Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think mumsnet needs a separate 'Gender' section?

999 replies

Jargoyle · 25/01/2020 01:31

I've been lurking here for years prior to signing up, but have now all but abandoned the women's rights section due to the overwhelming proliferation of trans threads.

I get that self ID is a big issue but I was saddened, for example, during the whole Irish abortion debacle that the first thread on it was barely two pages long whilst people were happily discussing Caitlyn Genner's style comments until the cows came home.

I think a separate section would be beneficial where the same old posters can have the same old discussions about it all.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
RufustheLanglovingreindeer · 27/01/2020 11:59

This is all beginning to sound appealing

Yeah

I might need to reconsider my reconsideration

Hairday · 27/01/2020 12:00

How can we discuss women's issues if any man can choose to be a woman?

I know. It's so strange. I've seen trans women put themselves forward to be spokespeople for women, and it's hard to accept given our history of men speaking on our behalf. I don't understand how anyone can handle it. But, on the other hand, I feel like the implications of stopping it happening are pretty bad too. Like forcing people into gender roles against their will and it seems genuine belief.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 27/01/2020 12:08

Most women I know don't even know any transwomen but all have encountered violent heterosexual men
& those violent men will be able to merrily self ID into our safe places...
I’m not interested in gender identity but I am very interested in talking about protecting the single sex spaces & services that are so important to ensure the safety & dignity of women & girls.

WeeSleekitTimerousMoosey · 27/01/2020 12:08

I don't really see what harm is done by saying 'you're not a woman and should not speak for women'. That doesn't stop men wearing dresses, or taking dubious cocktails of artificial hormones, or having surgeries. It is just acknowledging a fact.

Barracker · 27/01/2020 12:09

Actually this has made me wonder whether to lobby MNHQ for a dedicated talk section for each of the 9 protected characteristics in the EA2010.

And anyone straying into the wrong characteristic could be relocated over into the correct section.

Who could possibly object to that?

lottiegarbanzo · 27/01/2020 12:10

So OP you could start threads on the feminist topics that interest you, in Chat or elsewhere, if you want to attract a different type of participant. Worth a try?

Your basic problem here is that you're proposing a negative - a space that nobody wants and no-one will use.

Mumsnet works the other way around, it responds to demand in the economic sense, as demonstrated by pageview stats and grows / changes organically, accordingly - always reactively, never in anticipation, in the hope that some posters will come along.

So again, be the change you want to see and maybe, over time, you'll be part of a groundswell of lib fem activity that demonstrates a demand for its own distinct space.

Barracker · 27/01/2020 12:10

+some of those sections already exist of course.
But one or two protected characteristics seem to be messily merged presently

Drabarni · 27/01/2020 12:12

YANBU, whilst important to many, to others it really doesn't matter.
Feminist boards only have one discussion now, and it's not the most important.

FleetsumNLangCleg · 27/01/2020 12:12

Like forcing people into gender roles against their will and it seems genuine belief

Hairday this is confusing to me, because wouldn't it be forcing (allowing) people to opt out of gender roles rather than forcing them into anything?

Say a man wants to wear clothes that are usually seen as feminine, can't that just make him a feminine man rather than a woman? Then there would not have to be transwomen who put themselves forward to be spokespeople for women, because they would still be allowed to be males. And they could speak up for men.

Not meant to be goady at all. Why can't men make room for all men?

tooyoungat40 · 27/01/2020 12:12

Someone wants to send us to the Gulag.

OldCrone · 27/01/2020 12:18

But, on the other hand, I feel like the implications of stopping it happening are pretty bad too. Like forcing people into gender roles against their will and it seems genuine belief.

Accepting that some people are female and some people are male is not 'forcing people into gender roles'. I think this is part of the problem, that there are a lot of people who don't understand that feminism is against gender roles, but is about the reality that there are two sexes.

Women are people who are born female, but we can have any personality we want, and we don't have to conform to gender stereotypes. Men shouldn't have to conform to gender stereotypes either.

PersonFrom2045 · 27/01/2020 12:21

Having read this thread I strongly think a new, separate 'Liberal Feminism' board would be the way to go.

I would like such a board to be a safe space for posters who reject some or all of the gender critical narrative. I.e. they could post from a non GC perspective without being accused of being TRAs/MRAs or 'not centring women' or 'putting men's rights first'. Threads could be started that mentioned transwomen without a derail into the TWAW debate. GC posters would be welcome, on the understanding that they didn't use that space to debate trans issues from a GC perspective.

If it were set up as a new board (a subsection in the general feminism space), it shouldn't affect the existing boards.

OldCrone · 27/01/2020 12:21

Then there would not have to be transwomen who put themselves forward to be spokespeople for women, because they would still be allowed to be males. And they could speak up for men.

It would be great if such people could widen the bandwidth of what it means to be male, and speak up for gender non-conforming males.

