@JustineMumsnet I heard about the Feminist board here many years ago from other feminists, I had a quick look but there seemed to be too much tiptoeing around males who identified as women, using genderist language etc., so I didn’t stay. I later heard about the Spartacus threads from women at a feminist meeting, I came back and saw there was a thread about gender ideology, so I stayed for a time and contributed to that thread, that was around 6 years ago. Things started to move on and women were talking about organising, I left for a while due to other reasons, when I came back a year or so later under a different account (I had changed emails) a year or so later things had moved on, there was much more discussion of the harms of gender ideology which I think was a very good thing. Then the current guidelines were introduced severely limiting feminist speech and many posters either left or were banned, I came here under a different name, although I often read threads I do not post much due to the fact there are issues that need discussing which currently can’t be, as it is considered ‘generalising’ or offensive to a subset of men. Many women have also said that autism, experiences with abusive males, ex-partners etc., also makes it difficult for them to participate under the current guidelines. So I think the current guidelines could already be said to be excluding some women from posting in Feminist chat.
I think this thread is asking for the rules to be lawful and respectful to the beliefs of ‘gender critical’ feminists. I find it troubling that a thread asking for the rules of the Feminist board to reflect the current law on beliefs has been met with a proposal to segregate feminists on the Feminist board. With respect, this approach seems to have functioned as a distraction, as women then feel they have to make the case for why they shouldn’t be moved into a subsection. When instead the issue this thread highlights should be addressed.
It has now been established that ‘gender critical’ feminists are free to hold our belief (based on biological fact) that males are men, and disagree with genderist’s belief that males can be women. In order to convey our belief that males are men/males we need to be able to use language which reflects our beliefs (which are based on the facts of biological sex being unchangeable) without risking being banned, of course genderists should also to be free to express their beliefs. However, genderist’s beliefs should not be prioritised over gender critical feminist’s beliefs, otherwise that is discrimination, this is what women on this thread are highlighting.
There are two main areas where there is an imbalance imo;
- Genderists are currently able to use the word ‘transwoman’ to refer to a subset of males as that aligns with their belief in gender ideology. Gender critical feminists equally need to be able to refer to males in a way that aligns with our belief that biological sex cannot be changed, by being able to refer to males as males/men e.g. trans identified males/men (TIM), etc.
- Genderists are currently permitted to use female pronouns when they refer to the group of males they consider ‘transwomen’, and to use ‘cis’ to refer to people they don’t consider ‘trans’, this is inline with their belief in gender ideology. Gender critical feminists need equally to be able to use male pronouns for the group of males who identify as women, and need to be able to refer to them as males/men, in line with our belief that people can’t change sex.
However, I think it reasonable that if an individual is involved in a conversation on a thread and doesn’t wish to be referred to as ‘cis’ or ‘he’ personally, then posters should not refer to that specific poster as ‘cis’ or he, they can just use their username or ‘they’ to refer to them, this is completely different from referring to groups or hypothetical people. Genderists may find it distressing or offensive when gender critical feminists use words that reflect biological reality to refer to a subset of males, similarly many ‘gender critical’ feminists find it just as (if not more) distressing and offensive when genderists use words inline with gender ideology, as many of us consider genderism to be an ideology that is based on and further embeds misogyny and homophobia in society. As a lesbian woman I find it particularly distressing and offensive that male posters can refer to themselves or other males as ‘lesbian women’. However, it has been established that no one has the right not to be offended. Therefore, even though both sides can feel distressed and extremely offended by the views of the other, we both still need to be equally free to express our beliefs, as long as we are not being harassing or abusive.
Another point is that feminism is about generalising to a large extent, as is any analysis of power imbalance or oppression, e.g. women cannot discuss feminism without talking about males/men as a group, and subsets of men/males who hold misogynistic beliefs about women. Feminist analysis also critiques lifestyle choices, beauty norms etc., feminist analysis can’t exist if is verboten to critique these things. For example, if a group of men have a sexual fetish that leads them to promote sexist and misogynistic views of what women are, even though that may be a ‘lifestyle choice’, it is the essence of feminism to point out they are doing this and the harms it causes to females. Similarly if a group of men wish to violate female’s boundaries, then it may be criticising a specific group of men to mention which group of men are doing the violating, though one cannot express a feminist analysis without naming the group of men and the ideology they subscribe to.
Ultimately, the issue is that both ‘gender critical’ feminists and genderists need to be able to convey our views and beliefs in equal ways, without risking being banned or deleted, otherwise it would be prioritising one side over the other, which I agree with pp is likely to be discrimination under belief. Up until now many genderist terms have been permitted, but not a gender critical feminist equivalent, this is what needs to be addressed. It also needs to be acknowledged that feminist analysis, like all other analysis of oppression, often has to generalise, it cannot exist otherwise. Pp have said removing women who discuss sex based rights to a subsection of the feminist board is likely to be discrimination against the female sex and I tend to agree. It is more productive to make the rules of the Feminist board fair and equal for both genderists and gender critical feminists than trying to create echo chambers imho.