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.

Notice something about this?
www.always.co.uk/en-gb/puberty-education-programme-always-tampax

There's not a mention of this being for girls, it's for everyone, obviously.

I bet a lot of people don't realise until it's been pointed out just how much females have been erased from these things.

But this is precisely the type of discussion I try to avoid

Ok, so avoid it.

But please don’t try and play down the significance of the BMA issuing “guidance” like this.

It does matter that it's just guidance. It matters that they guided their staff to use the new term.
It suggested the removal of the word mother/woman.
As a feminist I see that as an issue when medical staff are being given guidance that removes the word mother and women.

There are many more articles like that. I listed 2 as examples to show you that it's not a "it only happens on Twitter" situation as you said.

However I could list a 100 and you would still disagree because it's not happening in your little universe.
I would expect an intelligent woman to look outside of her own box and examine the world around her.

"Which is why I find it strange when feminists want to discuss various issues that affect us females but refuse to acknowledge the elephant male in the room."

An elephant in the room is something that nobody talks about. The point is the feminist board never stops talking about it.... and to many feminists we don't actually think there is an elephant in the room at all. It's maybe a mouse. And by spending all our time distracted by it we can't actually get on with the business we were there for in the first place -

It feels like there is an irony here. Surely if you are protesting that the definition of woman is being eroded, thus preventing women from getting the attention/ protection they deserve, then aren't you contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to discuss feminist issues unless woman's apparent redefinition is not addressed first? You are effectively shoving the issue you are protesting the existence of onto the agenda over and over - crowding out the topics you are afraid will be neglected...

Can someone help me out... what is TWAW?

TWAW?

Trans women are women.

Far more important for me are men who identify as men and who treat other women like shit. But actually, I have an issue with anyone who treats anyone like shit. The motives are irrelevant for me - be nice, be kind. It isn’t that difficult.

There's something of a contradiction here, isn't there?

Either you care more about "men who identify as men" treating women like shit, or you care equally about "anyone" who treats others (including, and apparently, especially, women) like shit.

Seemingly, though, you do recognise that there's a problem with males treating females like shit, and that the reason for that is structural inequality - in which case, all female spaces, and the protection of women's sex based rights are important mechanisms to prevent women - in some circumstances, at least - from being treated like shit by males.

If 'women' then includes males, then, as I think you can see, that increases opportunities for males to treat women like shit. As you've said yourself (even though you've also contradicted that statement in your first sentence), it doesn't apparently matter whether that person identifies as a man or a woman: women need protection from being treated like shit for sex based reasons. Therefore, we need sex based protections, safe spaces, etc. So it does in fact matter if those spaces no longer exist.

It gets kind of repetitive, doesn't it? See why it matters, though, @Bunnyfuller?

I do see that this issue has taken over tbh and other issues are discussed less or diverted by pointing out that X issue can't even be described as a women's issue any more etc

But this is what women want to talk about, the boards are open. Trying to direct them feels like not the right thing to do.

I think language is important and the push to essentially remove the ability to talk about the 50% of the world who have been oppressed globally for as long as we know as a group is a very big deal. If there is no word for what used to be called women/girl/ female then feminism is impossible.

An elephant in the room is something that nobody talks about. The point is the feminist board never stops talking about it....

And could that be something to do with repeated efforts to stymie this discussion, 'leading' politicians' refusal to address it, paucity of media reporting, and in many cases misreporting, physical attacks and threats to women who will even address this issue, no-platforming of female academics, commentators, etc. simply because they're known to have expressed GC views (i.e. when the appearances they would have made weren't even about 'gender' issues), etc...

Could any of those things be why GC feminists on the FWR boards simply won't shut up about this? And with all that in mind, could it be that maybe they/we are right to refuse to just let it lie?

Brave

I am afraid you have misunderstood my posts and I probably have not explained myself well.

I have no issues discussing any feminist topic. I do not read a title and immediately think oh I am going to post a GC comment. I only post GC comments if they are relevant and add to the thread in some way.

There is a FGM thread atm in feminist chat. I would not post on there mentioning GC/trans as it's not relevant.
However posts are discussions and discussions flow and change direction.
I have been on a thread regarding FGM ( not on mn) started by a woman who was herself a victim. Believe it or not a TRA posted stating as a circumcised TW they were also a victim of FGM.

