Sandi Toksvig "doesn't get it", poor love....

Where have I said that? I've asked you to explain.

Sandi Toksvig claims that as a lesbian she was personally excluded from the feminist movement in the 70s, but she didn't come out until 1994. What exactly happened to her in the 70s?*

Interesting. Perhaps she's referring to the attempt to pass the ERA in the US when women from different political and women's rights groups banned together to agree on the ERA and also abortion. We had mild conservatives, moderates and radical feminists and socialists who joined to push these two key policy changes into US federal law (didn't work). To appeal to broader base and to fight the opposition mainly led by Beverly LaHaye and Phyllis Schlafly (I have no love lost for those women who gleefully threw women's rights under the bus) this coalition for the ERA and abortion rights tamped down other feminists issues like rights for lesbians and ignored Black women's specific issues.

How US woman's activism in the 1960s and 70s had a direct bearing on Danish women's politics and then later UK political issues, I'm not clear.

Mind you, posters with histories unobscured (or maybe they think their posting style is not consistent) by name changes scolding other posters on feminism is just hilarious. It really is ludicrous. But hey, I am sure they feel virtuous.

It's okay. Stand down, I've educated myself. I googled. It's not the same at all.

@PlanetJanette I'm not sure why you chose the CofE as a deflection but we are where we are.

The CofE has a religious definition of marriage. This has changed slowly over time but the latest is

'Marriage is a gift of God in creation
through which husband and wife may know the grace of God.'

It sits outside any secular or state definition. It is of itself. Are you prepared to tell us that we cannot hold our belief?

The elitism is stark. Lesson to be learnt. No person can post on FWR unless they are a true feminist as described by the ‘true feminist panel’. That worked so well in past decades didn’t it?

Well, Julie Bindel, a feminist and lesbian who came out in 1977, and threw herself wholeheartedly into feminist campaigning within the UK in 1979, does not seem to appreciate Sandi Toksvig's characterisation of the feminist movement at large.

I was not around in the 1960s or the 1970s, so I cannot form a view from personal experience, meaning I can only listen to those who were. Given that, Julie Bindel seems to be a more reliable source on UK feminism. In saying this, I must admit to some bias: my mother was an avid Spare Rib reader and Julie Bindel was literally a household name throughout my childhood.

I think that in itself could be an indicator of how the attitude towards lesbians differed between US feminism and UK feminism, because my mother was never shy about the prejudices she did hold. Yet I never heard her say a word that was negative about lesbians.

I don't have a view except that I want to minimise any interaction with unpleasant posters. After I've educated myself, perhaps then I'll have a view. Something Ms Toksvig should think about.

Since you're so knowledgeable about this @ScremeEggs, perhaps you could share your wisdom
Nowhere have I said I'm knowledgeable, just think it's daft only wanting to hear from posters who fit your own view.
Not exactly educating yourself, that

Because that poster rather than sharing knowledge just wants to be unpleasant. Anyone else, not you, just people who aren't going to be arsey.

I’m really enjoying the idea that we should act like stuff that happened in the 60 and 70s (in the USA) can or should be straightfowardly compared to 2023. Because not much has changed in the last 60 years. Totally relevant to bring it up to explain why women are wrong in this century.

Since you're so knowledgeable about this @ScremeEggs, perhaps you could share your wisdom.

Sandi Toksvig claims that as a lesbian she was personally excluded from the feminist movement in the 70s, but she didn't come out until 1994. What exactly happened to her in the 70s?

I assumed other posters would be more knowledgeable and they, not you, might be willing to share that knowledge

I genuinely don't get this mindset -
I mean, in one breath you're saying "we're not a hive mind, and I'm trying to educate myself..."

Then in the next "we're not a hive mind but I only want to hear from those with the same views as myself, not you!'
How on earth is that educating yourself if you only take in voices from your own echo chamber and those that fit your view?
To me educating myself means reading from both "sides"

The United Nations has 193 member countries. That's a lot of women's rights history we need to learn about.

Maybe if everyone on FWR takes one country each?

Oh, god, Pots. Is there no end to the paucity of my knowledge!

Why stop there? Why not chastise us for knowing the history of 1960s feminism schisms in Greece, or Spain? What about Iceland?

I don't know why she's doing this. Maybe she's genuinely swept along by the "be kind" concept and really can't see what's wrong with any man, however predatory, being able to simply ID himself into women's safe spaces, and teens having their health destroyed for life. I say that genuinely because I think there are people who really believe gender identity is a thing, it's never mistaken or faked and that these are the right reactions to it.

But, ST is an old hand and not an unthinking person, and I reckon it's far more likely that there is someone in her life who she doesn't want to upset - or it's because of fear of attack, cancellation etc. - or both. And to be fair I can't 100% condemn those motivations either.

I do think it's fair to debate ST on this and call for her to answer the obvious questions, explain the logical fails and address the obvious issues regarding sexual offending rates in TW, the suffering of detransitioners, etc. There are many on twitter saying GC people want to "let women speak" but want to shut down Sandi. Not me, I say let her speak too but she should be prepared to defend her statements with reason and logic.

Of all the things I've been harangued for, failing to know the history of 1960s US feminist schisms is possibly the oddest.

Always that

I was a toddler, I'm trying to educate myself. Something Ms Toksvig should attempt.

And we're not a hive mind. I assumed other posters would be more knowledgeable and they, not you, might be willing to share that knowledge.

Oh dear. I mentioned the unmentionable. I forgot we're squeamish about that over here.

In summary... if I'm looking for the feminism in someone who doesn't care about female COMFORT with males in female spaces but is desperate for women to ensure the COMFORT of others while they breastfeed their babies... then I'm going to need a bigger microscope.

self-professed feminism of many posters.

Feminism has nothing to do with men, there is a huge fucking clue in the name, it is by women for women, not men however they may identify. Anyone who claims to be a feminist and then includes males in that is not a feminist, anyone who claims to be a feminist and pushes policies that will exclude women, some of whom are the most vulnerable and marginalised in society from the very spaces and services they need is not a feminist, anyone who prioritises males feelings, wants and wishes above women is not a feminist. Nor are they liberal or tolerant.

Wikipedia
The National Organization for Women (NOW) is an American feminist organization. Founded in 1966, it is legally a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. The organization consists of 550 chapters in all 50 U.S. states and in Washington, D.C.[5] It is the largest feminist organization in the United States with around 500,000 members.[6] NOW is regarded as one of the main liberal feminist organizations in the US, and primarily lobbies for gender equality within the existing political system.[7] NOW campaigns for constitutional equality,[8]

I'll hold my hands up and admit I have no idea what was going on in NOW's early days, because we are talking about an organisation founded over 20 years before I was born, in a country I have never ever even visited.

If you find that astonishing, I'm going to keep you in a state of perpetual shock all night.

The consistent ignorance here about how lesbians were treated in the early days of the NOW and the entire Lavender Menace is astonishing, considering the title of the forum and the self-professed feminism of many posters.