Would these Mumsnetters be the same ones that shoehorn their girl into pink, frilly dresses and get cross if they play with toys that boys should play with?

Oh, the irony!

There is something hypocritical about a movement which claims to care for the wellbeing of children

Not even all UK children. The title of the campaign is ‘Let Girls Be Girls’.

I think this article is a good one, and the questions raised important, but I do think it’s a bit overly-confrontational. If mumsnet aren’t focussing on children’n'family issues in other countries then it’s worth engaging with them for sure but in a spirit of solidarity and education – a gentle prod, rather than a bludgeon of polemic. We are, I assume, all on the same side.

@3 ‘a bit overly-confrontational’ is the prefered style on Mumsnet.

(PS. Disney and Hitler – *fingers in ears* la la la)

@4

oh, well I must confess to only having visited said website once, when it turned up in a search for something grammar-related…
…and touché!

What Mr Pill said, at #3

Good article in general, as usual, but I feel I ought to point out that what is effectively a special-interest website (even if that ‘interest’ is broad) can be expected to politicize mainly around that interest. That’s why people go to mumsnet in the first place: they’re mothers. And I’m pretty sure that a dyed-in-the-wool Thatcherite parent and a proselytising communist parent will turn out to be sisters under the skin on issues such as, for example, making sure children’s products are safe.

How dare you criticise something unless you criticise some other thing that I think is connected.

Jesus, it’s all-or-nothing with some people, isn’t it?

@7 and @8

Well yes, but I think the point of the OP was that it’s all very well talking about the well-being of children in our country but if you say nowt about the children making our clothes in far-off lands it comes across as either hypocritical or selfish. As if the children in the factories and sweatshops don’t deserve to be free from exploitation. Now I don’t think any mumsnet user thinks that, but again the point of the OP is that mumsnet would do itself some favours if it had more stuff about that side of things rather than what would appear to be an exclusive focus on British youngsters.

Also: as mumsnet has considerable political clout it would stir up interest in the topic and maybe shake folk out of their compassion fatigue. Like when Stephen Fry mentions he doesn’t like a particular cake on twitter and the world goes beserk.

Mr S. Pill,

Well yes, but I think the point of the OP was that it’s all very well talking about the well-being of children in our country but if you say nowt about the children making our clothes in far-off lands it comes across as either hypocritical or selfish.

Does it?

So if I were to write, 4 million children – one in three – are currently living in poverty in the UK, one of the highest rates in the industrialised world. This is a shocking figure given the wealth of our nation. Please join us in the effort to take them all out of poverty by 2020., you think it’s reasonable to think of me as hypocritical or selfish, do you?

Extraordinary.

Perhaps everything should have a header or footer saying, Look, I know this article / press release / webpage is mainly about such-and-such, but we do care about this and this too.

“Would these Mumsnetters be the same ones that shoehorn their girl into pink, frilly dresses and get cross if they play with toys that boys should play with?”

Um, no. No, they wouldn’t. In fact, that represents the polar opposite of the average MN viewpoint. Perhaps you’re thinking of Netmums

Some very good points but in fact there are regular threads about ethics on Mumsnet. Plenty of people discussing just these issues includinga recent long one about Primark.

A lot of MN parents though are attracted by their own issues- I have a degree that includes an ethics module and care deeply (don’t shop at any named store for a start) but ultimately I was draswn to MN because of teh special needs support boards and struggle to cope with my own life sometimes.

I would dearly love it of mumsnet could get involved in this kind of campiagnm absolutely, but the MN sector- pregnant women, people with small newborns, disabled famillies, etc- perhaps isn;t going to be the loudest or even expected to run every campaign that comes under hthe broad classification of children. On the other hand, if people went on there with petitions, or direct advice on where to shop (last time it was a few independents in London- not helpful in Wales, for example) many of us would dearly love the chance to get involved; within our own limitations. Because the issues that affect us may be centred on our own lives but not necessarily unimportant- poverty, autism, disability rights; all areas I am invovled becuase of my children.

