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

If you want to argue your case that transwomen are women, go ahead, op. Nothing stopping you.

@BenCoopersSupportWren me too - I still keep thinking I must be missing something.

I’m trying really hard to understand the libfem / twaw pov but I can’t make sense of how to align it with protection for women and children.

I'm taking that third post personally, while agreeing.

There is an LGBT Parents board but I suppose there could be a ‘Transgender Allies Chat’ section for people who aren’t LGBT parents but don’t want a general LGBT Chat board because that risks the awkward L, the awkward G and the awkward B having their say on T encroachment?

Doubt it will be very busy but 🤷‍♀️

The board could look something like this...

First post: KJK is a Nazi because reasons. 25 replies all agreeing.

Second post: JKR is a transphobe because reasons. 20 replies all agreeing.

Third post: GQ women are all fat and frumpy. 10 replies all agreeing.

Fourth post. There is no fourth post.

Indeed. I take it we won't be allowed to go onto that board and say hey, you're talking a whole load of sexist claptrap? In which case no one can come over here and hey, you've all bigots.

to echo chambers for the price of one!

Not sure they thought this through.

I really have tried to understand OP's position but its so contradictory I can't make sense of it. What OP wants is not inclusive and its not feminism - feminism doesn't support gender stereotypes.
OP wants an exclusive board where the kind of robust comments we are subjected to are banned, where you aren't allowed to challenge a false narrative or ask for facts.

I think what OP actually wants is a trans discussion board. What's stopping OP asking for one?

I hear Reddit is welcoming?

I think OPs problem is that some Feminist Chat is pretty GC as well. Poor love, nowhere to go on mumsnet...

What do you do if your kid is distressed because they don't think they fit the stereotypes well enough. Seems to me the kindest best and most honest answer is screw the stereotypes you're perfect just as you are and don't need to live up anyone's ideas of what men/women have to be like.

I think that’s the position of most women on here, and the most sensible idea I’ve seen for a long time.

@ValuePartnership hi yeah it's a pretty big deal to a lot of parents

some people think the correct response to gender non conforming (gnc) youth is conversion camp or shunning - I disagree and don't think we (as parents) should do that

some people think the correct response to gnc youth is puberty blockers social transition and major surgery - I disagree and don't think we (as parents) should do that

It is quite possible to disagree with both of the above.

What do you do if your kid is distressed because they don't think they fit the stereotypes well enough. Seems to me the kindest best and most honest answer is screw the stereotypes you're perfect just as you are and don't need to live up anyone's ideas of what men/women have to be like.

Gender identity ideology cannot stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, because it's batshit and ever changing.

This is what I mull over repeatedly. Contrary to the belief of some here, I have plenty of "are we the baddies?" moments. I'm not used to being out of step with my fellow left-wing friends (and former friends, in some cases) - the friends with whom I celebrated the legalisation of gay marriage and bemoaned the newly-acceptable xenophobia in the wake of Brexit campaigning - so I regularly test my thinking, seek to understand how GI can make some sort of sense, look for the scales falling away from my eyes.

But there's just no logic to it! Destabilising language so there are no common meanings any more; increasing harms to women; turning physically healthy - if sometimes traumatised, or autistic, or potentially gay - children and adolescents into lifelong medical patients; claiming murders and suicides that just aren't supported by statistics or reporting; denying it's a mental illness but still demanding 'gender-affirming' surgery or threatening they'll kill themselves; driving a coach-and-horses through safeguarding; demanding to be 'accepted as themselves' but changing everything about themselves to resemble the opposite sex; TM legally agreeing to 'live as the opposite gender [whatever that means] for the rest of their life' then promptly getting pregnant...it doesn't matter which aspect you focus on, the whole thing is a mass of contradictions, incoherence, lack of logic with nothing hanging together or making any kind of sense.

I don't know - inclusive but non-gc - is actually a hilarious oxymoron. It would make me laugh every time I saw it.

I agree with PP about it having already been separated out but if you want another board and @Mnhq want to provide it fair enough - However I really, really object to your proposed title for the board. I actually find it offensive.

You use the word inclusive which suggests this board is exclusive - you're trying to imply that this board is transphobic. It is not. It is just has a lot of users very critical of a gender ideology that ignores material biology. That is not transphobia of itself. Many transmen and transwomen also hold the same views.

If you want a separate board you need to call it something like the 'social gender discussion board', as that reflects your views, and do not call it something that is a veiled and offensive dig at others.

I too would like to know this.

Of course, it sounds like an echo chamber in the making. You know, like the accusation that is frequently thrown around on here....

