Can MNHQ set up a new discussion category called Feminism: sex & gender discussion (inclusive, non-GC)

@PlanetLuna is it the dress, the lipstick or the special inner feeling.that makes a male with a trans identity any less of a threat than any other male?

As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood. Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls

You're a feminist who thinks men can be women too?

Transwomen, being male, pose the exact same threat to women and girls as any other male.

Pretending that a subset of men are harmless because they claim to be women is pure stupidity. A mockery of the most basic safeguarding.

The only requirement to have a 'womanhood' is to be an adult human female.

@PlanetLuna

In 2022, 23 transwomen were convicted of sexual offences in the UK. Of these, 15 were with child victims, 7 with adult victims, 1 with animal victim.

These included among others

Two counts of penetrative sexual activity with a girl aged 13 to 15

30 counts of sexual assault against 7 child victims

Rape of a child under 13

Sexual assault of two young girls and indecent exposure

Rapist and child sex offender convicted of inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity

Sex offender convicted of possessing indecent images of children and breaches of Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO)

Multiple sex offences related to a public masturbation spree, witnessed by children

Sexual abuse of two children

21 child sexual abuse offences

Possession of prohibited images of a child, possession of extreme pornography depicting rape and SHPO breaches

Child sex offender convicted of breaching sex offender notification requirement to inform police of any new address

Ian Bullock: Sexual assault of a woman in a train station women’s toilet

Repeat sex offender again breaching SHPO

Et cetera

In addition to these sexual offences, 12 transwomen in the uk were convicted for other violent offences including

Behaving in a threatening or abusive manner towards a woman and her toddler, adopting a fake identity, breach of SHPO

Abduction of a child following grooming via the internet

Prolonged violent assault on a woman

Assault by beating and criminal damage

Two charges of causing harassment, alarm or distress to teenage girls

Racially-aggravated disorderly behaviour and breach of Criminal Behaviour Order

Multiple counts of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, issuing threats, exposing genitals to police officers

Four charges of assault, one charge of threatening and abusive behaviour and prejudice relating to sexual orientation

Stalking order imposed after making threats to kill a woman

Et cetera

Please can you explain your statement that transwomen pose no threat to women and girls?

a key part of fascist ideology is about policing gender and denying bodily autonomy to women - trans or cisgender - and basically anyone else who doesn't fit a strict, readily identifiable gender binary. Which is exactly what GC people are also doing.

Bollocks. GC feminists think gender is regressive bollocks that should be consigned to the bin and who don’t think liking a gender stereotype usually aligned with the opposite sex makes you that sex - which is the exact opposite of the TRA position. Who do you think got the groundswell of support moving for the “let toys be toys” and “let clothes be clothes” campaigns? The GC feminists you try to smear and denigrate, that’s who.

The only binary GC women believe in is sex.

Perhaps the two FWR boards should be renamed “second wave / radical feminism” and “liberal / ‘choice’ feminism”. Then threads on any and all topics could be started on either board from that board’s prevailing perspective - with posters from the other board welcome to explain why they disagree, of course.

(Believing men can be women and should have rights to women’s single-sex spaces isn’t any type of feminism, mind you. How fucking insulting to reduce the material reality of womanhood to a man’s perception of feminine stereotypes.)

To answer your question: As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood. Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls.

Please don't use "cis" on this board. Women do not require a prefix that renders them a subcategory of their own sex. It's demeaning.

What exactly would make you see TW as a threat to women when:

• male rapists are housed in women's prisons and TW have sexually assaulted women in the female estate
• women are losing access to opportunities such as sports scholarships because they are being given to men
• women are being driven out of services/groups and deprived of opportunities because they are no longer single sex
• the lie that you can change sex is driving a culture of life long medicalisation and sterilisation of vulnerable children, many of whom are autistic
• studies show that following transition, TW retain male patterns of sexual criminal behaviour

Even after all that, you don't address the issue as to how women are meant to know who are genuine TW and male predictors?

You can use long words and terms like nuance and intersectional to try and obscure what's happening here, but it's simple.

You cannot change sex.

Saying you can makes the distinction between male and female irrelevant.

Without that distinction how can you be a feminist?

I'm not trying to denigrate people, OP, just to point out that many women and girls make safeguarding calls every day for themselves and others, based on just basic feelings and perceptions of risk. Lots of people answer the questions differently and I am not saying how people should feel about any of these categories of people, it's just that this experience of having to decide is something that really weighs on lots of women. If it doesn't weigh on you, then I think you are quite lucky.