@8 ukliberty: How dare you criticise something unless you criticise some other thing that I think is connected.

My thoughts exactly.

11 UKLiberty

“So if I were to write, 4 million children – one in three – are currently living in poverty in the UK, one of the highest rates in the industrialised world. This is a shocking figure given the wealth of our nation. Please join us in the effort to take them all out of poverty by 2020., you think it’s reasonable to think of me as hypocritical or selfish, do you?

Extraordinary.”

But the point being made by the OP is that mumsnet isn’t just ignoring the other issue – it’s promoting brands known/accused of actually exploiting children. So if you wrote your thing about child poverty in the UK on paper you knew had been produced by child slaves in the third world, it would be fair to call you hypocritical.

Chaise, isn;t the problem there that by excluding those people from the campaign (asnd as a mum to boys it isn;t something I have been majorly invovled with, though I support it absolutely) a double harm would be done? Better to improve their practices a little, than not at all.

@11

Chaise already makes the point. But FWIW: Your question is a straw-man. The article up-top is talking about a specific campaign of mumsnet that focuses on certain well-known shops and retailers in Britain. The campaign is focussing on them because they “sell products which play upon, emphasise or exploit [girls'] sexuality” – why is it unreasonable to ask the campaigners to focus on the rights and dignity of the children and mothers involved in creating the garments?

@11 again

also on your final point: no I don’t expect a paragraph after every press-release any more than I expect suchlike from Lib Con or other blogs articles. I just think a broader focus would be a good thing.

(as a side note, I hope this article has been forwarded to the mumsnet admins etc so they can hopefully respond…)

“So my challenge to Mumsnet is this”

I’m sure they’re all quaking in their Uggs…

But you have to understand the rules.

If you want to start being political in the UK, and respected by parliament, it is only accepted as long as you NEVER criticise global international capitalism. Never criticise the police. Or Never criticize the military.

Therefore, a nice safe issue like stopping little girls in the West from growing up too fast, fits in with the nice, happy, clappy warm feeling of all things sweet. However, if you point out that the poor little girls in the East have no choice but to grow up pretty fast because if they don’t work in sweat shops they will starve ….that is not nice , and warm and all apple pie. That is what the Right calls political, and must not be supported.

Chaise @15, my comment at 11 was in reply to Mr Pill’s comment at 9.

Mr S Pill,

why is it unreasonable to ask the campaigners to focus on the rights and dignity of the children and mothers involved in creating the garments?

It isn’t unreasonable to ask. It does seem unreasonable to accuse them of being selfish and hypocritical.

@21

Yes, because I’ve never heard sweat shops raised in a political context in this country, ever.

You’re doing exactly the same thing that the right (broadly…) do when they say ‘You can’t talk about immigration!’ You’re confusing censorship with the fact that some people disagree with you.

Sally, you might enjoy some time on MN politics then: the rules tend not to apply.

And the thing is about MN it’s not members only, nor even female only; not even parent only- any person posting here is free to join and start a campaign- THAT’s how it happens!

@ 22

OK, but imagine I was responding to your post at 8 and the point stands.

Incidentally, this “How dare you criticise something unless you criticise some other thing that I think is connected” is a recurring and crappy argument on teh internets, and it pisses me off all the time. I’m sick of people saying “Oh, you criticise the Catholic Church for their attitude on condoms, but what about Muslims with their burkhas?” However, that’s not what the OP’s doing.

24

“And the thing is about MN it’s not members only, nor even female only; not even parent only”

I’ve never visited, so I’ll take your word for it, but I must say that in retrospect that in that case it’s a shame they called it “Mumsnet”.

Or maybe that’s partly just me hating the use of “mums” as a mass noun, a la “mums are heroes!”. Because apparently men aren’t parents, and women loved being patronised by Iceland.

@22

It does seem unreasonable to accuse them of being selfish and hypocritical.

