To think mumsnet needs a separate 'Gender' section?

[Jargoyle]

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.

@Cohle, I think ItsLateHumpty answered your last question in her post of 14:42:42.

I'm on the app, I'm afraid that doesn't help.

Isn't that exactly the situation Justine was posting about a few days ago re Lang, Errol?

I've not followed all of the LangCleg thread so I don't know - from what I can see most of LCs supporters think MNHQ has misunderstood what she was saying, and also that she's been targeted. The doghouse case was entirely straightforward - someone whose posts could be seen as personal attacks when she came across someone who didn't seem to care about animal welfare.

I answered in my post at 11.33 today.

Found it! Thanks for the time stamp info.

The irony of this demand is it will put women into the same type of space that we are trying to argue for in the real world.

But cohle I see you posting on FWR a lot I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve been called a man (I have, who the fuck cares?) have never seen you called the other things. if I did I would object.

That said - I do not agree with many of your positions stated on FWR, and it can be safest to be circumspect in interacting with those on the “other side.” People get suspended or pushed out over seemingly small things.

Are you disappointed I haven't been successfully bullied off the board?

Nope. No disappointment here. And I don't think bullying is an intelligent argument. I'm glad I don't see it on FWR, as it's called out / deleted.

People disagreeing with you does not equate to bullying

I get that it’s unpleasant. I’ve been in a FWR thread where 95% disagreed with me, some very strongly. I felt quite alone in making my point.

It was unpleasant. It was not bullying.

People get suspended or pushed out over seemingly small things.

Indeed. A yawn or a misplaced has been enough.

Any other forum, being called a dickhead is fine, so go figure.

@BraveGoldie Thanks for replying to my post, but you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Sorry that I wasn't clear. I'll try and explain a bit more about what I was getting at. As you rightly point out, FGM only happens to girls, so we have to recognise that girls and boys are different, and a girl in danger of FGM can't avoid that danger by identifying as a boy. Similarly a boy will never be in danger of FGM even if he identifies as a girl. Sex matters.

Cervical cancer is something that only women are at risk of. But look at this tweet from Cancer research UK.

"Cervical screening (or the smear test) is relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix. Watch our animation to find out what to expect when you go for screening #CervicalScreeningAwarenessWeek"

twitter.com/CR_UK/status/1006857678767951872

It says 'everyone with a cervix'. Everyone who has a cervix is female. Why not say women? Some women, such as women with learning difficulties or women who speak English as a second language, might not know that they have a cervix, but they know they are women. The language used in this context should be clear and unambiguous and accessible.

This is the thread on FWR, which is presumably described as a 'trans thread' by the OP.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3277806-Cancer-Research-anyone-with-a-cervix

Sex matters. Being able to say 'women' and everyone knowing that 'woman' means adult female human is important.

But neither I nor others are complaining about people disagreeing with us. You can hardly post on MN without being disagreed with.

Our concern is that rather than posters engaging in constructive debate and disagreement, posters instead shut down any dissenting voices with accusations of trolling, community disruption, being a man, being a pervert etc. It's hard to "disagree" with those assessments in a way that is constructive and on topic.

@Cohle, can you provide examples of or links to the behaviour you describe, please?

I’m concerned about lots! Mainly domestic violence and abuse, lack of support for women returning to the work place, universal credit and austerity and the effect that has on women including legal aid, women’s healthcare and the shit we are forced to put up with in childbirth and period pain that just aren’t taken seriously by medical professionals.

@Pottytrainingwoes I've seen all of these discussed on FWR. But in order to discuss how any of those things affect women, we have to have a definition for what a woman is. Do you agree that 'adult female human' is an appropriate definition? If men can be women, then we can't discuss how any of those issues particularly affect women. It just comes down to how they affect 'people'.