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 12:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

WeeSleekitTimerousMoosey · 27/01/2020 12:30

I wouldn't entirely object to separate feminism and gender boards if the feminism boards allowed free speech. Right now I don't post in FWR as I can't deal with the lying about people's sex that is required.

If there is to be a split the quid pro quo should be FWR removes the silly rules.

lottiegarbanzo · 27/01/2020 12:40

As I said just above you Person2045 Mumsnet responds to quantified extant demand, not to demands. If there were enough distinctly libfem threads and active posters to justify such a deliniation, then you'd begin to have a case.

Nowhere on Mumsnet is a 'safe space' for anyone. The only rules are the Talk Guidelines. How are you proposing to police your uniquely 'safe space'? Why and how would resources be allocated to that, that aren't, or haven't yet succeeded in keeping real trolls and GFs off the boards?

I could say I would like threads about veganism to be a 'safe space' for real and putative vegans, with no goady ominvores allowed. Threads discussing the practicalities of private education to be free from chippy state-school proponents. They only derail discussion. It isn't nice, friendly or helpful. They probably put off lurkers from taking part. But how? It's a public talk board, not a subscription service with real-life vetting.

I guess you'd just have to talk around the people you don't like and suspect of being goady or in the wrong place. I've seen some effective examples of that on MN...

DesireesChild · 27/01/2020 12:47

JulyKit

@DesireesChild, you seem really riled - and also to have misunderstood my posts, so I'll spell it out for you
Sometimes people disagree, and therefore they argue. Women can do this too, and unless you're a bit of a misogynist, that's totally fine. People have a right to argue, quite robustly, if they want to. If you dislike it, you don't have to be involved, and that's fine too, see?

Julykit- you sound very patronising.

I'll spell it out for you as you seem to have misunderstood my posts so I'll spell it out for you.

I find the sniping and belittling that goes on between the 2 factions- radical and liberal- not particularly conducive to good debate.

There is a difference between "arguing robustly" and self- validation about how clever one side thinks it is compared to the other side. Hope that helps.

PersonFrom2045 · 27/01/2020 12:51

The problem is, Lottie, that people with liberal views are frightened to post on the existing boards, so an extant demand is unlikely to appear.

I agree that boards can't be policed and nowhere is a truly safe space. But board topics do give some direction to show the sort of post that's appropriate there. If you are saying that the existing GC feminists wouldn't be able to resist dropping GC posts onto a liberal board just to be goady, that's fair enough, but I'd like to credit them with more integrity than that.

Cohle · 27/01/2020 12:51

No but as MN have made clear "it's really not on for one group of users to declare that their position / argument is the only one that is acceptable and to deliberately make it difficult to for those who disagree, to post".

MNHQ clearly think there's a problem with FWR and have compared it to a previous situation where "an aggressive orthodoxy" had developed.

Original poster
Jargoyle · 27/01/2020 12:59

& those violent men will be able to merrily self ID into our safe places...

Is this a widespread problem in countries that already have self-ID? (not a trick question, genuinely interested).

I believe it's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow in a market town on a Sunday (or something like that) but it hasn't ever happened. I know this is different but I believe there has to be a consideration of theoretical vs actual risk.

OP posts:
NotTerfNorCis · 27/01/2020 13:00

I would like such a board to be a safe space for posters who reject some or all of the gender critical narrative. I.e. they could post from a non GC perspective without being accused of being TRAs/MRAs or 'not centring women' or 'putting men's rights first'. Threads could be started that mentioned transwomen without a derail into the TWAW debate.

Hm could we try prefixing thread titles with FLW (for liberal feminists) and have an agreement that GC feminists won't weigh in? I doubt the opposite is needed though. GC feminists welcome debate.

NotTerfNorCis · 27/01/2020 13:02

FLF I mean. Blush

Original poster
Jargoyle · 27/01/2020 13:02

I guess I'd like to see more diversity in FWR, but certainly don't want to stifle debate. The problem is that it's currently very one track IMO. As I said, I'm against self-ID but I can't see any current resolution to the issue. A more balanced debate might help provide this.

OP posts:
WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 27/01/2020 13:03

GC feminists welcome debate.
Not on FWR, they don't. You're usually told you must be a man or a sealion if you disagree.
How is that debate?

LastTrainEast · 27/01/2020 13:03

Jargoyle "when I attempt to compare it to homosexuality" why would you? (aside from as a strategy)

A gay man for example is saying that he is attracted to men. If he feels that then it IS true. He's simply reporting how he feels so you can hardly say "oh no you are not attracted"

If someone is saying they feel like their are in the wrong body you can believe that they feel that without believing that they really are in the wrong body.

Just as you can believe that someone feels they are overweight while knowing that in reality they are not.

Also gay people require nothing of us other than that they be treated as they would be if we didn't know they were gay.
I'm a heterosexual man and I've never heard a gay man say it was a hate crime for me not to be interested or require any special rituals.