Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Women's rights general conversations - Thread 3

992 replies

Kucinghitam · 25/01/2023 15:07

Continuation of Thread 2.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
duc748 · 28/02/2023 18:23

The more 'trans kids' that can be created, the better, as far as some are concerned.

IcakethereforeIam · 28/02/2023 18:19

How can a cleavage be peaked?

I was just trying to find if the author of that piece might be GC, but I wasn't holding out much hope. Obviously, it's the lens I read it through but the fact that unprecedented numbers of girls are trying to abandon womanhood entirely isn't mentioned seems sus. I think she signed the letter to the NYT so I think she doesn't or won't see it. It baffles me.

duc748 · 28/02/2023 18:11

I'd just finished reading that piece, when I noticed the link alongside to a story about the crucial issue of 'circumboobs', and 'peak cleavage'.

Top work, the Graun ! 😀

Madamedefargelikescrows · 28/02/2023 17:35

That really is a small but mighty victory. I was reading the thread a while back and I'm so glad she succeeded. It gives me hope.

StephanieSuperpowers · 28/02/2023 15:30

there is now a group of parents called 'sex not gender':

Crikey, they really shot themselves in the foot with this little adventure.

duc748 · 28/02/2023 15:16

That's great and persistent work; I've been following that thread.

For my sins, I lived in Trowbridge for many years until a few years back. Nothing exciting ever happened whilst I lived there!

MmePoppySeedDefage · 28/02/2023 13:51

In good news time, MN poster Vebrithien, who rightly objected to posters in her children's school posted yesterday that the posters have been removed, and there is now a group of parents called 'sex not gender':

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4733278-sex-not-gender-no-outsiders-changing-the-equality-act-depheaddsl-captured?postsby=Vebrithien

DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · 27/02/2023 17:38

It's educational. I really was naive enough to have thought the original lot were gone.

ErrolTheDragon · 27/02/2023 16:34

Almost like it's not a bug, it's a feature.

duc748 · 27/02/2023 16:12

I've just been reading the Scotland PIE and LGB thread. I always wondered why the 'liberal left', having fallen for PIE so spectacularly in the 70s, haven't been a bit wiser more recently. What I hadn't known, though, was that the men behind PIE are well embedded into Scottish LGBT orthodoxy.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4747859-scotland-pie-and-lgb-research-thread

IcakethereforeIam · 27/02/2023 15:19

International women's day is trending on twitter, had a brief look and saw at least two things that annoyed me! Danielle in Stoke and cis-terhood in Derbyshire.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 27/02/2023 12:35

All online, so no write in option.

No specific targets as far as I know, it's just a staff network thing to help plan their events for the year. Although no doubt it helps with Stonewall points.

duc748 · 27/02/2023 12:33

Ah, aromantic. I was reading that as 'aromatic'.

Well, it doesn't seem much less plausible! 😀

DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · 27/02/2023 12:14

I'd be tempted to write 'N' in each box and when asked what it stands for be very indignant that they are so bigoted that they don't know ('N'one of your business, but I'd leave them guessing).

If my job was on the line I'd probably resist the temptation.

Are they having to do this to prove they've met some arbitrary target?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/02/2023 12:08

The definitions in this didn't mention asexual at all, only aromantic.

How odd, and exclusionary of the "ace" community, who constantly seem to be pushing for more recognition.

Winterborne74 · 27/02/2023 12:01

It doesn't need accommodation, it's not something that's discriminated against, I don't see how anybody would even know.

And illustrates that this is about proselytisation rather than problem solving.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 27/02/2023 11:56

I believe that's usual, yes. The definitions in this didn't mention asexual at all, only aromantic.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/02/2023 11:39

Gah 2 - the A, which they are defining as 'aromantic'. Not a sexuality; not a gender identity - a 'romantic orientation'.

Wouldn't it more usually be "Asexual", which at least is an actual sexual orientation (a lack of any).

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 27/02/2023 11:18

Oh FFS. Questionnaire at work on matters LGBTQIA+

Gah 1 - the I.

Gah 2 - the A, which they are defining as 'aromantic'. Not a sexuality; not a gender identity - a 'romantic orientation'. WTF does that have to do with anything work related? It doesn't need accommodation, it's not something that's discriminated against, I don't see how anybody would even know.

Gah 3 - the first question: 'Are you (a) a member of the LGBTQ+ [I and A have now vanished] community; or (b) an ally?' What if someone is only an ally to some parts of the alphabet, or under some circumstances, or even not at all (perhaps for religious reasons), or is dubious about the concept of 'allyship'?

Gah 4 - rank various things in order of importance. You can only tick or not tick - this is not a ranking (and you can't move on until you tick all of them).

Winterborne74 · 27/02/2023 11:16

It's a great review though. Really heartfelt and describes the point where I imagine a lot of us find ourselves:

middle-aged women Will Not Be Ignored. And part of not being ignored involves doggedly reminding people that ageism is the dumbest bigotry of all, as well as the most widespread – for you, too, dear reader, will be 40 one day (and then 50, and 60, and on and on, if you’re lucky).
To discount older women is, if you’re female, to write off your future self.

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 27/02/2023 11:10

Madamedefargelikescrows · 27/02/2023 03:14

I would hope it will be overturned on appeal but the fact that he was referred to the terror watchdog is unbelievable. Good grief, he is not a terrorist and the referral is utter madness.

Having experienced the TRSOHers back in the old place, I can totally see how the Righteous could convince themselves (with much faux-sorrowful back-patting) that it was the safest course of action.

OP posts:
IcakethereforeIam · 27/02/2023 11:09

I've just read it, it's good but sad

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/27/hags-by-victoria-smith-review-welcome-to-the-age-of-rage

Winterborne74 · 27/02/2023 11:05

It's Rachel Cooke so the Observer. Big difference in the editorial stances of the sister papers on this issue. The author is firmly on the WSOH.