Deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN

Julie bindel in 2004. Mumsnet for years. Suppose it depends where you look.

Trisher
The point is that neither of the first two have considered women's rights until now.

How do we know that?

Have we any evidence of your consideration of women’s (AHF) rights trisher?

That's funny in the 50+ years I've been involved in women's rights there wasn't a mention of trans until 2 or 3 years ago. So it's very difficult to understand how they have always been involved in anything.
I suppose it shows how little some people thought about women's rights until very recently though.

Trisher
The point is that neither of the first two have considered women's rights until now.
How do we know that?

Have we any evidence of your consideration of women’s (AHF) rights trisher?

The problems of equality for women have always been exacerbated by
1
people supporting those transwomen who see an opportunity to take rights for themselves that females have fought for
or deny females the right to be treated by females
or compete in female competitions because they can’t win in competitions with competitors who match their sex.

They do harm to those TW who have been in existence unnoticed for years or trying to forge a life for themselves with no desire to take rights that others have fought for or to introduce rights for themselves that discriminate against a group already in existence, but they don’t care about that.
Actually, trisher’s description of jumping on the bandwagon perfectly fits the ill-intentioned trans and their supporters as mentioned at 1 above.
Bandwagon trans and their fans.
Thanks trisher!

For me volver there's only one way to answer the question 'can women have penises' and that is no. As for whether that would be the deciding factor as to whether or not to vote or a particular party, that's entirely up to the individual.

A lot of suppositions based on no information I have seen.

For many people there is a Damascene event, when the scales suddenly fall from someone's eyes and they espouse a course.
Since one lady has been a Conservative Councillor, so has hardly spent her time in the drawing room embroidering handkerchieves.

You may support a particular political party, but this should never mean we speak evil of individuals in other parties, just because of their political alliance. It is often done by people who cannot be bothered to discuss differences.

As for Mrs Thatcher. She hasn't been in politics since 1997, that is nearly 25 years ago, a whold generation!

M0nica

trisher a women's movemment run by an ex conservative councillor, an ex company director and an unemployed woman.

And your point/problem is?

The point is that neither of the first two have considered women's rights until now. The problems of equality for women have always been exacerbated by the Conservativae party who may have had thee first woman leader but she was a woman who openly stated she wasn't a feminist. Just because they now choose to junp on the bandwagon I'm supposed to believe they have women's best interests at heart?

And that is a perfect example of the open goal that Johnson is delighted with.

Just seems very odd when all the (positive) changes have come in under the tories to then decide Labour is rubbish for respecting those changes.

Especially when

Woman is a societal structure only and gender doesn't matter only sex....

Trans women can't be women

Are 2 statements that don't exactly work together

People use the phrase I could never vote for a party that doesn’t know what a woman is. That’s it. Not it’s a step too far, not I have considered everything, and on reflection…. Not I have studied the policies of a party with respect to gender quality. Just that “They don’t know what a woman is”. I don’t have the energy to trawl through this 24 page thread to see if it’s here, but it’s certainly used on Mumsnet. But I am talking about his sentence - "I could never vote for a party that doesn’t know what a woman is."

So this isn’t “I could never vote for a party that doesn’t respect women’s rights” its saying that unless they agree with you on the definition of a word, you won’t vote for them. It’s reducing a complex argument to a simplistic phrase. Now I know that so many people think that the use of the word “woman” is a shibboleth that must not be trifled with – look at posts on this thread yesterday – and that it all means that the speaker is really hiding a plan to rob women of all their hard won rights, or worse still is a shill for the pressure groups. But for many of us this is all just self-indulgent and nit-picking.

So the leader of some party or other refuses to answer the question “can women have penises?” the way you want them to and immediately they are on the naughty step. They don’t know what a woman is!!! Not voting for you, you are part of the patriarchy!