I may reference this exchange on the mn thread IF it was relevant but on the new gender thread I would not be allowed to as it mentions trans.

Also TWAW means trans women are women.

I dont want trans to be included in every feminist issue but they have barged their way in to our spaces and forced us to talk about it.*

Found this further down the thread. That is what I was trying to say..... you don't want to talk about it but you feel forced to? Why are you letting others' framing of the debate affect your ability to speak with your points of reference about what was important before this new thinking that you don't like came along?

I am not saying never talk about it, but the idea that it is all-encompassing is basically handing victory to the ideas you are protesting against....

I am not saying never talk about it, but the idea that it is all-encompassing is basically handing victory to the ideas you are protesting against.

You’re underestimating the capacity of feminists for critical thinking.

you don't want to talk about it but you feel forced to? Why are you letting others' framing of the debate affect your ability to speak with your points of reference about what was important before this new thinking that you don't like came along?

Eh?

I never said I didn't want to talk about it. I said I dont want trans to be included in every feminist issue which I dont. Why should mens wants and needs for validation come before womens?

I am not letting others affect my ability to speak. I am addressing the fact that because they have barged their way in I am now having to discuss feminist topics/battles I thought were long since won.
I am having to discuss and justify why males should not be in naked female spaces when 10 years ago that was not a discussion that was needed.

The other point here is that it's a reaction.

And yes social media is a nightmare and there are echo chambers etc and the chat of a random person gets way more attention than it should .

But when you get things like famous trans women saying 'gynocentric' feminism is awful and don't wear pussy hats on marches, or intact rapists being put in women's prisons, or that person in Canada using the laws to go after women, and so on, then what to do? Of course women will react. The whole thing is just so bizarre. Sport, women aren't trying hard enough etc. I mean, what?

Most people in the public think it's bizarre but it doesn't affect them. It's an interesting sort of a side show. Especially men.

To ask women not to react is unrealistic tbh.

The point about why would so many women who have been feminists for years, activists, active in LGB community etc be so against this is a good one that is never answered.

Trans Woman a Woman - it means accepting them as they wish to be recognised as.

@BraveGoldie you summed it up perfectly. For some (and it certainly feels for most on the FWR board - I just did a rough and dirty count of the page one threads and those having the Trans theme dominate) Trans seems to be the worst manifestation of an erosion of women’s rights.

I (and many others) don’t. I don’t see a change of wording on a tampax box as eroding my rights. It’s words, language. These are changed over time. There were lots of words in the past that are now recognised to be horrific and divisive. There were (still are sadly) some who viewed a variety of differences as ‘less’. Who knows, maybe some attitudes to trans will be viewed through a similar lens in 20..30..50..100 years.

I certainly don’t see my struggles, say when a manager calls a female ‘emotional’ instead of acknowledging she’s pissed off, or if a male colleague gets more money or favourable treatment because he’s male as having anything to vaguely do with trans. For me they’re not inextricably linked, they’re separate entities. And I don’t want the water muddied with something I don’t consider relevant at that point.

The current vibe on FWR (and its advocates here) who I have no problem having their own views and posting their own thoughts, is very much that trans impacts everything. So, for me, there’s no point posting there. Which kind of removes me from discussion of feminist issues as I see them. I understand and respect the GC viewpoint. I just don’t share it.

@SmileEachDay I have definitely wondered why all the focus, but I really can’t see it. I have no issue accepting people for who they are. If someone causes me a problem, regardless of who/what they are/say they are/choose to be, then I am not so accepting.

I respect all the views expressed here. I respectfully don’t share them. I also respectfully think that the sarcasm and belittling nature used by some posters undermines their agenda and is perhaps contributing to some people wanting to discuss non GC feminist issues away from FWR.

I am not saying never talk about it, but the idea that it is all-encompassing is basically handing victory to the ideas you are protesting against....

@BraveGoldie, I see your point, in principle, but when you attend women's meetings to find that they are dominated (and I don't use that word lightly) by newly identified 'women' who have never in fact experienced life as a female, have never experienced sex discrimination, and yet, for want of a different word (I don't think there is one) mansplain their way through women's group meetings telling us that we are responsible for e.g. workplace sex discrimination, and the organisations running those meetings feel afraid to challenge that person, it really isn't us/FWR posters 'handing victory' to 'those ideas'. There are very good reasons why (some) women are fighting 'gender' ideology. It and its proponents really are obstructing proper discussion and focus on women's rights - and not just on Twitter. Until women are able to challenge this, publicly and safely, which isn't at present the case, there is a need to keep flagging it up. Otherwise, conversations we want and need to have about sex based rights can't take place, since they're constantly obscured and subverted by various 'gender' issues which are demonstrably harmful to women and girls.

