Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
SmileEachDay · 27/01/2020 19:55

Cohle

Again. Why are you saying I am disingenuous?

Datun · 27/01/2020 19:57

I've been asked several times to provide specific examples of the sort of behaviour I'm referring to.

Well of course you have!

If you're referencing messages, or posts to nail home a point that others might be disagreeing with, you could be picking them out of the air for all anyone knows!!

That's what debate IS. if you are referring to something, you back up your points - with references or links to the points that you are actually talking about.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 27/01/2020 20:01

The point being made though is that you're repeatedly being told to link, that something didn't happen, give proof etc (fair enough) but then when you do you get posters going "filibusterer!" etc.
Can't have it both ways, you either want people to answer you and link or you don't.

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:06

@WotchaTalkinBoutWillis, I think you'll find, if you read the later part of this thread, that quite a few people have commented on the link provided.

Has anyone at all gone "filibusterer"?

SmileEachDay · 27/01/2020 20:09

Ah Wotcha you’re still here.

What is wrong with the linked thread?

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 27/01/2020 20:14

Has anyone at all gone filibusterer
Datun did up thread in response to the thread being linked, saying responses were like that as it was a known filibusterer of the board.
Re: somebody who doesn't always agree. The said poster has made some great posts in the past but still gets filibusterer etc thrown her way.
(Apols if wasn't Datun, on phone so can't scroll up and check easily)

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:15

This reply has been deleted

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

Datun · 27/01/2020 20:17

I'm really not sure what you think I'm trying to do right now July? You're coming across as needlessly adversarial.

Have you considered they you're not cut out for robust debate, Cohle? You seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the way people say things, the words they use, rather than the point they're making?

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:17

Yes, @WotchaTalkinBoutWillis. Datun explained the background to the thread. And you have a problem with that? Why?

Cohle · 27/01/2020 20:20

That's what debate IS. if you are referring to something, you back up your points - with references or links to the points that you are actually talking about

Yes I understand that Datun. Just as I was being criticised, by you, for mentioning specific threads, I'm sure I would be criticised if I had failed to do so too. That's why I said I doubt it's possible to please all posters on a thread like this.

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:23

@Datun - yeah, but... It's not really the words people use, is it? Because however we word our questions, however gently we frame them, the outrage is the same - and actual sense or coherent argument notably absent.
Oh, well...

Hairday · 27/01/2020 20:24

Have you considered they you're not cut out for robust debate, Cohle?

Cohle has superpowers when it comes to robust debate!

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:24

@Cohle, why do you think you have to 'please all posters'?
No one's asking you to do that, you know....

SmileEachDay · 27/01/2020 20:26

Oh ffs.

Can ANYONE who thinks the linked thread was AWFUL please explain why?

Cohle · 27/01/2020 20:26

You seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the way people say things, the words they use, rather than the point they're making?

I'm sorry you feel that way Datun. If there's a particular point you think I'm failing to engage with please feel free to point out out me.

I'm afraid I likewise think some posters are rather missing the point about the hostility non-GC posters face when trying to engage on other issues on FWR. I've mentioned a couple of threads merely as specific examples of a wider issue.

Cohle · 27/01/2020 20:28

why do you think you have to 'please all posters' ?No one's asking you to do that, you know....

No of course not. But it's wearing to be placed in a situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:29

This reply has been deleted

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

SmileEachDay · 27/01/2020 20:30

I'm afraid I likewise think some posters are rather missing the point about the hostility non-GC posters face when trying to engage on other issues on FWR. I've mentioned a couple of threads merely as specific examples of a wider issue

The linked thread. Where is this perceived hostility?

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:33

This reply has been deleted

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

Pottytrainingwoes · 27/01/2020 20:34

I don’t think the linked thread was good that’s for sure, i think that’s obvious to see. I’ve just reread it.
The OP was told to start a thread and did so and was met with accusations of being a TRA, told she was pretending to care about women because that’s what the other trans activists told her to do. Her spelling was ridiculed repeatedly. She was told she was doing it wrong and should do it a different way, not knowledgable enough to talk. Berated, people sent pm’s saying not to engage.

the OP said over and over she didn’t want yet another trans thread and continued to be pushed to give her views. Which incidentally, wasn’t even the she thought TWAW Confused

The post was about issues facing women worldwide, there was no need for it to become like that just because the OP didn’t agree with a general GC stand and shared her views of that on other threads.

Some engaged politely and nicely and there was some good knowledge shared but it’s still an example of why saying ‘go and start your own thread about feminism not trans then’ doesn’t actually work like that.

Hairday · 27/01/2020 20:34

@smileeachday was that the thread where someone was trying to discuss feminism but it got derailed because it wasn't about trans issues? Like, people were actively trying to disrupt it because it basically didn't centre them and their interests?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 27/01/2020 20:34

A woman I assume to have been of a particular type sent me a message I found objectionable.

Therefore all women of that type are objectionable.

Discuss.

JulyKit · 27/01/2020 20:36

The linked thread. Where is this perceived hostility?

It's an FWR thread, so by definition, it's hostile. Did you not realise that, @SmileEachDay?

Oh, and added to its being an FWR thread, it involves posters asking questions. Very, very hostile, that. Natch.

Thelnebriati · 27/01/2020 20:36

If the boards separate into radfem/libfem, which one will the Midnight Misogynist post on?

Hairday · 27/01/2020 20:37

@julykit honestly, all the sarcasm just confuses any point you're trying to make.