But the other guy says he’s selling off the NHS, bringing in laws to make life difficult for refugees, encouraging foodbanks and making it illegal to protest in the street (for instance). So by not voting for Party A you are making Party B more likely to win. Just because of semantics. Because that’s what it is, however much its positioned as the frontline of the battle for women’s rights. (Women? females? Who knows…)

In a debate where the use of language appears to be central, I would think that people would be careful about how they express themselves so as not to make their argument seem fatuous.

I do believe in the policies of the LP, but their stance on women’s rights may be a step too far for me. It’s a massive deal. I still care about other things though - can anyone explain to me why they think I wouldn’t?

Getting back to the OP, Gagajo you are definitely not being silenced as you continue to post on trans issues

If all posters agreed with every thread, there would be no discussions and therefore little point to online forums such as GN.

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else.
Sometimes they are saying that’s the last straw!
Imagine some people who are already not happy with the political antics of BJ. or KS or NS.
Reading that they ‘did not know what a woman is’ or did not respect female's rights might be the final thing that decides their vote.

trisher a women's movemment run by an ex conservative councillor, an ex company director and an unemployed woman.

And your point/problem is?

Mollygo Your strictures do not just apply to discussions on gender. They apply to a whole host of other subjects, including race. On another thread, someone took two words out of a sentence I wrote, ind inferred that I was saying the reverse of what the whole sentence said.

Picking and choosing what they respond to,
and twisting vocabulary to suit their purpose e.g. when answering questions that include the mention of females with the word ‘women’, which no longer necessarily means female. . .

looking at the comments of others with a lens that puts negatives that aren't there,

and dragging in diversions e.g. using race, to try and support their point of view because without the diversion the point can’t be answered to give the answer they want.

Weakens their arguments tremendously

I totally agree.
I keep trying to explain that to those who frequently use those tactics but they either can’t or won’t hear or they don’t see it as applying to them.

volver

^Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?^

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else. Or, they are saying something that isn't true.

How does someone saying that they won't for a party that does or doesn't [insert 'thing' of choice] mean that that thing is the only one they worry about? That makes no sense at all.

I can see that if someone is invested in a political party that is bent on doing something they find unconscionable they have a dilemma. A bit like I did when Blair took us into Iraq.

The decision then is whether to compromise your principles and continue to vote for them (either because of the policies they have of which you do approve, or because the alternatives are worse), or to ditch them and vote for someone else. Or choose the third way and not vote at all, which for many is not a viable option.

Saying that you wouldn't vote for something that is wholly against your principles does not equate to not caring about anything else, though. I can't get my head around that 'logic' at all.

I can't see any examples of that.
This thread always appears pretty polite, actually, however frustrated people get.

I've seen far worse.

You know what strikes me hardest about these conversations is even when people think they are in the majority and have "right" on their side, they still can't see that....

Picking and choosing what they respond to, looking at the comments of others with a lens that puts negatives that aren't there, using personal insults or simply just seeing others as less because they don't share an opinion...

Weakens their arguments tremendously

volver

^Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?^

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else. Or, they are saying something that isn't true.

???

Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else. Or, they are saying something that isn't true.

Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?

Search me, Molly. It's about as logical as assuming that because someone cares about women's rights they must be racist and/or homophobic.

Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?

Is anyone on GN or in real life, really that single purposed?
Does caring that my DD has Covid mean I don’t care about the war in Ukraine, or poverty and hunger in the UK, or even the inability of politicians to do a good job re female rights?

Rather lively discussion on this happening on another thread at the moment...

MerylStreep

I shall certainly be quoting this to every prospective mp or councillor who wants my vote.

Respect my sex if you want my X

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10674135/Three-women-launch-significant-female-movement-Suffragettes.html

OMG the Daily Mail, announces a women's movemment run by an ex conservative councillor, an ex company director and an unemployed woman. All I can think is the Tories must be seriously worried. And they have the nerve to try and piggy back on the suffragettes. Well you could look and see how much this government has really done for women and then reflect on how much a penis matters compared with poverty and starvation.