Thread derailment

So are you a TM?

I will accept that they are TM and have distinct needs and barriers that neither men nor women face.

We don't, though. All the barriers we face (edit: and needs we have) are those of women who present as men and mess around with their female bodies. Women, always and only, even if so many don't want to accept it.

Yes I said TW are TW. I have to accept that TW aren't men because they say so. I can't accept they are women due to my own views on womanhood. I will accept they are TW and have distinct needs and barriers that neither men nor women face.

The same goes for TM. I have to accept that they aren't women because they say so. I can't accept they are women because of my own views of manhood. I will accept that they are TM and have distinct needs and barriers that neither men nor women face.

The idea that GC feminists are the ones who insist that GC is the only form of feminism is laughable. Feminists who lean heavily not intersectionality often insist that if your feminism doesn’t include all ‘women’, it’s not feminism.

Its fair to say that feminist of all stripes can be found to make the argument that their take is the only one that warrants being called feminism.

I... literally quoted you? Saying that " TW aren't men but they also aren't women"? What is there to misunderstand about this??

Oh come on, you would get shut down for just being GC, are you familiar with Phoenix or Favaro?

Oh come on, you would get shut down for just being GC, are you familiar with Phoenix or Favaro?

No I think youve read that so wrong, I can't even interpret where the wrong started.

It simply isn't bollocks. In an academic feminist circle, you wouldn't be shut down just for being GC, you'd be shut down because you think being GC is the only approach to Feminism so it would be unproductive to have you in discussions with other feminists. You'd be too caught up on "but she isnt really a feminist" when all the other people are trying to discuss feminism and the economy.

Well, yes, I'm female bodied, which makes me a woman. But you said, "That's why I think I can acknowledge that TW aren't men but they also aren't women (same for TM)." According to this, you think I'm not a woman, but not a man either.

Why would that be definitive, you said you think TM are not women.

I agree with you.

However, there are posters here, long time posters, that will tell people they should not post not gc stuff because it is a gc forum, set up to protect gc people. It happens pretty regularly.

Are you not female or male bodied?

Are you not female or male bodied?

It’s a complete non point. No one thinks genderist views should be banned from FWR. They just aren’t popular here. Or with the country in general, if you look at what people really think.

This is bullshit.

It's very easy not to engage with posters who are problematic, you just don't respond to their posts in any way.

The recipe thing is a way to shut down an entire thread, including everyone else who was having a discussion. This happens to multiple threads and affects people who were talking about things that are nothing to do with the derailers.

It's either massively self-centred or intended to stop people discussing topics someone doesn't approve of.

If you don't find a thread useful, stop posting in it, it's really straight forward. The recipe shit should get deleted by the mods.

So I'm neither a man nor a woman? Pretty othering, really.

It is for feminists. Not GC feminists.

Having been making this point many times a month for bloody years, I promised myself not to bother any more. But just for you ... Feminism is by definition gender critical. There are two reasons for this:

1. It's about female people, their rights and freedoms. It must by nature be opposed to any belief that males may be women or girls.
2. Gender - the set of cultural expectations and impositions that societies place on their members according to sex - is an instrument of patriarchy, universally used to oppress women and girls. Feminism is therefore deeply critical of gender.

I said that I wasnt going to share my personal feelings, but I kind of have and I think it's fair that I do.

I think where I'm at can be best summarised as TW/TM are TW/TM. I do feel that my womanhood and femaleness is centred around my biological being and how that is perceived by others as well as myself. I also think the same goes for others to a large extent. I think my husband's penis and lack of breast tissue is part of what makes him a man, for example.

However, I note that there are a lot of people (trans people) who don't feel that way and some non-trans people who seem to have complementary perspectives on what makes them male or female and it isn't centred around biology.

That's why I think I can acknowledge that TW aren't men but they also aren't women (same for TM). So TW are TW and TM are TM. I'm not sure where that lands me on the GC spectrum but I also don't care all that much as it isn't a feminist issue I prioritise.

There was a mod post the other day warning about posters who suggest to other posters to not engage trolls. So, mumsnet seems to sensitive to anti-troll collective action.

But it is notable that most of the people who I identify as trolls do not compulsively sea-lion. They're relatively good at only responding if their own comments have been responded to. So, the observation still stands that if you find their obdurate unwillingness to comprehend anything annoying, the best thing to do is to not engage them and ignore them on threads. If everyone did that their presence would be highly muted.

To put it another way, they're highly prevalent in MN because we collectively indicate we want them to be by interacting with them - that's how discussion forums work. Hopefully that observation isn't breaking MN guidelines.

There are times when I think the "questioning" of the person who has the view is itself a derailment.

Thread on question x, poster says, unlike the majority she thinks y. Instead of discussing x vs y it's a litany of " you must believe this, that or the other thing that are bad for women."

And then the thread veers into six other issues that the poster is trying to field at the same time rather than a discussion of x vs y.

For example, a poster says, I think it's ok sometimes to use requested pronouns, in certain settings, and suddenly they are accused of being ok with men in women's prisons and six other things like that. Without ever getting a chance to say what settings they might think those are, mush less their reasoning.

It's not very productive, often the original discussion is lost, and it's really difficult for the poster to hold those threads together at the same time. They usually get overwhelmed pretty fast and you can see them lose the thread of their thoughts.

The people that do it then think they have "won" the discussion.

Bollocks! I could say more but I think "bollocks" pretty much covers it

If someone can’t deal with questioning of their views, perhaps it’s they who should log off, rather than telling other people they shouldn’t challenge absurd statements?