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

This whole thread is just giving me flashbacks to the threads about the main board splitting.

There were so, so many posters who came on to say that all they desired was a space to talk about feminism without GC views. They were given that space - the Feminism:Chat board. They made it clear that those with GC views were not welcome to post on that particular thread, in very clear terms. I saw several posters with known GC views being told to 'piss off back to your own board'.

And all those threads and subjects they were so desperate to talk about? Never materialised. The many posters desperate for such a space apparently never felt the need to actually use the space.

I can completely understand the OP, as a new poster, not knowing the history of the split or thinking that the name of the board (I.e. chat) might not fit the needs of what she is looking for, might not know this, hence setting up this thread.

What I don't understand is the subsequent posts from other posters who have (presumably) read the thread, decrying the lack of such a space.

There is one.

And completely agree with poster above that there needs to be much more robust discussion about the CG overlaps with far right groups - like PA in UK and Proud Boys in US - and anti-feminist/anti-abortion groups, especially amongst the hordes of GC men on twitter. There's definitely a threat to women's bodily autonomy looming and it isn't from trans people!

I think this thread kind of proved OP's point! 😂

What about a thread about women who do not recognise misogyny when it is right there larger than life in front of them, and who then seek to shame women who do recognise misogyny?

It's interesting. I've seen more discussion around the evidence of risks/benefits of different ages for castration of dogs (and cats to a lesser extent) than I have for children and young people. I've actually seen NO evidence related to use of blockers/cross sex hormones/castration (testicular removal) in children and young people, as to what is the best/least worst age to do it, and the results at different ages. Is there any?

I would love to have more conversations on women's paid work, earnings comparisons and so on. Should I take them to the Feminist Chat site or put threads up here? Sadly, even there sex would rear its ugly head as one of the main reasons why women start earning less over their working lives is that they are the ones to be taking time off to have children and the employers know this when thinking about whom to promote, retain or hire.

Also, January is a lovely month, trees showing their elegant bare knees against the white snow, the silence, like a deep breath nature takes between the wild fertility dances of spring, summer, and autumn.

How do we account for the thousands of women who originally came for the parenting boards and stayed for the GC feminism?

this thread where people are telling me no one ever comes to FWR is showing up in trending right now in fact. is this.....irony?

Hear, hear.

Still laughing/puzzling at "inclusive (non-GC)"

Brava

At least we can talk about the risks of castrating adolescents without fear of deletion over on the Doghouse!

OP, I promise not to derail any threads you care to start on Feminism Chat.
Happy now?

Ahh.... but how would MN monitor which board the threads should go onto? Because really, so many threads started on other boards get hidden or shunted here.

If a thread contains disagreement that males should be included as females for the purposes of the gap between the sexes for pay (and I DO mean sex) and discrimination based on a person's sex for instance, wouldn't it just get put into the main Sex and Gender board, as it is happens now. So, in effect, no threads would stay on the new board.

Exactly, we were specifically told not to use the main Feminism Chat board for those discussions that some find difficult or troubling.

I was taught that feminism is the social justice movement which is fundamentally about women's rights based on the fact that the three axes of exploitation are based on sex, race, and class. It should also be intersectional in the sense that sexism and misogyny women experience are also affected by their membership in a race and/or class category. But if you erase the sex altogether, as is now happening among the new intersectional and inclusive feminism then you have erased the whole central point of feminism and you should really call your movement something different.

I began as a very inclusive feminist when I thought that transwomen can be included in the social category of 'women' when others assume they are of the female sex, as they would then experience most of the same things all women do except for reproductive discrimination. Based on the same thinking, transwomen would be socially counted as men if they pass as they would be earning male privilege, including higher wages.

I was too naive to assume that transwomen and transmen wouldn't require the total abolition of anything having to do with sex, and I was too naive to realise that there would also be a nonbinary category of people having their cake and eating it, too, which would demand the same thing.

Once that became clear, those demands that is, I could no longer be inclusive as my not having those boundaries for my feminism let everything in it drip out and would leave me with nothing that could be fought for (thigh-high socks and short skirts as signs of womanhood is insufficient).

Indeed, as many inclusive and intersectional feminists so often tell us, women might have very little in common with each other which is one of the reasons intersectionality matters in analysis. But once you erase sex from this debate, the remaining group certainly would have nothing in common that it wouldn't have in common with some random group of people.

So for me the point of feminism would be lost. And this is why I agree with many on this thread who argue that what the OP asks for might well be worth having, but it's not feminism. It's something else, most likely trans and nonbinary issues.

For anyone finding this particular small board difficult, there are so many other parts of mumsnet to post in that might suit you. There's the other feminism board (feminism chat) - it doesn't allow GC discussions (i.e. discussions about how gender stereotypes are not helpful/meaningful in determining someone's sex).
There's an LGBT section, and an LGBT children's section.

This board is the only one where we're allowed to have the discussions that you find difficult. It was made that way so that people knew where to avoid if they wanted to.

If you defend the rights of biological males to be in women’s safe spaces above the rights of women to feel safe in those spaces then you’re not a feminist.

@Labraradabrador ’Just wanted to say I totally get it OP. I was so confused by all the GC nonsense categorised as ‘feminism’ - I have a VERY different understanding of feminism, and my brand of feminism has a different set of priorities (employment and economic equality above bathroom politics).’ Sorry how do you address employment and economic equality without knowing what a woman actually is? In what way are GC concerns nonsense?

Hellebore hits the nail on the head.

Excellent, the two of you can talk to each other on feminism chat

Well, as many people have already pointed out, Feminism Chat already exists, so you're a bit late to the party.

I think it would be better if it wasn't under the feminism umberella. Though I can see the argument for that. But you can be a woman and not a feminist. I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist.

I haven't read the whole thread yet but what is going on?

Do the Posie detractors need some internet space with greater scope for more fibs?

I can only surmise they are not finding the salon and magazine sales as popular as they had hoped?

I will now open up the wine and check out the ratio.