I’m not accusing them as such. I said it comes across as being selfish or hypocritical but I also said: “[n]ow I don’t think any mumsnet user thinks that”. From what I can tell mumsnetters are generally intelligent and conscientious people who do give a shit about stuff like sweated labour – but right now that side is at the margins and the focus is exclusively on British kids not wearing miniskirts and heels. And to clarify I’m not saying they shouldn’t campaign on that, merely it’d be nice to see something similar about the conditions of women and children involved in making clothes for Walmart/Asda and the rest.

I think one of the problems is that it’s very easy to campaign against high-heels for five year-olds because 1)high heels for 5 year olds is bloody daft and 2)it’s a visible thing we can see in our shops every day. The problem with a campaign against sweated/child labour in foreign lands is that we can’t see it. Sure, we get the t-shirts for £3 and the shoes for £5 – but we never see the cruelty behind the labour that goes into creating them. (As an aside I’ve often thought that the Fairtrade mark should be abolished and replaced by an “Unfairtrade” mark for all companies that refuse to give their workers a decent standard of life/work)

@21 sally: What do you want from the world? Do you have time for human frailty or the need to survive?

“NEVER criticise global international capitalism” What? If a farmer in India works out that the crop of local basil is very tasty, should they be denied the opportunity to sell it at the best price? The optimal way, initially, would be to advertise on the internet, accept a PayPal payment and pop the basil into an envelope mailed to Europe. That is international capitalism.

“Never criticise the police” When I am frustrated, I have similar thoughts. When I am rational, I ask myself why is that Post-burglary copper = Good and that On-demo copper = Evil. I have my own ideas about this contradiction, but what are yours, sally?

It’s a valid point about the mumsnet name but it’s over a decade old, and we do have a number of very vocal male and childless members so… feel free!

it’s a strange old entity MN; lots on morning sickness and nappies yes, but the politics and otehr areas are vibrant and absolutely open to anyone with an interest.

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with ukliberty @8, as well as Mr Pill @3.

This is a rather ill-thought out article, or rather, it’s very one-dimensional in its approach and not taking care to look back over what has been said and think about whether it’s a reasonable attack, all things considered (indeed, this is something of a pattern from this – well intentioned, but somewhat overly-zealous – author).

Yes, we would all like it if Asda, Next, Gap etc all stopped being complete shits in the third world. But the chances of mumsnet stopping their exploitative practices aborad? Zero.

On the other hand, mumsent has a decent shot of getting these companies to behave better in this country. So they should probably take that shot. Of course, in the process that may mean “endorsing” or even helping some companies that do some pretty bad shit elsewhere.

But hello and welcome to the real world of politics. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty if you want to change anything.

Of course, mumsnet could decline to work with these companies and have nice clean hands. But its campaign against sexualisation would thus never take place in any effective of likely to succeed manner. So nobody would really be better off.

I know it’s comfy up there on the moral high horse, but the moral high horse has an unfortunate habit of refusing to take you anywhere useful.

apologies for wine-induced typos.

Sorry. Don’t understand this at all.

If mothers don’t want their young daughters to wear clothes that they believe are inappropriate for their age they have the option not to buy them. That there is a market for such items suggests other mothers disagree with their view.

To try to dictate what others can buy and sell is …err….authoritarian

@ 32

I assume the issue is that the kids can buy these things themselves, through pocket money and suchlike. Althought that’s not what the OP is actually about, it just mentions it.

Mumsnet has refused to take down transphobic posts from their forums. Some mums have posted bigoted transphobic comments there which amount to advocating hate-crime against transgender children. For this I cannot forgive them. If someone had posted something racist they would have removed it. They didn’t even respond to my request that they remove the offending material.

As such the “Let Girls Be Girls” campaign takes on a different (and rather sinister) meaning.