Always strange to see what point of view the people who actually want an echo chamber have. It is the same hypocrisy that underlies many of the accusations that are lobbed at this board though.

If there is another board specifically to talk about transgenderism in a 'favourable way for women', does that mean that anyone coming on this board disagreeing with the GC women, will have their post transferred across? As happens now on AIBU?

Because there are numerous people who come on here specifically to disagree. Some because they genuinely do, but more often because they like sticking it to women.

If you're going to split the boards into agree/disagree, then might we all be left in bloody peace?

Perhaps it could be called the "Sarah Jane Baker is our model" talk board.

Gesundheit.

Absolutely 100% right. Please provide the definition of women that is the reference for supposed feminism, and how men (like me) can support it (as I seek probably to the annoyance of some, but I am tolerated! to do here). Let me add that the reason I am here, and want to post, is that I am concerned (as it strikes me MN is) with the issues of having children, caring for them and creating a world of intimate relations in which they will thrive; and more generally about family relationships - all of which are relevant to feminism if the feminism envisages a relationship to those central issues. For me the sine qua non is the appalling abuse of children by administration to them of powerful drugs (puberty-blockers and hormones) and encouragement to proceed to surgical transition; followed by the attempt to destroy fact-based education by substituting gender identity ideology for biology, and attacking the specific socio-political understanding of biological sex which is called feminism!

So, if you want to criticise and exclude others who don't believe that TWAW, that men shouldn't be in prison with women, take awards and board places from women, be in a state of undress in front of women and girls, or to displace and injure them in sports, then I fear that you've made your appeal in the wrong place

That's the thing though isn't it, none of these gender believers ever actually explain to us WHY they think some men should be in women's facilities and prisons.
All they have is 'feelings' or 'because the man says so'

Gender identity ideology cannot stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, because it's batshit and ever changing.

Like 'non binary'. Imagine making up a nonsense identity, demanding every else go along with it, then claiming you are 'oppressed' because people can tell what sex you are.
Androgyny isn't new or special.

All they have is attempting to silence us and shouting insults like,
Bigot
Transphobe
Far right religious extremist
Nazi (literally Hitler!!!!!!!)
Fascist
White colonialists pushing the sex binary
Etc
Etc

@BenCoopersSupportWren

re: sexual assaults in male toilets ( I couldn’t find any information about non sexual assaults,,perhaps it is not reported much by the participants), I could find six in the past seven years. ( of course, the closure during lockdown might account for some decline due to unavailability). With one exception, these were all assaults by an older man on a younger, usually a teenager below the age of consent.

I suppose anyone dressed as a woman would be safe from this? As the perpetrators were interested in young boys.

I have found one incident of attempted sexual assault in a male toilet on another adult male, unsuccessful as the ‘ victim’ fought back with considerable vigour, and the police were able to arrest the rapist in situ. (incidentally re Scotland , the attacker was sentenced to 14 months in prison for attempted rape on another adult).

Reported attacks on TW in male spaces of any sort……zero.

So male toilets don’t seem to be that unsafe for men.

I feel like a lack of dysphoria also explains why even though you may have a masculine personality according to stereotypes, you're not trans

How transphobic of you. The men don't need to have dysphoria now to claim to be women.

You see, getting rid of the mental health diagnosis, the very thing that was in place to stop the AGP'S and other fetishists and distinguish them from the genuinely dysphoric transexuals, (who were mostly gay men who knew they could not actually BE women) was all part of the plan.

The wholesale removal of female rights and boundaries only benefits men.
Men telling us women are no longer a separate sex class, that our very words are now theirs, is the definition of sex based oppression.

FOTTFSOFATFOSM is a new one for me.

Luna

It seems to me that you would like to propound your thoughts and opinions and to have sympathetic responses. MN is a talkboard, where people post their thoughts, often with links to supporting data and analysis; other people will write in response.

They may argue and link to other data, perhaps to articles which criticise the methodology of the original data, or to similar information, which also supports the original thesis.

That's how these sorts of places work, with thrust and counter-thrust of opinion and analysis. If you write something here, even if it's a generally popular subject / viewpoint, somebody will disagree with it.

You can't really prevent people from commenting, because it's counter to the way talk-boards work.

So, if you want to criticise and exclude others who don't believe that TWAW, that men shouldn't be in prison with women, take awards and board places from women, be in a state of undress in front of women and girls, or to displace and injure them in sports, then I fear that you've made your appeal in the wrong place.

What would you discuss?

No time to RTFT, OP.
Would a section named Feminism for Handmaidens help?