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.

I'm quite surprised by posters saying that we don't need to define 'woman' when talking about feminist issues because everyone just knows what we really mean (in a nudge nudge wink wink sort of way).

Because yes, we do know - but we can't write it out in words on MN because if it gets reported it'll get deleted.

Socalm

I don't need government approval to be a feminist. People can use words however they like, the same issues will exist.

You sort of do, though.

For instance, because of sexism, all women shortlists were designed for political representation. (I don't think they are legal elsewhere, because they are discriminatory against men).

The idea was to get more women into Parliament. (I believe the policy has a finite life time, as it was thought it would work effectively and could be dispensed with after 30 years).

As you would expect, they are for women only. Except now men can legally be women. And as such, they are accepted onto all women shortlists.

Jeremy Corbyn was so gung ho about it, he decided to be 'ahead of the law' and allowed men who identified as women, but were still legally male (i.e. no legal gender change), to also be on all women shortlists.

The upshot of this is that you could, quite legally, be claiming to tick your diversity box, whilst your Parliament was made up entirely of men. Or board. Or union.

And, it's no good saying it won't happen. Because you have no legal recourse to think it won't. Other than feminists fighting tooth and nail to reverse it.

They have already lost in the case of Lilly Maddigsn. A 19-year-old male born individual, fresh out of school, and whose Twitter described them as Jimmy Savile's apprentice, was appointed Labour Party's woman officer.

The remit was to encourage as many women into the party as possible. Whilst Lily set up a secret Facebook group to oust as many women as possible who didn't agree that transwomen are actually woman. Lily has never been sanctioned for this. Quite the opposite.

These aren't isolated incidents. I've used them because political representation is what gives women power. Without the means of attaining it, that power disappears very quickly.

Without people invested in women's issues, like abortion, maternity leave, outlawing FGM, talking about them, or raising them in parliament, you have no voice.

If feminism can be destroyed so easily with just a spot of semantics indeed, why bother.

Because it can. Yes, the issues will remain, but you won't be able to say they affect women, because they're women.

Sexual abuse of girls in school is a national scandal. One girl is raped, in school, every school day. But because of the shift to detach the words female/girl/women, from these issues, it's already being called peer on peer assault. Which disguises the power dynamic and the actual problem.

If you think things like maternity leave, FGM, gender pay gap, abortion rights, sexual harassment, rape, are issues that affect people, then yes, you talk about them individually, 'people who get pregnant'.

You could continue to raise them individually, but that doesn't connect them. The reason why FGM happens to girls, the reason why rape happens to girls, the reason why forced marriage happens to girls, the reason why trafficking happens to girls - is because they are treated as 'lesser than', in a sexist society. No one is forcing 8 year old boys to marry middle-aged women. Or cutting their genitals so they can't enjoy sex.

Without that connection that these are female issues, you can't have feminism.

Words matter. And when you see campaigns gaining power to remove the word female from FGM, because boys' circumcision is comparable, you begin to see a pattern emerging.

TFUFamily Taking a space that other people are comfortable in and telling those people they can only share if they shut up and accept the new narratives. Now, who does that remind you off?

GC feminists on the FWR board is who it reminds me of.

That FWR board used to be a mixed, vibrant board with a wide variety of feminist discussion that drew posters and readers from across the mn user base.

Now it’s not, because GC feminists have driven out posters with dissenting viewpoints, literally by telling them they are not welcome there any more, and that the board is for GC women.

Agree completely Retrofitted

"Now it’s not, because GC feminists have driven out posters with dissenting viewpoints, literally by telling them they are not welcome there any more, and that the board is for GC women."

If you literally see this, you need to report it obviously. That is bullying. Personally I haven't seen it though.

But if you just leave because you feel like you're being "attacked" or whatever, I don't even know what to say to you because you can't really police how other people talk and I see a lot of people claiming to be attacked when they're actually just being disagreed with.

Datun wonderfully put.

👏👏👏

Retro and auntie if you find FWR not to your taste, why not post on one of the other feminist boards here?

There are four, all seemingly more centrist than FWR. So why not post there?

reasons other anti-FWR posters have given:

• no one posts there (tumbleweed)
• people do post there so they not empty spaces to fill

What are your reasons?

exactly @Datun

if people who are men can take spaces designated for women by simply declaring they are a woman, then really what is the fucking point?

👏👏 Datun

Kit19

Exactly.

You have to wonder about the cognitive dissonance when the leader of the opposition identifies a need for women only train carriages - and simultaneously supports a law that says any man can enter them.

A law. No recourse.

This sexual offender was described in the press as a woman. If this is a 'woman', then the word has lost all meaning...

Person I am not portraying those other four feminist boards as empty spaces.

I portray them as being largely (not wholly) free of the bolshy kind of FWR poster who some people on this thread dislike.

Why should FWR posters modify their behaviour to suit you? FWR is the third most successful board on MN... A lot of women like it as is.

So why don’t those who dislike it, engage in another feminist board here?