Anyway, while I know I am in the minority on here I do want to say I appreciate the courtesy with which I am being treated. Honestly it is not what I expected, so thank you. And in confounding my expectations, I would say the feminist sections already feels a less prohibitive place for me to maybe visit sometimes.

And to any posters I have quoted, I am not trying to single out your views or judge your contributions as a whole (honestly I never really look at user names, and don't know how to search histories etc!)... so none of what I have said is intended to be personally-directed..... am just trying to grab ideas that express something to build on / respond to.

'I am not letting others affect my ability to speak. I am addressing the fact that because they have barged their way in I am now having to discuss feminist topics/battles I thought were long since won.
I am having to discuss and justify why males should not be in naked female spaces when 10 years ago that was not a discussion that was needed.'

Yes it is very annoying but it is what it is.

Maybe we can say at start of threads, please can we talk about the issue at hand (roll back of abortion rights in USA, rape conviction stats etc) and not divert to trans issues and posters can try to respect that?

I mean to be fair you do get posters sometimes coming on threads like that and saying abortion isn't only a women's issue etc, so it's not just gender critical people steering threads off.

Still, might be worth a try?

And to any posters I have quoted, I am not trying to single out your views or judge your contributions as a whole

I dont mind you quoting me...just do so correctly

I certainly don’t see my struggles, say when a manager calls a female ‘emotional’ instead of acknowledging she’s pissed off, or if a male colleague gets more money or favourable treatment because he’s male as having anything to vaguely do with trans.

@Bunnyfuller, do you see the scenarios you describe as having anything to do with sexism, misogyny, sex-based inequality?

If the answers yes, then perhaps you also know, or will be pleased to know, that there are individuals and organisations who work to address this. There are also existing laws that address it, e.g. equality Act 2010.

Those people and organisations who work to address these inequalities often do so via research, and research, including statistics, is essential to ways in which these issues can properly be addressed. If males can lawfully 'identify' as female when and as they choose, then research, stats, etc. get skewed (and certainly not in women's favour). And then we can't name the problem(s), we can't quantify them, we can't properly address them.

So, yes, self-ID, and the replacement of sex with 'gender' does in fact have to do with those 'struggles' you describe.

Haters need to hate.

By having an out group, keyboard warriors get to form an in group. It gives them a sense of belonging; powerful for the disenfranchised and socially awkward loners which the internet attracts.

Frogs

I have started threads on a particular topic and by page 5 they had gone off on a tangent. As the thread starter I took responsibility of asking posters to stay on topic so that a proper discussion could be had.
I never once recieved a poor response to that request so I see no reason why the thread starter could not make the request you suggested.

I certainly don’t see my struggles, say when a manager calls a female ‘emotional’ instead of acknowledging she’s pissed off, or if a male colleague gets more money or favourable treatment because he’s male as having anything to vaguely do with trans.

So you recognise that sex matters? In the world that TRAs are pushing for, nobody's sex will be important, only gender identity. Their aim is to replace the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment with one of 'gender identity' or simply 'gender'. Legally, women will not exist.

This is the aim of self-ID for 'gender', changing a person's legally recognised sex based simply on a self-declared 'gender identity', when there is no way of proving whether they are telling the truth.

Things like the 'gender' pay gap could disappear simply by enough men self-declaring that they are women.

Don't say that it could never happen, because it already has.
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/mexico-elections-fake-transgender-candidates-disqualified

@JulyKit

I’m not going to get into the nitpicking, nor justify my views. Thank you for pointing out the Equality Act. Not patronising at all.

I have said I respect (and do not seek to challenge, or ask you to justify, or try to dismantle) yours.

Please do me the same courtesy.

If we all start demanding that we have forums where only the views we personally want to see or read are posted, there will end up having to be almost as many separate forums as there are members.

When you are sat all alone in your own closed box, will you wonder why nobody ever replies to your posts?

What is the point of any discussion if only the views you want to hear are allowed to be aired?

You could just not go to a forum & stay in your own head, secure that you will not be told anything you don't want to know other people might think.