Late night surprise about reputation of FWR

[IwantToRetire]

I was on Site Stuff to report back on ongoing freezing and noticed another thread about whether Mumsnet should apologise about deleting threads about ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

And there were some comments about there being a border line between legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and anti semitism. And it is this last that get these threads deleted.

So was surprised to see some comment on this thread saying it was as bad as some threads on FWR, and those particularly at fault are thos with a GC view point.

(Funnily enough AI suggested a title for this thread along the lines of "Are FWR debates judged differently ..... " but now it has hidden its suggestion, just when I was going to use it.)

Oh its come back

"Are sex and gender debates on FWR judged by different standards?"

I will play devil’s advocate. People who disagree with user A are clearly doing so in bad faith, deliberately misunderstanding, been needlessly confrontational, etc. When the same poster comes back under username B it’s an opportunity to tell the same people that they’ve been posting in bad faith, deliberately misunderstanding and being needlessly confrontational. That’ll teach them!

Do I understand correctly?

If I do, it’s a sort of serial sock puppetry. One new username at a time.

To be honest, it’s a miracle we aren’t being as hostile as we’re are portrayed, considering what’s at stake. I think there are many patient women who post on this board who are having to deal with a lot of hostility themselves.

Good advocating @MyAmpleSheep

What I see here is a group of people crying out for some rational counter-arguments to get to grips with and debate. What we get are same-old-same-old rehashed talking points that don't stand up to a moment's examination. Everyone who comes to present them thinks they're on to something new that we haven't read before. And for some reason, that's our problem and not theirs.

For the love of god, someone, somewhere, please make this trans nonsense make sense.

I think there has been a strong element of this.

I'm not saying it never happens, but in my experience, posters who claim to have been called a paedophile haven't, they have been told that they are ignoring safeguarding. Perhaps they assume that this is shorthand, or they think safeguarding only exists if we think there's a paedophile around?

And I think this is why we cannot get rational counter-arguments.

Apart from womens right to organise without men, safeguarding is the main GC argument. Anything that a man feels or believes, or does to make his life more enjoyable, does not exist independently of safeguarding.

So when he says he feels better presenting as a woman, and we say we can't call you she because your not female and correctly identifying sex is important for safeguarding, they really have no answer, apart from accusations.

Right. So the alleged offensive post was deleted. Moderation working as it should. All good. That would be the same on any board.

If someone was responding purely to your username, why would they be 'looking for anything to criticise'? Nothing else to it at all?

Yeah, I get the picture.

I think @MyAmpleSheep is spot-on.

This. Every TRA argument pains me to the core of my logical soul!
Why, why, why, at the very least, can't these people spend their time and energy on campaigning for 3rd/4th/different/whatever spaces etc.
It's not just the lack of understanding about biology, ecology, Darwinism etc, because I accept that science education is often not great, and people get in a muddle; it's that there is no ability to use logic. At all.

How would 3rd/4th/different/whatever spaces give them the close access to non-consenting women (actual women) in partial or total undress which is what they want?

That includes non consenting women on this board, being cornered into conversations about sexual assaults etc.

Call me naive. I hadn’t thought of that. Ingenious.

Indeed! I will keep asking the question though as I think that for any lurkers, the lack of a TRA response is quite telling.

I actually remember this happening. I tried to find it using AS, but whilst I recall it happening, I don't remember when / which thread.

IIRC (I may not, but am willing to be corrected), the username chosen was the name of a fictional character who was a paedophile / paedophile apologist or something like that. The question was raised as the person was 🤔 at the choice of name.

Apologies if this isn't entirely accurate / I've described the character incorrectly.

Yeah I was recalling something similar.

There simply is no rational argument. I don't understand how otherwise intelligent people can spout lies about changing sex, feeling like the opposite sex (when they have no idea what those feelings feel like), believe that drugs help you change sex, and everything is reversible.

My trans-identified niece is a smart kid, just starting her PhD, good common sense, takes no shit from anyone, calls out people on their (genuine) bigotry and racism. All around good person.

She thinks that she is male, the argument being that her parents used IVF to conceive, and "all those hormones" must have made her develop a female body with a male soul. She actually believes she is male! How does one even begin to refute something so illogical??

If she hadn't been enabled all these years, think of where she'd be now! Instead, she has ruined her health and will probably spend the rest of her life limiting her career choices, life choices, and relationship possibilities by only living in places that "affirm her identity" and shield her from things she doesn't want to look at.

I despair...

Interesting, I thought I knew what the thread was but maybe not.

Tbf, given the name changes there could be a few threads with similar themes...

I think it was either early last year or late 2024, if that helps? It was a good while ago.

The point being, everything is criticised. Every phrase, down to each word. Previous posts, on the current thread and older threads. The username. Whatever my ideology might be, of course. Everything. Any infrequent or new poster on the board knows this.

Why would they be looking for anything to criticise? They want to be sure my ideology is correct is suppose.

No, that’s not correct.

OK. You tell us which bits anyone else is allowed to talk about. Perhaps set them in bold, or italics, or orange letters or something. Then we'll be able to tell which are the protected parts nobody is allowed to mention and which are the parts that are open to comment.

Why would they be looking for anything to criticise?

Because you're posting on a public internet forum, of course. It's what they're for. If you don't want to be examined, what are you posting for?

Are you implying that I must have had more than one paedophilic username? You can’t be doing that, surely.

Sure. The substance of whatever the thread is in question. You don’t need to know my all personal specifics and thoughts, particularly on sex and gender, before I can speak freely on this board. You don’t need to ensure I hold the same views as you before I can post without obstruction on this board.

I don’t agree public internet forums exist for the purpose of criticising other individuals, particularly this board. I’m just an anonymous person. Why bother? This board exists to discuss feminist and gender issues, not criticise anonymous individuals. That’s a waste of time and mental space.

You are most clearly not even slightly obstructed from saying anything you want to say.

This board exists to discuss feminist and gender issues, not criticise anonymous individuals.

It's really not your role here to tell - to enforce on - other people what they can comment on, criticize, or talk about. We are all free from obstruction to say what we want. See my previous point.

That’s a waste of time and mental space.

And yet.

Ah, must have happened twice then, to two users, as I do remember it happening.

What a strange coincidence.