And @OldCrone, thank you for your last post, and explaining extremely important points so clearly and patiently.
I doubt that that's the sort of post the OP wanted to find on this thread. Nevertheless, it is, of course, absolutely central to the thread's subject matter, and it's massively important. Thank you.

*last post but one (x-posted).
Anyway, thank you again!

But in order to discuss how any of those affect women, we have to have a definition of what a woman is.
Isn't that just what everyone's saying though? Doesn't matter what the subject, it always turns into a trans thread somehow.

No, its just that agreed definitions are fundamental to common understanding.
Definitions really matter when it comes to writing laws.

Thank you JulyKit. I think a lot of the disagreements on this topic are due to misunderstandings - the feminist position gets misrepresented all the time, like earlier in the thread when someone suggested that acknowledging that there are two sexes and that women and men are different means reinforcing gender stereotypes.

If something only happens to female people, then it's clear that the distinction between the sexes is important. If we can't distinguish between men and women, we can't fight for women's rights and there is no feminism. I really don't understand how you can believe you're a feminist, and at the same time believe men are women if they say they are.

Isn't that just what everyone's saying though? Doesn't matter what the subject, it always turns into a trans thread somehow.

How does that make it a trans thread? How do you think we can discuss women's issues if we have no definition of women?

Cohle, can you provide examples of or links to the behaviour you describe, please?

Pretty much any Bunbury thread, the thread currently running in FWR complaining about this one, the time I said I thought self-contained individual unisex loos were an acceptable compromise and got told I was probably a pervert because my username sounded too much like "peek hole"?

Isn't that just what everyone's saying though?

Well, no, apparently it isn't.

You see, it seems that some posters, like the OP, would rather that we avoided discussing the definition of what a woman is, and just accepted that it includes anyone who says they're a woman, regardless of their biological sex.

As OldCrone has pointed out, very patiently and clearly, that approach is problematic, for many reasons.

Doesn't matter what the subject, it always turns into a trans thread somehow

No Willis, not a "trans thread". A thread about what womanhood is, what the definition of it is, who among us it refers to.

The fact that feminists now have to filter every discussion on every issue through the question of 'what is meant by the word 'woman' / - 'female' / 'girl' ??' is not a result of feminists turning discussions on feminism into discussions on trans issues. It's the result of trans ideology having so successfully made the terms that define human females meaningless, and therefore hamstrung feminist discourse and feminist progress.

Interpreting women discussing what it means to be a woman, in law and in society, as 'trans threads' only further demonstrates how privileged trans identified people (particularly males) are over women.

Thanks, @Cohle.
Yep, I can see there are quite a few deletions and apparently some heated comments about your username about which you seemed really pissed off.
Typically, also, there was some really interesting, respectful, intelligent argument, and well known, prolific posters presented you with some clear, salient questions, very respectfully framed, but you didn't engage with them.
I can't see that any of those posters were bullying you in any way whatsoever. They asked for your reasoning. You could have provided it, but you didn't.
Do you think posters like JackyHolyoake and Datun were bullying you? All I see from them is respectful discussion and clear, well meaning, respectful questions and arguments - but you didn't engage with those.

Yup.

Cohle

Perhaps you don't realise, but FWR is inundated with trolls. Constantly. It's targeted, left right and centre.

In much the same way as potty training threads will attract a poo troll, feminism will, inevitably, attract women hating trolls.

Only yesterday, the 'horse faced cunts' thread was littered with them. I counted at least three, plus the midnight misogynist.

Men who come on with user names incorporating the words anal, sleaze, etc.

TRAs use sock, after sock, after sock. After a particular news item, or Twitter furore, previously banned posters will flood the board.

They have exploited women here who are infertile, who have been raped, sexually harassed, abused. They have leveraged women's experience, directly related to biology, to belittle it for their own ends. The women on feminism boards are often exceptionally vulnerable. Drawn there through trauma.

So when you are an unknown poster, with a username that sounds out as 'peekhole', perhaps be a little more understanding of why it might be viewed with suspicion.