Thread derailment

And many of those transmen would think you cannot do that if you don't believe TMAM so in that sense, they are excluded from your feminism.

Okay but at least some of the time, that will be you derailing the thread. But that's what we need really. People to be transparent about when they are likely to derail.

And that’s the point, “everyone” feels like they’re a feminist because being feminist lite is trendy, remember Nick Clegg’s “this is what a feminist looks like” t shirt. Is it bollocks. Not so fashionable to stick up for women’s rights at personal cost to yourself.

No, sorry, I don’t accept that. Women who centre men over women are not feminists, and I’ll be continuing to challenge the idea that anyone claiming to be a feminist is one, whether you find it valuable personally or not. Because I post as I see fit.

GC feminists don't believe TWAW or TMAM, absolutely right. In that vein we're very much aware that transmen are women and therefore we care very much about their safety, dignity and rights.

The next question would be whether there is much point in spending a lot of time debating who is a real feminist and who is not.

Most of the time you are discussing these issues in here, that should be secondary. Everyone feels they are a feminist regardless of their views on sex and gender and that's all the board requires you to be: interested in sex and gender through a feminist lens. We've established that some subgroups of feminism feel that other subgroups arent feminists because their approach to feminism fails at least some women.

We've established that the board isn't just for GC feminists, so who is and who isn't a real feminist based on your opinions of what feminism should be seems like a bit of a derail.

FWIW, I hadnt noticed the use of 'intersectional' in the board description.

I think its probably because at the time of the great schism, use of the words gender critical would have given some people (especially advertisers) conniptions.

Intersectional is nicely vague but implies all view points welcome. Although tbh it usually signifies TWAW these days.

I don't understand what you mean by your second paragraph. Would you mind explaining a bit more?

Agree, although someone will probably turn up imminently to tell you you're wrong, you're a big meanie, and how dare you 'gatekeep' feminism (it's almost like words have meanings, isn't it? 🤦‍♂️).

Agree completely. I really don't care if this is controversial but I don't think you can call yourself a feminist if you're not GC.
Anyone that includes men in their feminism is not a feminist.

Its likely that there are derailed who join threads with the intent to derail, others doing it unwittingly and others who didn’t initially have the intent, but are unwilling to let go of a derailing point because they have become fixated on it.

Added to this challenge, we have people engaging at ‘novice level’ in relation to their exposure to the arguments made on the board’, right through to ‘mastery level’ posters.

Mixed in with this is differences between those seeking dialogue and those seeking debate - and accusation that arise just from this difference.

Those wanting to debate are wanting to persuade and convince. This is understandable in light of the issues that are posted about.

Those wanting to engage in dialogue are often wanting to explore wider perspectives at a deeper level. I think these posters can be mistaken as derailers. I think these posters also can mistake responses that reflect debate as being shut down due to posters not tolerating wider views.

Thread about derailing descends into derail - film at 11!

What seems clear from this thread is that unsurprisingly, different people have different ideas about what constitutes a 'derail' .

There has to be some coherence to a thread or its not even a conversation, it would be a bunch of people shouting unconnected statements into the ether, which wouldn't be very interesting or user friendly.

I don't get the insistence around whether FWR is/ isn't GC. It is what it is, regardless of name. GC views are allowed, and because it's one of the only online spaces where this is true, it attracts GC posters or those who want to discuss sex and gender and not have to start from first principles of who is a woman. There are a million other places for people to have those discussions from a non GC perspective, but no views are banned, although defence of your pov is expected.

No one is being 'moderated out' as was suggested upthread 🙄

If you don't like it, other chat sites (or even boards on mums net) are available. Most of them are a lot more given to censorship.

Moaning that people posting here seem to gravitate to a particular viewpoint is like going on the doghouse board and moaning that dogs aren't the only pets, why can't we discuss cats, etc etc.

Oh I see that I am late to the argument and @Squished Passenger accepts the diversity of such "feminism".

No fake feminists? What if a group of religious women form the Obedient Wives Club and espouse their feminist views that true liberation for women comes from submission to The Lord up Above, and his natural reagents on earth, men? This club exists by the way. They call themselves muslim feminists. They are very "sex-positive" btw. I feel you would approve.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedient_Wives_Club

This board is so inaccessible when considering average knowledge and reading comprehension levels.

I've scrolled through the thread but to me it's obvious that some posters find themselves out of their depth and don't know how to back out graciously.

It's not always deliberate.

But rest assured that I think women’s claims to be men are equally wrong. They just don’t affect women’s rights as much. Unsurprisingly, the main area where they do is around so called “inclusive” language but I think that benefits the men as much as the women anyway, it’s in their interest to separate being female from being referred to as a woman or a girl.

Most of the flashpoints for women’s rights are caused by the men’s demands, not all, but the majority.

Well because the poster specified men who are trans and omitted women who are trans.

Great analogy!

Why would you think that people who don’t believe males are women would think any differently about women who claim to be men? I’ve seen this quite a lot of times, it’s bizarre. We simply have a reality-based and protected legal belief that biological sex matters, particularly for women and girls, who are generally the disadvantaged sex. Of the only two that exist.

Well, this is just a demonstration of what I mean. It's neither here nor there whether I agree with you. The overarching point is that feminists have varied opinions on different matters.

But one glaring thing I can see is that you don't seem to acknowledge that some females are trans. So maybe some people feel that acknowledging TWAW also means that you acknowledge that TMAM. That latter part might even be more important to them.

The core feminist belief is that women deserve the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as men.

It is very odd for a self-identified 'feminist' to prioritise the whiny impractical wants of a small number of men over the safety & well-being needs of a much larger number of women. Even mathematically it is illogical and self-defeating.

It's not hate speech to say TWAW. But it is very silly and obviously wrong. Humans are part of the mammalian class of animals. We, like dogs, lions and whales, cannot change our biological sex, even if some individuals really really wish they could.

Taking feminism in a direction of falsehood while centring bepenised adults is weird and self-defeating. It's like claiming kicking the football into your own net is an equally valid game strategy. No it isn't.

Interesting, thanks for responding.

There is certainly a legitimate feminist movement that believe in conjugal roles, largely due to the biological differences between the sexes. Men are stronger than women, women do get pregnant and breastfeed etc.

What makes them feminists rather than MRAs is that they do have a clear path towards identifying and tackling areas of inequality that specifically affect women. Mostly by increasing the legal responsibility of men for women they partner with.

Whether I agree with their feminism is another matter entirely. Fwiw, I do not, because it is homophobic - where it does allow for same sex relationships, it seems to categorise each party as "the woman/man" dismissing the fact that same sex relationships often don't follow these heteronormative narratives.

That’s what I thought it meant and what it meant originally. But I think it’s completely captured as a description now by the “men are the most oppressed women” crew.