I wasn’t going to bother going BTL until…

30

It is this simple:

The people who run mumsnet are not stupid, and must know that if Next, for example, joins the campaign, it will be for the sole purpose of augmenting a brand and not for any genuine concern about the welfare of young girls.

So it’s really a case of whether mumsnet is willing to make the moral compromise of overlooking the fact that Gap finances ‘slave labour’ in other countries in order to bolster their campaign, whilst inadvertently giving Next a platform to portray itself as a family-orientated, caring retailer. I was pointing out the double-standard of the set up, which does – I believe – undermine the work of great organisations like the National Labor Committee. If you think I believe for one second that mumsnet could single handedly stop sweatshop labour, you must be our of your f**king mind. It’s an age-old trick though, taking an argument to its most ridiculous extreme to try and discredit it.

Secondly, I can’t help but feel that calling the two serious articles I’ve written for LC ‘a pattern’ is somewhat over-zealous, but thanks for reading.

It’d be good to debate with mumsnet, a site I belive to be pretty positive, but sometimes its own worst enemy. I sent the longer version of this post to them and they kindly RTed it. I was hoping to engage with them a bit. I did confess they could take me in a fight, so maybe they’re restraining out of mercy. Or maybe Justine Roberts is too busy rolling naked in money.

Sorry, that should have read Next, not Gap.

This post is brilliant.
I’m 23 and I remember clothes that ‘sexualised’ kids were around when I was a kid. Guess what? I didn’t grow up to be a slag, and neither did my friends. Something the Mumsnetters can’t comprehend.

Yeah, they did do well in the election. Another £7bn wasted this morning, too. Hmm..

Arn’t these the same “Mumsnet” who wasted the opportunity of meeting Gordon Brown and David Cameron by asking them what their favourite biscuits were?

The thing about sweatshops is not just related to Mumsnet being ignorant of what goes on; every thinking person knows about sweatshops and yet they implicitely accept them through their behaviour. For most people the idea of slavery abroad would be palatable so long as it was out of sight and allowed them to continue to consume their mass-produced cheap consumer goods – look at China and the i-phone, has that dented the market? Of course not. I visited Primark the weekend the sweatshops story came out: do you think it made any difference to the crowds there?

It’s unfair to just single out Mumsnet in this way; hypocrisy is fairly widespread on this kind of thing. At the end of the day the hypocrisy is far more acceptable to people than the difficult and dangerous questions which would come about by questioning our way of life and its impact.

Nik – no that would be netmums!

A lot os us missed the transphobic posts until later as one factor in a fast moving website such as that is that you simply cannot read everything. I have since registered my disgust on there however; they also refused to take down disablist posts, but unless we argue the case against bigotry on there qon’t it clowly just become a refuge for the nastier elements of mankind?

And yes, it ws the buscuit website BUT that was a few questions on a thread of very many with a membership in excess of a million people. Sadly, you cannot legislate for the biscuits questions without getting into really dodgy ground over censorship.

For every upsetting or silly post hopwever there are a hundred of friendship or support. I’ve been targetted on there (I mentioned once that my hub had depression adn was sworn at and called everything you can imagine for him being on benefits- except he wasn’t ; he was still in work, or arrnaged sick leave. I;ve also had my kids called defective and euthansia suggestions). But I can multiply those posts by very many helpful, supportive ones and in particualr the SN boards and relationship boards have helped many people going through ahrd times, even leaving dangerous partners.

A few people have said they would back a MN campaign on this matter, including me. MNHQ are trying to organsie a campaign about the child benefit changes at the moment though (I have registered my views on that too- supportive (based on assessment method) until the solution invovled hitting low income famillies in order to keep it for those on £100k. At that point I withdrew!)

I am liking this website though; I feel it may be tempting.

By the way are people aware that many on MN opertae a Nestle embargo due to their practices abroad? That MNHQ has refused a good few lucrative advertsing deals based on their ethics? That there is a campaign of people avoiding M&S becuase of their links with Hooters?

No?

