The KKK is feeling pretty empowered

[Princessconsuelabananahammock9]

This is what happens when a man like Donald Trump gets in power.

These are the people who feel empowered.

While MN celebrates the " only two genders ", people of colour in Kentucky are scared.

I've seen threads on here wishing the UK had Trump. Is this really what you want?

Is this really the type of people you want in power?

Those that voted for Trump over trans issues, what about shit like this? Or women dying from lack of abortion access? Or climate change? Or the casual revisiting of gay marriage rights?

According to GLAAD all resources referencing LGBTQ and HIV have been removed from the White House website. Gay, lesbian, no results come up in the search.

" Pages removed include WhiteHouse.gov’s equity report (no longer accessible), a fact sheet with information on expanding access to HIV prevention and treatment (no longer accessible), and information about LGBTQ Pride Month (no longer accessible). Agency page removals include Department of State’s LGBTQ rights (no longer accessible), and Department of Labor’s LGBTQ workers page (no longer accessible). "

glaad.org/releases/breaking-trump-administration-removes-lgbtq-and-hiv-resources-from-white-house-and-other-government-websites/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/22/kkk-immigrants-flyers-kentucky

This is scary shit. I don't get how any one envies?

Does your last sentence mean don't exclude men from female spaces for any reason other than the safety of women? Because I attend a feminist group that is women only, and it's very helpful for honest discussion and comfort to be able to exclude men. It's not for our safety, but the group would fundamentally change if we were forced to include males.

I'm sure there are lesbian meetups which would similarly not be unsafe if males were allowed, but would very much change the experience of those attending.

Those pushing the ideology were raised in a culture where those were the two options and no stepping outside was allowed. No doubt there's a psychological element at play here in order for them to double down, just on the other side ... you could say that's exactly what they were brought up to do. Not saying it's right, but one would think it's the obvious outcome of strict sex-based rules.

I'm not going to game out every option at 2 in the morning (thunderstorm still going). But I will say a stay at home Dad was excluded from a mum & toddlers group for that very reason, and I thought it was very wrong. Make of that what you will.

I don't think that's true actually. I grew up in the 90s/00s in a left leaning culture where the message was that girls could be anything they wanted (ditto boys).

I don't know what happened to shift this way of thinking. Increased consumerism and the rise of 'boys' and 'girls' items undoubtedly played a part, but the left I knew was always very against this.

Right I'm off. Thunder gone, I can sleep. Been good chatting with you all.

They want their mums and toddlers group to be mums and toddlers only, fine, that's their right! He's welcome to start a dad and toddler group, or join a parent and toddler group.

I'm finding the insistence that women can't have female only spaces unless there's a risk of rape or murder otherwise very telling, and deeply unpleasant.

I was thinking about this when I passed a trans woman the other day. I try not to be judgemental but as I noticed the unkempt hair, the full beard, the flowery dress with thick socks and workmen's boots I immediately thought if you are going to wear dresses why not make an effort and then I thought here I am a gran in her 70s wearing jeans and a jumper desperately in need of a visit to the hairdresser so why don't I make more of an effort. If that man/trans woman or maybe a woman with a full beard is comfortable like that who am I to judge.

I actually ended up admiring them for having the courage to do their own thing.

I used to go to a mums and toddlers group 30 years ago and we had 2 dad's who were regulars. I don't think anyone batted an eyelid back then.

Oh ffs. I went to that group for two years, it would have been fine. The end result was two upset crying kids in the foyer being denied entry to the church's only baby & toddler group - yes it had "Mum" in the title but that's just because no other dad was attending at that time. It wasn't an actual rule until that day. Great example for the kids that, but I guess looking after kids is women's work after all so they should learn early and quick who is welcome where.

And that's fine if that's what the group is. Equally, if mums want a group just for them, they should be able to have one.

My point was that didn't seem like an issue 30 years ago. They were welcomed like any other new parent which just seemed fine. The world has changed.

To be honest in a church hall it wouldn't have felt very Christian to turn another parent away who was just looking for some companionship and adult conversation like the rest of us.

