Thread derailment

Her perspective on our shared femaleness is important, her support of an anti feminist movement not so much (I’m sure we agreed I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you and we’re going to have to agree to disagree that pretending men are women is a form of feminism).

I think you need to read my post again.

Feminism is the political and social movement to remove the ways society limits women simply because we are women. So the definition of who "women" are is pretty fundamental to Feminism.

Not just because it changes who we are fighting for and what we woudl consdier a "good" outcome, but also because it changes the understanding of why women are disempowered, abused and marginalised in culture in the first place.

I hope you tell them how wrong they are, in the same way that you have decided to take over this thread and tell everyone here how wrong they are. Or are you actually trying to argue that white women are not women in the same way that men are not women? (Please, no faux innocent 'where did i say white women' - its clear what you meant).

Or are some feminists more wrong than others?

Honestly, what is your actual point? You've been wanging on for pages now, people have engaged with you politely and respectfully but many pages in, Im still not sure what point you're trying to make - except perhaps that one posters derail is another interesting discussion? If that's it, that point has been made and mostly accepted.

Other threads/ boards are available if you don't like this one.

Its like going onto a science discussion board and going on about creationism on every single thread, just to make sure those scientists know that not everyone shares their views. But guess what - they know!

Could you explain what point you're trying to make? Because it sounds very much like there isn't one, this is all just an exercise in goal post moving, false equivalence, gaslighting whataboutery.

Ignore, no. But part of recognising that TMAM would be recognising that some girls will grow up to be TM and thus adjusting how we approach several aspects of child rearing and education to acknowledge that. Again, people differ in the best way to approach this even when they agree that TMAM.

Okay the definition of women is different to what you were talking about before which was feminism.

I find that odd for you to say but maybe it is how you define "important". Odd because I don't think you feel the perspective of a woman who has anti-GC/pro-trans views is as important as yours. But again, maybe it is how you define important and how I differ with that.

GC feminism includes understanding that gender constrains men as well as women, that one cannot free women from cultural oppression without also changing things for men, and that demolishing society's myths of gender will ultimately benefit men as well. To that degree it certainly includes men.

It does not, however, include men in the definition of women.

This is not just a passing detail, it is fundamental.

If your definition of women includes men, you have switched the group you are actually fighting for under the name of "feminism", and the feminist analysis and understanding based on the experiences and history of the people with female bodies, while probably still relevant to the degree that it informs the social identities you group togater as "women", is no longer the fundamental basis for and insight of your "feminism"

HTH

Let's say I recognised that TMAM. Do you think that means that I should ignore them when it comes to any feminism because they are men?

And I didn't point out that many brands of feminism don't exclude men, I was commenting on your assertion that only GC feminism excludes men.

Feminism should centre all woman no matter how they identify of what political views they hold.

And men of any identity certainly shouldn’t be calling the shots, ever. They can only be allies.

That's an admirable stance in my opinion. I work in a field where people can be very reluctant to accept new information and change their conclusions based on what they now know to be true. They'd rather reject the source or use what power they have to dismiss it. It's soothing for me when people are not that way inclined.

Exactly. It’s one thing to feel there are discriminatory perspectives within feminism, but feminism is for all women, I’m not less of a feminist because I’m not oppressed in other ways. This is the problem people have with “intersectional” approaches. That they end up being “the Oppression Olympics”. No one woman’s perspective on being a woman is less or more important than mine.

[replied to wrong post]

I think the whole "includes men" thing is a bit of a red herring tbh. It sounds good because it quietly suggests that women who aren't GC are "pick me's", but as you pointed out, not many brands of feminism exclude men, anyway. So GC feminism isn't "male exclusionary". You just don't recognise TMAM or TWAW. It's about a particular stance on one issue.

Exactly.

It's "for" GC feminists only in the sense that it is one of the few mainstream places (more now, but in the past few few indeed) where the impact of Genderist belief on female people and their intersection with sexism in terms of systemic male power and gender stereotypes can be discussed, and these are things that GC Feninists want to discuss.

But it's not "for" GC feminists in the sense that only GC perspectives are allowed. Quite the opposite. GC Feminists need to see the opposing arguments well made.