This is the article

www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/dartmouth-woman-awaits-sentencing-for-sexually-assaulting-care-giver-402700/?fbclid=IwAR1vxzizfed49ML5s02m8fMeuOrpzgiVWYRL2mZUxlXE5zOis5dgBiIriJo#.Xi95DRVkueQ.twitter

2B, looked at from another angle, why should all the posters who had been using FWR happily for years shut up and go away?

The persistent denial that there is an issue with FWR (“I haven’t seen it” “do report it”) is tedious, and demonstrably wrong.

It’s been heading that way over the past few years, and now seems intractable. MNHQ have publicly acknowledged it and asked several times now that differing views be tolerated.

theflushedzebra

No, don't hold your breath, Desiree - my post was my own reaction to your posts on this thread and I stand by it

I had barely posted and said nothing remotely resembling the words you put in my mouth. Your reaction is very odd- do you often react so irrationally?

What do you want then? Spell it out
Why do you assume I want anything? I've not said anything to support the OP's position. And as for "spell it out" -get off your high horse.

So you think the OP is being reasonable or unreasonable?

If you had actually read my posts you would know the answer so your demand will be ignored.

theflushedzebra

I'll also add that my post included a question mark - so it was a question to you.

theflushedzebra

I'll also add that my post included a question mark - so it was a question to you

Er yes, except your question was completely irrelevant and irrational as it was predicated on my having said something existing only in your imagination. You created a straw man which I didn't say and demanded an answer.

It's true there used to be a lot of women on FWR who'd have described themselves (if distinction was necessary) as 'liberal feminists' , in no way 'radical', not 'trans exclusionary', but critical of gender stereotypes and enforced roles - that kind of thing. (Do any feminists not critique gender, explicitly or implicitly?)

And to a very large extent those women are still there. It's trans activism, #nodebate elsewhere, ROGD, self ID etc which has caused the changes in FWR.

MNHQ have publicly acknowledged it and asked several times now that differing views be tolerated.

How are they not tolerated though?

Are posters on FWR just meant to sit in silence and not question or debate somebodies pov if they post it?

When you post you open yourself up to others who may agree with you or may challenge you. If only agreeing is allowed then what's the point?

Do any feminists not critique gender, explicitly or implicitly?

That's a question I'd like to see answered by those 'feminists' who say they're not 'gender critical'? How do you describe yourselves? Gender tolerant? Gender endorsing? Gender celebrating?

Feminism could be described as a movement which rejects gender stereotypes and gender roles. How can you be a non gender-critical feminist?

Nobody posts on those boards. They are full of tumble weed.

You could change that. There's no point in creating a new feminist board for people who don't like the current active one when there are several existing feminist boards which are hardly used.

Yes! Am I missing something because surely, if those who for various reasons don't want to discuss and debate with those of us who want to discuss trans ideology, all go and post on another board, together, and debate, those other threads will start to fill up rapidly.

Surely? This really shouldn't be so difficult.

I'm aware others have asked this yet it's still not been answered. Which leads me to ask - what exactly do you want if it's not that? Because the only remaining conclusion is you just want GC posters to bugger off. And surely that can't be it?!

Yes it is quite bizarre -

OP starts a thread asking for GC posters to be shunned to a new board just for them where they can all viper-like and leave other posters to it. Lots of alternative boards in existence which don't have the same posters on as frequently, therefore making them ideal places available for other posters to go to if they want to avoid interactions with GC types.

GC posters suggest that other posters start other threads that interest them, potentially on those boards.

Other posters don't want to do this as they feel GC posters would stalk them there and talk trans when not appropriate. Also those threads are too quiet.

And we end up in a weird loop. With both sets of posters interacting in a civilised fashion. But still no further toward an outcome.

@Retrofitted So fucking complain about it then!!!

If someone is a dick or makes me feel shouted down, I either tell them to fuck off and move on to debating with more reasonable people or I report them.

It is an online forum. No one can actually shout you down or talk over you because everyone has the same space.

If not a lot of people are coming to support the views you have, maybe it's because you have a minority view.

10 or so years ago, I was also of the "sex positive, sex work is real work" type. Got my arse handed to me several times on here and thank God I did really, but I didn't whine and complain that the big bad nasty radfems were being horrible to me. I just debated.

No one can actually shut you up on here, you know? Just keep arguing your point. What is the worst they can do, type at you??

I'm not quite sure why the location of the new board is important? Can someone enlighten me?

It might be the way I navigate the site, but I don't have a structure in my head about where stuff is. I just go to the stuff I'm interested in.

Is space important? If it is, I don't understand why.

There are four other feminist boards. Could one be merged slightly with another, or renamed?

As I said on site stuff, I think there are two motivations at work at the same time. It's very clear, to me at least, that certain people are genuinely interested in talking about feminism, but without the overlay of gender identity (whether one thinks that's possible or not). But others are just interested in stopping people from doing the same.

I don't know how anyone can read Datuns post at 08.15 and not realise why this is so important and why women care so much.

It seems that most posters who disagree with GC views or talking about them, have that opinion because it's (men in rape centres etc) never happened to them, which comes across as quite self-absorbed. They don't seem to have anything to say about women this is happening to, never mind what it will mean for all women on a wider scale. I don't know how a board excluding the experiences of the women who are already or have already suffered can be called feminism.