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

'Discussions of whether the anti-gender movement aligns in many cases with the white suprematist movement.’ This is so insulting I am amazed you have the hall to write it. I’d be extremely interested to hear you extrapolate on this.'

It's interesting how some posters feel its fine to throw hugely offensive slurs around, call women 'hyenas' or say we are 'frothing' etc. But we are the ones they are also complaining are 'hostile'.

Sort of like going into a bar and insulting everyone in it, before kicking off that you're not getting friendly service.

Placemarking, with mouth agape...

As only a relatively new poster but long time reader of what was FWR I think the splitting of that to create a "chat" section was quite honestly a bit politically reactionary.

And commercially doesn't seem to have been a big sucess.

However ... I do feel that the relabelling by MNHQ (who are not our political dictators) has in fact had a negative consequence.

People who are employed to run an online forum aren't necessarily informed enough to take political decisions, because that is what they are. I am saying that based on them moving one of my threads to chat which I did not give them permission to do - and I have checked what I post is my copyright, and was done either because they dont understand the basis of feminism / women's liberation which is that women are discriminated againt because of our biological sex. Of course they might have just been desparate to appropriate a topic to give some sort of substance to "chat".

But I also think that subliminally the relabelling of what was (and still is according to the link) Feminism and Women's Rights have led some posters to effectively act as though it is only meant to be about gender VS sex.

We should never ever let media workers distort what is actually important by them wanting facile and easy boxes to put people in.

I do think that this relabelling has led some to act as though this forum is only about sex and gender, and too often think what is a clever clever remark, to impress other users, back fires. This can happen to genuine posters who are new, and dont know the unwritten rules that some think apply to how to talk about and respond to those who aren't in the know.

But most importantly, and this is addressed to the OP, sorry but what you are saying doesn't reflect reality.

Feminism / women's liberation is totally about sex. It is about the fact that the sex class of women are oppressed by men because of their / our sex.

And (I think I am quoting someone from the original discussion about manipulative splits) one of the reasons that this boards has a lot of posts about trans ideology, actions by TRAs is that effectively women have been silenced on all other public forums.

If this censorship of women wasn't going on than on any number of public forums about women's issue you would get a balance of issues.

So I may have been quite critical (and yes I was being politically critical not rude) about MNHQ, it is one of the few, if only, public forums that allow women to talk aout the reality of being a biological female.

How about

Feminism: The Land of Make Believe?

It really isn't. If you think that's 'toxicity', MN probably isn't for you. (Hint: don't start a thread in AIBU😂)

Sigh. I volunteer to water the pot plants this week. But I'm not doing it every week.

I can assure you I am not frothing. It is quite simply a lie to say that I am. I have never said that you 'owe me an explanation' so you have clearly misunderstood.

My first post to you said this;
"OP - could you please set out what you think gender-critical actually means and why it's relevant to having a discussion on here?"

You have refused to do so yet call "GC" people rude and unkind things. I am trying to find out whether you are incorrect in what you think GC means.

Next, I asked "Just to clarify, a non-GC feminist is someone that thinks women have a common factor that is not sex, but it's.... what? I would genuinely love to know. I can't even tell if your feminism would include me or not."

I speculated that you would not answer, which has been a correct assumption.

Please - genuinely as I am ND - please can you set out what is wrong with these posts so I don't make the same mistake in future.

In case you can't see where I'm coming from - if I posted on a Religious beliefs board and said "can we have a non-Muslim space because I don't agree with Muslims being anti-left-handed" I believe it would be perfectly fine to ask me why I think Muslims are anti-left-handed. It seems at best a misunderstanding and at worst a deliberate attack.

You seem entirely uninterested in engaging, which is against MN civil discussion guidelines, so it does begin to look like an attack.

Again, if you can copy and paste words I have actually said and how you interpreted them as wrong, it will help me learn.

So, on the Jeffrey Marsh thread were you able to support your posts? Or were they just opinion posts that people disagreed with? And because the majority of posters disagreed with you, and you were not successful in convincing anyone that you were right and they were not, you called it a pile on?

Gender inclusive language is nonsense. It excludes women particularly. Women have been sidelined throughout history. The push for gender inclusive language is a new means by which men seek to exclude women from conversations about women. Many people disagree fundamentally about the ideas behind gender inclusive language, indeed the vast majority of humanity does. It’s a niche interest subject. People are allowed to post their honest opinions on it.
‘Discussions of whether the anti-gender movement aligns in many cases with the white suprematist movement.’ This is so insulting I am amazed you have the hall to write it. I’d be extremely interested to hear you extrapolate on this.

The balance of views cannot be controlled to avoid too many on either side, it is what it is and people are equally entitled to have their say.

I often wonder if those who wish to tone police here are equally firm with TQ+ political forums in their tone towards women, particularly the rape and death threats bits.

Have you tried starting a thread on any of those topics?

So start them. They sound like potentially interesting discussions. What you can't do is expect people to agree with you, or expect a queue of people willing to accept your ideas without them being backed up by exposition, information, evidence, etc.