You might stand a better chance of convincing woman that transwomen aren't a threat, op, if you could persuade them to stop threatening women with rape, death, doxing their parents, sending them bomb threats, and describing, in quite creative detail, exactly how they want their children to die.

As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood.

@PlanetLuna what does this mean? A “paternalistic view of womanhood”? I’m confused. Can you expand on this a bit more?

Would “a paternalistic view of womanhood” be a traditional male viewpoint on women? When predominantly fathers tell women who and what they are and what they should do? Or men in general tell women what “womanhood” is? (Come to think of it, what is “womanhood” other than the fact of being a woman?) So a paternalistic view of womanhood is the traditional view of the patriarchy?

I can’t think how that might be anything to do with second-wave feminism or gender critical feminism, which are critical of the idea of “womanhood” being anything other than the fact of being a woman. And gender critical women aren’t exactly “the patriarchy” and neither are most of them men. This is mumsnet, not dadsnet, for example. A matriarchy, one might think, rather than a patriarchy!

Could you explain what you mean a bit more? Do you mean you don’t want the kind of feminism where men tell us what a woman is? Like, I don’t know, the Owen Jonesey type of men who keep telling us what women are. Or even the Dylan Mulvaney type of men, they quite like to tell us what women are, too. So you don’t like those men telling us what womanhood is? Is that what you mean?

It's just nonsense. Yet more bogus bollocks to stop women talking about the issue.

'Men aren't a threat to women'.

Snort.

Are you a mother, OP?

Just as a thought experiment, would you let your nine year old go to the ladies' loo (couple of toilets, cubicles, shared sink) on her own in a cafe?

What if a man dressed as a man followed her into the ladies a minute or so afterwards, would you jump up and check if she was ok?

What if a man with lipstick on followed her in? What would your assumption be?

What if a more feminine male, but clearly a male, followed her in?

What if a woman followed her in?

Same treatment, or slightly different, depending on perception of risk?

@PlanetLuna
You don't think that Isla Bryson, Katie dolatowski, Karen White, barbie kardashian, lexi-rose Crawford or Jessica yaniv pose any threat to women and girls?

They're all convicted rapists who are transwomen. Why do you think they are no threat to women and girls?

Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls.

Trans women offending patterns are no different from other males. In fact in terms of prison population trans women are over represented when it comes to convictions for sex offences when compared to the rest of the male estate.

now that doesn't mean all trans women are a threat in the same way not all men are a threat. But it does mean safeguarding women and girls needs to be the same for both

Maybe that'll be allowed in the new shiny board

What about the women and girls excluded from their only space so that a male with a TQ+ identity can have their preferred and most comfortable choice?

Why do those born male matter in ways that those not born male don't?

Why is inclusion a male-only thing?

Yes, to women's equality of access and inclusion, men with TQ+ identities are not just a threat, they are actively excluding and doing harm. And that's before we go and talk to the rape and assault victims about whether or not they agree with you.

OP just a heads up, quite a few of us on here find being called "cis" very offensive, please don't.

As PPs have noted, I think Reddit will be right up your alley, OP. That's OK, if 3rd wave liberal feminism is your thing and you don't want to see any blasphemy against your beliefs, there are definitely online spaces that you will enjoy.

You don’t think men are or can be a threat to women and girls? Why not?

I'm sorry OP, but I don't understand what is "paternalistic" about womanhood. Genuinely interested.

On the issue of threat, are you saying there is definitely no evidence of threat or that even if there was evidence, you would not want to take it into account?

To answer your question: As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood. Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls.

So a male like Lia Thomas is not threat to the integrity of women's sport? Or their privacy and dignity when walking around naked in their changing room?

I made a good go of reading the thread but haven't rtft, so apologies... so i understand, would the new board be about the same topics we discuss here, but from the opposite pov? i.e. men can be women, single sex spaces shouldn't exist, children shouldn't have to go through puberty if they don't want to?

Anything sex and gender on the Chat board would be relegated to the naught step where us mean old women (and some men) would disagree with the above pov, so I can see the conundrum. That said, the entire rest of the Internet is a pretty "safe space" in terms of people who share anti-woman/anti-science views.

All of that said, if op wants a new board and there are enough people to fill it, why not?

Well that will be interesting...

It was not sponsored by them. They put the events on their insurance so that the women there would be safe. Just give it a rest, we know what actually happened.

No, royal boards! Sorry I got confused!