Another example of the left attacking the left. Sure the campaign is not perfect, (which is!) But for goodness sake if every time good intention is lambasted by the progressive left we have no hope! Please try and keep things in perspective and give a sense of balance to a challenging yet vilifying article. We can be better than this…..

@34

“Mumsnet has refused to take down transphobic posts from their forums. Some mums have posted bigoted transphobic comments there which amount to advocating hate-crime against transgender children. For this I cannot forgive them. If someone had posted something racist they would have removed it. They didn’t even respond to my request that they remove the offending material.”

Really? Link so we can shout at them.

Ms Peach

“By the way are people aware that many on MN opertae a Nestle embargo due to their practices abroad? That MNHQ has refused a good few lucrative advertsing deals based on their ethics? That there is a campaign of people avoiding M&S becuase of their links with Hooters?”

Not too bothered about Hooters, unless there’s something going on there I’m not aware of, but fair play to them on Nestle.

Why have you highlighted an issue with Gap that is not related to child labour? The example you have provided is one of poor working conditions, which probably prevail in most 3rd world factories.

Is it better to spread oneself thinly and support many campaigns, or concentrate on just a few?

I know I personally have many issues which I would like to campaign on and be an active part of supporting, but I’ve had to narrow those down to just a few to actively “do” something about – I would have no time to eat, sleep or breathe if I was active in everything that concerns me in the country, and world around me

@ 44 http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/989721-Recommend-me-a-book Search for Dittany.

@ 47

Nothing there except her saying she likes Germaine Greer. Is it elsewhere on the thread? I hope I’m not coming off as lazy by saying that trawling through 41 pages of mumsnet is a bit of a tall order, even on a Friday.

In any case, I found that thread and searched a few pages using the word “trans”. Found an extremely moronic comment, of the women-as-eternal-victims variety, but nothing offensive. I don’t suppose you know what was actually said, or have a link to it? I’m intrigued by the idea of transphobic feminists.

@48

I’ve been browsing that thread on and off the past hour and am up to page 11, most of the debate has been had by that point if you’re up to it!
The main thing is a few people on there reckon that trans women shouldn’t be considered women. Because they don’t have a womb, etc. It’s quite a divisive issue in the feminist world (Germaine Greer infamously coming out as transphobic in the Whole Woman).

(nb to my last post @49)
it’s not only that trans women don’t have wombs, it’s that apparently they don’t have the shared sense of womanhood that comes from being a woman all your life. Something like that. One of the posters compared it to a white person suddenly deciding to be black.
That’s the general gist as far as I can gather (correct me if I’m wrong earwicga).

At Pill

“The main thing is a few people on there reckon that trans women shouldn’t be considered women. Because they don’t have a womb, etc. It’s quite a divisive issue in the feminist world (Germaine Greer infamously coming out as transphobic in the Whole Woman).”

Well, that’s not exactly a great point of view, but it’s hardly hate speech. At that point (sorry earwigca), Mumsnet taking it down would just be a case of censoring someone’s views.

“it’s that apparently they don’t have the shared sense of womanhood that comes from being a woman all your life.”

Jesus Christ. Do they worship Gaia as well? I sincerely hope nobody’s using that kind of nonsense to attack transgendered people.

@Chaise

Further reading and it gets nastier actually.. up to 18 now (skim-reading) and a couple of posters reckon that parents of trans children are child abusers. I think earwicga may have a point…

‘Arn’t these the same “Mumsnet” who wasted the opportunity of meeting Gordon Brown and David Cameron by asking them what their favourite biscuits were?’

you probably missed the severe questioning of both leaders about incontinence products for disabled children and the successful campaign to aloow said products on basis of need rather than capped at 4 a day.

@ 52

By my reading, what we have is a few people who are unable to interpret anything in terms other than their own obssessions. So if a man wants to become a woman, they don’t say “fair enough, your choice”, they call him/her a misogynist (because any action or statement that challenges their personal view of gender is automatically bigoted) and say he/she is supporting the false image of feminity forced upon women by the patriachal oppressor (i.e. me, probably). That’s not a fair summation of the entire conversation, BTW, that’s me skimming through and deliberately looking for the more offensive bits.

