quite clear that the people who believe these things fervently aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to a certain extent, life isn't fair. Not everyone does have equal opportunities. If you're in a gay relationship (and there's nothing wrong with that) you can't have a biological child with your partner; if you're infertile (as I am) you can't have a child at all; if you're trans (and there's nothing wrong with that either) you can't enter the spaces of the opposite sex; if you're British you don't have an automatic right to go and live in the US; if you're short and unsporty you don't have a right to be on the Olympic basketball team - and so on. All sorts of opportunities are denied people at various different points, some as a result of decisions you make (like not studying for a medical degree means I can never be a doctor) and some not (see above re. infertility), and beyond universal human rights you don't have a right - one might say "entitlement" - to an awful lot of things, much as you might keenly want them.

Like it or not, once we end up in these categories we have to accept it. Absolutely no-one is eligible to do everything or to go everywhere. However if you have made a choice - even if you consider it to be more a recognition of something innate rather than a conscious decision - it doesn't mean that you have made this choice on behalf of everyone else. If you have chosen to transition (again, you may not consider it to be a "choice") you can't dictate that everyone else ignore biology and logic and linguistic authenticity and you can't dictate that everyone else will want to celebrate your decision. No, we don't have to accept the "lady bulge", we don't have to accept child abuse under the guise of gender-affirming care and we don't have to accept men in female sports / changing rooms / organisations.

Not sure how coherently worded all the above is, but perhaps it will provoke some interesting debate.

That's along the line of the argument that victim-blames women and girls for seeing flasher's genitals, because they looked! Hard not to see things like that. It's like when that male (later proven to have been on the sex offender register) walked into WiSpa, a female only spa, and walked around naked with a semi-erection. Trans activists blamed the CHILD and mothers for 'looking'. Like as if you can avoid seeing a naked male with a hard on in your face in a female-only space! Anything, anything, ANYTHING to protect the males and attack women and girls for daring to have a female only naked space. 1940s hateful attitude toward women and girls.

Ignorance is bliss. If some want to be ignorant because it's easier to defend their agenda and ideology if they are too afraid to look beneath the surface, then that's one thing. But don't pretend the 'don't go looking then', is anything other than that. Victim-blaming in an attempt to remain in that 'ignorance is bliss' mindset because you are genuinely afraid that your ideology will be shaken by evidence and reality.

That's fine but don't victim-blame those of us who have come across it, and don't call us liars and when we tell you what is actually happening.

Take it up one step. Having control over your own body is essential for everyone. It's a right to get what you need for that. For women, contraception, abortion, etc. And you can tell that's truly a right because women controlling their own bodies doesn't stop any one else from controlling theirs.

(A fetus doesn't control its own body in any case. It's on life support provided by the woman. As with anyone providing life support, it's up to her whether to continue it or not.)

About porn. I think this is another example of Californian values at play.

Making and viewing porn used to be frowned upon as indecent, degrading etc.

But if free expression is all, making it is your moral right as is using it. In the meantime no one can even articulate the old reasons why it was disapproved of and why exhibitionism is wrong.

And in the meantime it's making a few men (and some women) very rich indeed, and gender stereotypes are ruthlessly enforced by it.

The fine points don't fit in a couple of paragraphs on mumsnet. Yes, obviously, the rules need to be applied with eyes open as to the realities of current power dynamics.

Where power and/or privilege are unequal, aiming for equity/equality means it's essential to compensate for that difference, not aggravate it.

That's been noticed for centuries, as in "The Law in its magnificent impartiality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges."

The terms a user searches for are completely within their control, absolutely not like the victims of a flasher. I'm not making any moral judgements, it's just how these things work.

Electronic devices are informed by user choices when serving up search results.
If someone doesn't want to see (any variety of) pron or violent images/videos, just don't search for it.

Also suggest turning on safe searching so words with a double meaning in pron and normal life don't get results that are unwanted.

And if a site is so badly constructed that this doesn't work, stop using it for that purpose.

The maximum time between making a new social media account and misogynist material being recommended by the platform is 23 minutes, without any searches or other engagement needed. The platforms push abhorrent material, whether you search for it or not. You are also epitomising One and Twelve [[https://4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/ 4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/ here. Women are not responsible for men's decisions to flood the internet with autogynephile porn, nor are we at fault for noting that it is men who do this.

The terms a user searches for are completely within their control

Not when people you follow re-retweet/re-post them. Why would you assume we go searching for them?

If female people don’t see male people discussing or enacting their paraphilias through their own self published content, does that mean that those paraphilias don’t exist and that those male people’s acts and fantasies disappear?

Why are women being told they are the problem when they are discussing this content existing? Who does it benefit for women to remain ignorant of these paraphilias?

Because the original person I was responding said they did!

If that is true then stop using those platforms. We have that agency. Failure to exercise it means tacitly approving of their forcing that content upon us.

Because we have seen almost exactly this type of shaming before on MN, where a poster finds it just another thing to shame women for discussing. It is almost like some
posters think that if we haven’t seen it, it won’t exist or we won’t be harmed by it or some other magic thinking. And then we will stop adding it to the list of issues female people face as safeguarding risks because we will be blissfully ignorant of it.

