Heads up: MNHQ planning to create a sex/gender topic separate from FWR.

that's interesting - you speak as if that has already happened. Do you have a link to that thread conversation for interest? It would help me see which views you feel are erroneous and too dominant.

It's gone to page 2 now, Sexism by numbers. Killed stone dead by several diversions off into queer theory.

Your sarcasm was a bit gratuitous there.

I was referring to embarrassing admissions, not you.

Unfortunately, the board doesn't thread so it's not possible to see to whom you're replying. Even now, I'm not the poster who referred to recidivism, I was answering a remark about it.

You brought up recidivism and framed it around that, not anyone else.

I also think this is a terrible idea.

Especially as it's clearly in response to the courts upholding peoples' right to believe that men are men and women are women.

Feminism is about sex-based oppression. That's actually what it is.

Unless discussions about gender are moved to a separate 'Gender' topic and discussions about sex ie being a woman remain in the Feminist Chat topic.

We know what the alternative is because there are social media groups and platforms full of it elsewhere - it's heavily policed Lib feminism in which women are routinely told off for wrong think/speak if they're not inclusive enough. There are a whole host of platforms where anyone interested in discussing feminism can join in. Let's be honest, the reason FWR is targeted is because it's influential.

Exactly.

Even if you stick all the gender crits in a gulag and make them wear "bad feminist" badges it isn't going to stop people who recognise biological reality seeking them out, or journalists dropping by to seek out important discussions about child safeguarding etc This is obvs the next step before lobbying for an outright ban over transphobic content, but do you think all the women who call a spade a spade will then just vanish into the ether. This sort of approach has been tried over and over, it doesn't work. Compromise is always better.

however I was answering a poster who thought it would possibly make it absolutely essential to include trans identity.

I didn't mention recidivism, please don't misrepresent my post. My point was generally that sex and gender might be highly relevant to a discussion about women in prison. Depending on the discussion.

You are sounding a bit desperate now.

It really shouldn't matter whether you are talking about theft or drug dealing should it?
The problem with drug dealing and theft is that the perpetrators are often substance abusers, this topic might also lead into discussing prostitution/ sex work and this might be considered GC. So which board?

But really, that's quite a revealing post.

Would that be done deliberately or accidentally?

It would be done if it was relevant to the subject, wouldn't it? Because we all want to have a productive discussion and contribute our own understanding.

It really shouldn't matter whether you are talking about theft or drug dealing should it?

I don't know - it might if there were participants in such a discussion with greater experience of the drivers for theft and drug dealing. I'm aware that quite a few reports/news stories indicate that a substantial number of women in prison are there because they were engaged in crime on behalf of a man (e.g., drug dealing). I've no idea what their recidivism rate is but I should think it might reflect the amount of resources available to support them before and after they leave prison.

My limited understanding is that there may well be substantial difference in the type of support required to prevent recidivism. I would hope that any such conversation would attract input from the knowledgeable MNers who work in prisons and support services.

Some of the content on the feminist section of MN alienates some women so I don’t see a problem with creating different subtopics.

I am sorry that you have never felt comfortable enough to post on FWR. As a potential new poster how would you divide up the content of this board?

recidivism rates, is identity critical to that?

Might it not depend on the nature of the crime?

Particularly, say, if one were considering recidivism among women sex offenders - a number that has been increasing because of contemporary methods of recording information?

Some of the content on the feminist section of MN alienates some women so I don’t see a problem with creating different subtopics. Currently it’s an echo chamber - the full spread of opinions is not represented because a lot of women don’t engage with it - it’s not a place where you can have a reasonable conversation unless you share a specific viewpoint. Voices that have different opinions are often shouted down by a vociferous majority so just stop engaging. I know lots of women who hold a broad range of views in RL but on MN it’s much narrower. Would be great to encourage more women to participate in the feminist threads without it always coming back to ONE thing.

" Recidivism"
Would depend on what kind of offences you are talking about?

I'm trying to imagine the cross over. Say for example someone was talking about recidivism rates, is identity critical to that?

Would that be done deliberately or accidentally?

I do think separating out the identity conversation might allow more people to use the boards more broadly.

What happens when a thread is started in the other section and "the identity conversation" is highly relevant to the subject? Like women in prison etc?

It's completely unworkable and a recipe for "why is this in the "wrong" section bunfights on all sides.

I'm not much liking the word "catastrophising" tbh. There are undertones of "hysteria" to that.

Dittany and others anticipated our current circumstance and legal quagmires many years ago. To some extent, they were driven away from FWR for their Cassandra-like, catastrophising views. Some people's knowledge and foresight will always be characterised by others in derogatory ways particularly when they're at odds with their own knowledge or cognitive biases.