So, by that analysis, we have some single-minded and arguably bigoted people (ditanny, the one mentioned by name here, is not the worst offender) discussing gender roles, which is no reason to summon the mods and certainly no reason to involve the police. However, mumsnet has apparently censored some of the comments, so it’s impossible to know how valid earwigca’s point is.

However, given that this is one conversation on one comment thread, it seems unfair to blame the website in toto for any offence given. Even if they were slow to delete offending posts, they may have a (healthy, in my view) attitude of “if in doubt, don’t censor). Or they might simply have been busy. Again, hard to pass judgement ‘cos the info’s not all there. The one thing I will say is that people who call themselves feminist attacking transgendered people for being who they are is pretty tragic.

*A lot of the problem, sadly but not surprisingly, seems to be semantic: “if a man can become a woman, they’re saying that’s all a woman is!” Misses the point that words get used in different but equally valid ways.

After reading the last few posts, I might reconsider my opinion of the site as ‘pretty positive.’ Wince.

Oh and before I eff off, if you like this article, google the National Labor Committee. It’s a really admirable organisation, which has made some great strides with sweatshop labour. The current campaign is to get Walmart to pay its employees a living wage of 35c an hour (in my post on my blog – not sure why it’s been edited out here!). Realistic and reasonable aims, you might say, that should be supported more widely by those George is appealing to i.e. mumsnet.

That’s just my opinion anyway – not the ‘progressive left’ of which I am not a member, whatever it is. Bleugh! A pox on your jargon!

Yet again, we see the same old attacks on Mumsnet. People can’t get it into their heads that a forum mainly consisting of women, and mainly educated ones at that, can:

- contain many different views
- seriously debate politics
- sometimes be silly and have injokes
- provide great support
- not be entirely about nappies

The feminism section has some of the most active and interesting debates on the entire internet, and benefits massively from having “passers-by” from other sections joining in.

The thing about being a mother of young children is that you do spend an awful amount of time cut off from adult conversation. Mumsnet provides that. I (and a lot of mothers) find it really hard to make it to debates and conferences, but i do spend a lot of time welded to the sofa under a feeding baby, or stuck in the house while the children sleep. I can now use this time to discuss real issues, as well as silly biscuit related queries.

I think it scares people that this huge section of society is gaining a voice. We are women, we have children, we have responsibilities and we have opinions.

(We also sometimes drink wine and argue about sex. Don’t tell me that never happens in the real world.)

@54 – I feel compelled to point out something about your phrase – ‘So if a man wants to become a woman, they don’t say “fair enough, your choice”’

A trans woman has never been a ‘man’ so it is not a decision to change from one gender to the other. It’s not a choice. It’s not semantics with dittany – she hates trans women. She hates most people to be fair, but trans women especially.

@52 – you got to the point where ‘hate speech’ really kicks in.

Thing is though, that this thread is not one of Mumsnet’s greatest- but it’s one in a decade isn;t it? Nobody ahs linked to teh Christmas appeal that delivered gifts to people in hardhip, the two nights we all say up with a woman waiting to find out if her husband was getting a heart transplant (he did, on night 2- has since had another child and one on the way). Oh there have been some stinkers for sure; far more great ones though.

And somewhere in that million plus people registerd there will be some whose views you abhor. There are for me certainly, but many also I am proud to know.

Clari – you are absolutely right. Most people on Mumsnet are decent people. As everywhere, there are also a few fuckwits. Then there is dittany, the most revolting person I have ever met anywhere on the net or in real life.

It is true though, that we all buy clothing we don’t need from shops which fill their shelves with items made by children. Items made in factories which abuse their workers. That is the point of Ellie Mae’s OP. Those ‘million plus people registerd’ could make a difference.