Because there is something very attractive in censuring women for seeing evidence of men’s paraphilias as if we are at fault.

It falls into the category of the same tactic that Laurie Penny and others use to tell girls and women to ‘just don’t look’ when a male person is exposing their penis in open view.

How it works:

Stage 1: It never happened.

Stage 2: Oh? It happened again? Well that is just a one off.

Stage 3: What do you mean it has happened 100 times? Women and girls shouldn’t be [ insert shaming accusation ] eg looking / in that space / telling anyone / so obsessive / bigots etc etc.

(Note: any of these three stages could also be combined with other tactics. Often with a ‘look over there, there is a squirel / bat / unicorn / focus on the bigger issues’ distraction.

Do you mean on that quote thread?

The poster said they ‘came across it’

PassportPanicFuuuck · 03/01/2026 21:20
I keep coming across really quite grim videos

This doesn’t mean the person ‘searched’ for them.

Maybe you also think JK Rowling ‘searched’ for the porn posted to her The Ickabog thread.

“If that is true then stop using those platforms. We have that agency. Failure to exercise it means tacitly approving of their forcing that content upon us.”

Do you think women should stop interacting with the most common and widely used social media platforms then? Just in case they inadvertently stumble across paraphilic self published content?

Indeed women should make decisions and take steps to avoid situations where they might be harmed. Why on earth did we never think about that as a solution!

Problem solved !

Argh. I got confused, many apologies

I think this applies equally to men and women who don't like this "functionality". Withholding our data and usage are the most powerful actions within our control.

Sure. But you also accused women or ‘searching’ for specific content. And you are giving internet safety instructions irrelevant for the likely scenarios that we are discussing.

You are effectively telling people to stop use alternative forms of communication and information gathering and just rely on the ‘news’.

If you wish to live in a bubble of curated news, that is your perogative. However, many of us choose not to and to interact with social media for wider communication with the world.

Sure, it will mean we might come across content that male people put up for reasons harmful to female people. That however is not female people’s ‘fault’ and closing off those sources of communication is not something some of us have the luxury of doing. Added to that, some of us have to use that social media for work.

There are no ‘safety’ filters that will stop us seeing content posted if we are interacting with people who post or repost this content. We can report it, but cannot reverse time to unsee it.

There is no doubt our participation feeds someone’s pocket. Just as our participation here does. However, withholding usage will not stop those people posting that type of content, but it will mean you might be very unaware of the issues that others are fully aware of.

But thanks for tips.

edit to include: it is mostly women that will experience harm at seeing this unsearched for content. Of course, men might see it, but the logic and the pattern I have seen is that men are posting it. Women might share warnings about the content but will not be posting it as way to abuse the women they are warning.

It’ll just fizzle out and something else will take its place.

It’s ok ladies! Just as long as you don’t know what men do, anything they do is harmless!

Indeed. There was a poster on the thread that denied that men had paraphilias that included being in female toilet spaces who did the same thing to women pointing it out on the thread.

There seems to be a thing about blaming women for knowing about male people’s paraphilias.

If men dont want women to discuss their paraphilias, its up to the men to make sure they keep them private. But thats tricky if the paraphilia is to let women know what they are doing.

What men want is to perform and talk about it in public, ensure that women know, see their reactions but not let women have the power to stop them.

Part of the argument for the government getting "out of the bedrooms of the nation" and no longer legislating around things like sexual morality was that these were private choices, which were not the business of anyone else, and importantly, didn't impact anyone else.

If John in accounting likes to dress up in women's clothing for sexual thrills none of us need be concerned because it really doesn't affect us in any way at work.

That only works however if it does in fact remain private.

And then I suppose we have to ask, if things like that can't seem to remain private, why is that? Maybe there was a good reason society wanted to put a lid on some sexual behaviours?

IMO, what will happen is that younger people will grow up with much more tolerant attitudes. And like the anti-homosexual element of the older generation, TERFs will die out.

Gender fluidity will just become pedestrian and everyday and the debate will die a natural death.

Firstly, no. There are lots of indicators that youno people are turning away from this nonsense.

Secondly, why do you think anyone should be 'tolerant' of taking women's sex based rights from them? Unless you're an incel of course.

For one, there is absolutely no substance to evidence your opinion on. At all.

There is also no equivalence between the political aims or campaigning of people who are same or both sex attracted and gender identity. So your comparison is based on falsity from the start.

People who are same sex or both sex attracted did not demand that they had special privileges not available to the rest of the population. They wanted, rightfully, to have equal access. They also never demanded that society suspend scientific evidence and established language to suit their political needs. They did not demand that male homosexual people were anything but male people attracted to other male people and vice versa for female people. They were not saying that male people were female people.

So, no. The evidence is that as people experience the ramifications of this ideological campaigning, they no longer support it. And even the children in school currently who have experienced 'gender nuetral' toilets and seeing girls who have lost out on sporting opportunities is having an impact.

The people you call TERFs and believe they will 'die out' is provably false considering the number of young women who are actively campaigning in the face of ostracisation and abuse.