Currently I am GC because I have never seen an argument that convinces me that the consequences of having a female body are insignificant enough to ignore in society, language and law in favour of a mental preference, but I remain open to the possibility somewhere out there is a killer fact or perspective that will make it all make sense.

I cannot think of any women, part of a 'dominant demographic' or not that should be excluded from feminism.
I include all women in feminism. I could disagree with them on a billion different things. I will still stand up for their rights as women. Even if I strongly disagree with everything else they stand for.

That's the beauty of feminism. The welfare of all women is fought for. As long as you are actually a woman.

Fucking hell

What if they did? IMO “trans inclusive” feminists are trying to subvert feminism almost as much. Misogyny runs through the “trans rights” movement like a stick of rock.

I don't understand your answer. You originally said only GC feminism doesn't include men . Now you say that my definition of GC feminism shows that it includes men.

Well, in a way, yes. Especially in a climate where other posts are picked apart. If this level of scrutiny is a norm, rather than specific to posters whose GC status is unestablished or is known not to be GC.

If it is just about debunking falsehoods, then it would be important to correct anything false, regardless of its source. Just so we are all on the same page.

Yes well that's what I mean. Most feminism includes men. It just recognises that women are oppressed.

Just to be clear - if someone says something and other posters don't line up to set out which bits they agree with or disagree with, your assumption is that all other posters agree? That's the 'only' thing you can think?

We're literally on a thread talking about how sometimes it's best to just ignore things you disagree with in order to keep on track, so that's an odd conclusion to draw, to be honest, and it's not been evident in any forum I've seen.

Debunking facts is a whole other issue I do want to address but I think that may have to be for another day.

Yes some members of my subgroup feel like that about inclusion of women from dominant demographics in our feminist circles. Not all. But some.

You seem to be reading a very different site to me.

New posters often turn up, ahgast that GC perspectives that they are unused to seeing in other contexts due to (online) heavy moderation/bans, and (offline) the chilling effect of heavily pro-GC diversity policies in work and media are allowed to stand, and challenge the GC position using what they believe are the unassailable arguments they have seen elsewhere.

They are shocked to discover that not only are these arguments not in fact unassailable but in fact rest on weak logic and/or inaccurate information, but they have been raised, discussed, challanged and dissected many many times before (something the crusading new posters would know had they the basic online ettiquette to do a few searches, or today even ask a GPT for a precis of what has been previously said on the topic), to the degree that FWR regulars have evolved a literal playbook for answers to the same old arguments.

At this point, one of four things will happen:

They listen, stay around, evolve their arguements and understanding. They may move to a more GC position, they may not, but either way they take what other posters are saying on board. This is good faith.

They disappear in horror, never to come back. Also good faith.

They disappear from FWR most of the time, but pop up on threads like this and general MN "what don't you like about MN?" type threads to complain about FWR pile ons and how they were bullied off for not toeing some FWR party line (as opposed to the reality that they simply had nothing new to bring beyond already debunked claims and emotional manipulations that have just stopped working). This is - questionable faith. On balance I think they do believe their hype, but manipulative people often do, and it does have the I'm sure unintentional advantage that anyone who says "No, it wasn't quite like that" can immediately be used as proof of just how bullying FWR is. A catch 22 - if you say nothing the lie stands, and if you say something, it just proves the lie.

They engage with the counter arguments on the thread, yes simply disputing rather than learning but neverthess acknowledging those posts have been read, but then pop up with exactly the same claims and the same "facts" on the next thread and the next and the next, all wide eyed as if they had never come across any differing positions or had the "facts" challenged and debunked. This is not good faith.

I will engage with the latter group (I know many FWR regulars will not), not because I think there is any hope that they are anything other bad faith posters, but because I think it's important that other readers who may not be aware that this is a groundhog day poster are given the full picture by either referring back to the times this topic has been discussed with the same poster at length, or by referring to a thread covering the same ground with a different poster and suggesting the new poster reads it first then comes back with an argument that progresses from what's already been said rather than simply restarts it.

The board is moderated fairly. The fact that GI arguments are weak is not a moderation issue.

GC feminism is about the harms of gender stereotypes. It's right there in the name Gender Critical - the critique of gender stereotypes/expectations