Buttery/EvilEyeButterPie – you have been well dittany trained. Run back now and report to dittany and her clones to receive your reward. Oh, I see you already have.

By the way are people aware that many on MN opertae a Nestle embargo due to their practices abroad? That MNHQ has refused a good few lucrative advertsing deals based on their ethics? That there is a campaign of people avoiding M&S becuase of their links with Hooters?

Excellent stuff – thanks for highlighting this Mrs Peach.

I actually think Mumsnet should shout about stuff like this because it matters. My boycott of Nestle is now nearly 15 years long…

Buttery/EvilEyeButterPie – you have been well dittany trained. Run back now and report to dittany and her clones to receive your reward. Oh, I see you already hav

Don’t think this is helpful. I quite like Mumsnet and we’ve promoted their ‘let girls be girls’ campaign here too. In fact one of the Mumsnet team is a Libcon contributor

No Sunny. And neither are bigots pretending to be feminists.

And Rowan should really blog more.

what’s bigoted?

earwiga is referring to a poster called Dittany.

Anyway, may I refer you all to this: http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1062361-MNHQ-Have-you-seen-this-yet-Can-we-discuss-this?pg=1

It’s pretty cool. Must admit I don’t know if I’d be even as receptive as they seem to be in this thread.

@58

“A trans woman has never been a ‘man’ so it is not a decision to change from one gender to the other. It’s not a choice. It’s not semantics with dittany – she hates trans women. She hates most people to be fair, but trans women especially.”

TBH, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. You don’t own the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ any more that the mumsnet bigots. Difference is, you’re not using this to attack a vulnerable group so, while I must respectfully decline your attempt to prune my lexicon, I do so with not invective

@60

Oh, that’s hilarious. There’s a whole page there of people basically going “posting on LC? How sad and self indulgent. Not like posting on mumsnet!”

And this:

“She seems to think that Mumsnet is some kind of Stalinist organisation, where the Mumsnet organisation is responsible for the beliefs of posters and where everybody is on message. Mumsnet is not Liberal Conspiracy.”

If there’s anything in that statement that goes beyond “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I”, I’m damned if I can find it.

Oh, and dittany thinks we’re ‘misogynistic wankers’. How she found the time to survey every contributer and commenter here, I’ll never guess.

@ 66

“Anyway, may I refer you all to this: http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1062361-MNHQ-Have-you-seen-this-yet-Can-we-discuss-this?pg=1”

Good link.

Nobody on here (I hope) is arguing that the comments in the other thread are representative of either mumsnet as a company or the people who frequent its site. The link you gave above proves the inevitable.

Oh I wouldn’t worry about Dittany; she is excellent in her field of feminism but as she admits, she is radical.

I am posting on both sites now; wonder what that makes me? Do I care?

Nope.

@67 – they are not my words or terminology. They are the words of trans women.

@70 – ‘she is excellent in her field of feminism’ – No she isn’t. Nor is she radical. And you are most welcome to comment here. Stick around, it’s good. Mostly.

“@67 – they are not my words or terminology. They are the words of trans women. ”

You don’t speak for all trans women, earwigca, and it wasn’t a trans woman speaking anyway, it was me. Basically, if I want to use ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in their most conventional sense, referring to the physical differences of either chromosones or genetalia, I’m well within my rights to do so. Everyone understands what I mean unless they’re being deliberately obtuse.

On the other hand, if someone wants to use those words to describe the way that they feel about themselves, that’s cool too, and the people on that thread over at Mumsnet have no more right to demand that they change their vocabulary than you do to demand I change mine.

Everyone understands what is meant by the phrase “a man trapped in a woman’s body”. Under the linguistic revisionism promoted by yourself or the mumsnet lot, the expression wouldn’t even make sense.

i love to feed babies specially when they burp and smile after feeding them ‘

Mumsnet a haven for small minded hateful bigots who’s latest campaign is the extermination of prostitutes for stealing their husbands.