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 4

984 replies

Kucinghitam · 09/03/2023 09:19

Continuation of Thread 3.

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
94
duc748 · 06/04/2023 12:02

Kucinghitam · 06/04/2023 08:36

IIRC, we have seen this thread before many times, both on MN FWR and in the Old Place. But it's so good that I feel it deserves to be reposted every so often:

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

New to me, the stuff abut same-sex weddings. But interesting.

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 06/04/2023 11:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I posted this on the other thread, but works here too:

I suppose many of The Righteous imagine that the vipers of MN are mumsy middle-aged dimbos who only know about prams and laundry, and barely have a single GCSE in Biology to rub together.

OP posts:
CryptoFascistMadameCholet · 06/04/2023 11:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · 06/04/2023 11:34

Are the kids always this agitated and full of questions? I don't remember it at Christmas but I was still so new I might not have noticed.

Gonners · 06/04/2023 11:02

Arf! Remind me, when do the kids go back to school?

I have a wonderful scenario in my head beginning along the lines of "We need a DNA sample - could you just touch this door-handle please?" and ending with "That's a fine little boy you have there, Mr Smith. I hope the birth wasn't too traumatic."

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 06/04/2023 10:57

SqueakyDinosaur · 06/04/2023 10:35

@Kucinghitam have you seen this yet? https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4779265-to-point-out-that-one-y-chromosome-does-not-make-you-a-male?reply=125215154

Ooh! <rubs hands>

OP posts:
SinnerBoy · 06/04/2023 10:55

Cripes, Tebbit, Widdicombe and Moynihan had all the arguments 20 years ago.

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 06/04/2023 08:36

IIRC, we have seen this thread before many times, both on MN FWR and in the Old Place. But it's so good that I feel it deserves to be reposted every so often:

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

OP posts:
NotDrowningJustCrowing · 06/04/2023 00:09

I love the incongruity of inclusive, non gc. It says it all really. Inclusive but exclusive of anyone I disagree with because they're horrid to me and say things I can't argue with.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 05/04/2023 22:32

Worse, it was 'bodies with vaginas', I believe.

(Although to be fair to them it was a quote from an article about women being ignored in health research, so looked considerably worse than it was.)

SqueakyDinosaur · 05/04/2023 19:14

BMJ definitely winning over the Lancet, which 18 months ago had to apologise for a cover headline about "people with vaginas"...

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 05/04/2023 17:37

DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · 05/04/2023 17:07

I read the first few pages of that Kuci but eventually found myself grinding my teeth and closed it down. It was as if a bunch of medieval theologians had turned up to insist we give the numbers of angels on the head of a pin but graciously offered us a choice of counting cherubim or seraphim.

Excellent Grin

I could only liken it to demanding a Philosophy: Atheism (Deity-Believers Only) sub-section.

OP posts:
MavisMcMinty · 05/04/2023 17:31

I saw (and nicked as my own) a phrase like “if you over-reach you topple” and really feel this is what’s happening now with TRAs and the gender “debate”/yelling match.

angelico53 · 05/04/2023 17:29

YetAnotherSpartacus · 05/04/2023 15:00

It's great to finally see this and I just want to acknowledge the actions of brave women such as Maya Forstater, Kiera Bell and Sonia Appleby who made it possible. I don't believe that the BMJ would have had the guts to publish either the article or the defence if women had not taken the risk and the potential consequences to pave the way.

Ain't it just and good to see you around, Sparts.

nepeta · 05/04/2023 17:25

mach2 · 05/04/2023 15:41

Hooray! Somebody has finally refused to do the standard grovel.

I so want to see more of this, more of the "adults back in the room" stuff. Things got as bad as they did because those adults were being kind but didn't realise that the outcome would be more and more outrageous demands as the earlier demands faced not questioning at all.

'Adults' isn't quite the right word here, because there are children who can see situations in quite unbiased light. I think what I mean are people who have their feet firmly on the ground in reality.

Boiledbeetle · 05/04/2023 17:24

DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · 05/04/2023 17:07

I read the first few pages of that Kuci but eventually found myself grinding my teeth and closed it down. It was as if a bunch of medieval theologians had turned up to insist we give the numbers of angels on the head of a pin but graciously offered us a choice of counting cherubim or seraphim.

I'm amazed at your elegant way with words.

All I could come up with was what shite!

Waitwhat23 · 05/04/2023 17:15

I can't reply on that one again because if I do it will be ALL CAPS!

DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · 05/04/2023 17:07

I read the first few pages of that Kuci but eventually found myself grinding my teeth and closed it down. It was as if a bunch of medieval theologians had turned up to insist we give the numbers of angels on the head of a pin but graciously offered us a choice of counting cherubim or seraphim.

OP posts:
Britinme · 05/04/2023 16:11

Watch for the ramping up of pathos.

mach2 · 05/04/2023 15:41

Hooray! Somebody has finally refused to do the standard grovel.

CryptoFascistMadameCholet · 05/04/2023 15:06

It’s brilliant isn’t it?

Apologising never helps anyway, and I bet there was an awful lot discussion between BMJ staff re: likely objections and how to handle it BEFORE they published - at this stage in the gender wars it’s probably wise to have a game plan ready.

Being able to say ‘ ackshully we stand by every word we said so no, no apology, now fuck off!’ must be pretty satisfying!

YetAnotherSpartacus · 05/04/2023 15:00

It's great to finally see this and I just want to acknowledge the actions of brave women such as Maya Forstater, Kiera Bell and Sonia Appleby who made it possible. I don't believe that the BMJ would have had the guts to publish either the article or the defence if women had not taken the risk and the potential consequences to pave the way.

Waitwhat23 · 05/04/2023 14:53

I liked the reply from the BMJ. No pandering. Just an unequivocal no, we won't be apologising.

Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4
Swipe left for the next trending thread