Bloody good idea. Doubt Mumsnet will though. It loves is GC 'feminists'.

Most of those topics aren't anything to do with feminism though?
The ones that are can happily go in feminism:chat.

How can you be a feminist if you can’t define what a woman is, @PlanetLuna?

Do you think biological women and girls should be allowed to have single sex spaces for their safety and dignity? If not, why not?

Do you think prepubescent children should be put on a path that leads almost always to the removal of healthy body parts and a life of reliance on medicine and surgery?

Do you think it is right to tell people they can change sex, when that is 100% impossible? You can surgically manufacture something that looks like a vagina and vulva or a penis, but they will never actually do what a biological vagina or penis can. And no treatment, medical or surgical, will give a man the bone structure, dna or endocrine system of a woman.

Is it OK for mediocre male sportsmen to identify their way into female sports, and dominate them because their male adolescence has given them more bone density, greater muscle mass, greater lung capacity and endurance, and greater strength?

Should female rape victims or domestic abuse victims who want to have counselling in an all-female space be allowed to choose that, or should they have to accept an obviously male bodied individual who identifies as female in their group, listening to their trauma and basically retraumatising them all over again? I am not saying that trans people do not need these services too, but I firmly believe single sex spaces should be available alongside unisex provision.

I believe that trans ideology is based on deeply old fashioned, toxic stereotypes of male and female - it is so regressive to say that a boy can’t like dolls or pink, so they must be a girl, for example. Surely it is much more progressive to say a person can wear whatever they like, enjoy whatever hobbies they want, play sports or do crafts, like pink or blue, have long hair or short hair, without it defining them?

Women have spent decades fighting these toxic stereotypes, asserting that women don’t have to be feminine, or stick to traditionally female roles, activities, clothing etc, and now there is a brand of ‘feminism’ that wants to send us crashing back to the 1950s.

Surely the point of a chat board is that everyone with all different views can partake in the discussion? If you have a separate board for people who hold a particular view for their discussions to take place then that is just an echo chamber?

I haven't read the full thread, so apologies if I am blundering here. But reading the OP I think it is a terrible idea to silo off different views on the same issue. How else will us human beings ever find common ground if we do that? We need to come together more, not move further apart.

OP, if your arguments are shouted down, you need to make them more robustly, articulately, and coherently. This issue attracts high feelings because it is so important. Children especially are harmed by it. So do not be suprised at being curtly dismissed if you are not thinking things through. Many people here are parents or grand parents with experience of safeguarding. They know what happens when we drop the ball. We have seen it many times. Some of us are victims of the ball having been dropped.

So, we should be nice to someone who has posted a thread that denigrates posters on this board and who has had posts deleted in the past days for making negative generalisations (with slurs usually) because we are feminists?

Would you be nice if someone has repeatedly labelled you with slurs and then in the OP continues to denigrate the board? If so, why?

Serious question?

I dont have one?

And even if I did, why do I need to try and persuade you? You are entitled to your views, I am entitled to mine.

Thanks!

A board for feminists that are not critical of the concept of gender....

Located near the boards for vegans who eat meat, straight men who use grindr and trustafarians who need to feed their whole family on £30 a week.

(By the way, I am in no way threatened by 'cis', as Luna remarked earlier, but I find it insulting.)

And the people who like to label other people 'cis' also say that people are trans if they say they are.

So a 'trans' person is anyone who says they are and a 'cis' person is anyone that someone else says is 'cis'. Why can't we self-identify as not 'cis'? I agree that it's insulting to have labels forced on us by others.

Please - come and argue your case.

I would love nothing more than to be convinced by it.

I hate feeling the way I do, and wish there was some way to accommodate what trans activists want that doesn’t encroach on women’s rights.

If you can see a path through, there are so many of us who’d love to understand more.

If you have a case - come and tell us. Present it, persuade us. Please.

I think you'll find it's organisations such as stonewall that lump them together. It's kind of part of the problem, do keep up if you're going to contribute 🤔

As many pp have pointed out, the separation from the Feminism Chat board was set up entirely for this. Funnily enough, hardly anyone posts there (perhaps this “non-GC inclusive feminism” isn’t actually as popular as you suggest…?)

But in any case, this is a discussion board - the clue being in the name “discussion”. None of MN is an “only people who agree with me may post” board - if you aren’t aware of this, why don’t you spend some time on AIBU to educate yourself? You aren’t entitled to have an “only people who agree with me” board any more than anyone else is, and here on the feminism boards we have to put up with the ploppers keen to “educate” us, so why do you think you get a special zone?

If you want uncritical handmaidendry and choicey choicey liberal “feminism”, there’s plenty out there on Twitter for you if you don’t want any other viewpoints to ever enter your eyes.

Why? Because 50 people disagree with them? LOADS of people strongly disagree with me on all matter of topics on this site. It’s a discussion site. People are allowed to have their own opinions. Either back yourself or maybe don’t discuss things on a site where women are robust in their opinions. I find it staggering that any one claiming to be a feminist wants to stifle female discussion on any issue.