And I would agree that the people in your life are likely not as the historic categorisation would have been. Do you think though that when the category was created that the Samoan society was fully accepting of not only gender non-conforming (as per their own expectations of people’s sex) and homosexual and bisexual people?

I was referring to the leveraging of historic aspects of cultures by people who are using the group’s oppression politically.

I don’t agree with you though that there will be some biological aspect found. Because we already have the means to study this and it has been studied. And also, if this is true that there is a biological element discovered, it will then exclude many people who have declared they are transgender when they don’t have this biological marker. That then will mean there is a group of people who have completely changed their bodies, and their lives based on being something they are not.

Our understanding of our brains and bodies will always evolve, no one is stopping that evolution. But if someone is arguing that there might be something discovered in the future so that means we need to act as if that possibility, however slim or probable, was actually a certainty then I doubt they will now get much support when it comes to the potential of harming women and children in the way prioritising gender over sex when sex matters.

And yet, did you ask others what they felt? And if they didn’t want to accept the father in the group, which person’s needs should be prioritised?

If all of the people agreed to allow the father to join and they changed the name, then sure. No problem.

I can see though that there is a need for it to remain female adult only though if there were breastfeeding mothers there. Or if a mother needed the support of other mothers and they would not have had access to that support if a male person was there. For instance, if they needed to discuss issues they didn’t want a male person to overhear and that was their only access to other mothers. Were you an organiser? Do you know the background of why the group existed ?

The fact that you are questioning this is a new low

And again equally, it would not be very Christian for a male to force his presence on women who didn't want it.

thanks for clarifying. And on this we don’t agree.

And the reason that we won’t agree is that we have already seen how male people have used inclusion such as you describe to leverage their inclusion in female single sex provisions. The narrative is that in all these other aspects of their lives, including pronoun usage, that they have been treated as if they are female, so therefore it is cruel to exclude them from single sex provisions.

I would suggest that the way to tackle situations such as your suggestion would be that where there is no safety or unfair aspect (supported by evidence not just someone’s superficial evaluation) that sex categories be removed.

Why those categories there in the first place should be considered too though. Otherwise it could be a Chesterton’s fence case, where there is a reason for the category to exist but people have either forgotten, didn’t think of it or have an idealistic view that doesn’t match reality, if you understand what I am saying. Again, talking about situations such as your suggestion not specifically your suggestion.

Because believe it or not, I don’t think of myself as a feminist

Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest; it’s perfectly evident that your (so called) “gender critical” beliefs have nothing at all to do with empowering women/ dismantling patriarchy.

Hi, this is the wrong place to post this. You need to start your own thread x

While MN celebrates the " only two genders ", people of colour in Kentucky are scared.
When you allow the language and hard-won rights of oppressed people to be hijacked by anyone who feels like it, you make those words and rights meaningless and it becomes very easy to sweep them all away in one fell swoop. So every 'kind' person who supports men in women's spaces, bringing fetishes to work etc, this is on you.

Oh crap, I'm new 😅

Absolutely agree op

This is indeed true for part of the group who have transgender identities.

However, there are other aspects that motivate different groups. I think though for one group it could be said that the artificial restriction imposed by society that people of one sex act / think a particular way influences people's gender identities. Of course, it must play a part.

This article might be interesting, to those thinking about how other cultures have dealt with gender nonconformity:

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/12/06/the-sex-binary-is-not-a-western-construct-gender-identity-is/

The TLDR is that some cultures have what we might term a third sex category, usually of natal males who don't fit their culture's stereotype of maleness; but none of those cultures believe that the people in that category have changed to the opposite sex. The might be 'non male' in that culture,but that absolutely doesn't make them 'female', and doesn't entitled them to female spaces or words. Other cultures have been used by western gender identity proponents in quite a dishonest way.

I think that the idea that our society has a fixed construction of what male and female interests/ roles/qualities are was changing and had changed - as PP said, when I was growing up the narrative was much more wear what you like, do what you like, boys can be nurses girls can be coppers etc etc. The 'let toys be toys' campaign more recently is an example too. That has massively regressed, to where we are now when dress= female and short hair/fancies girls= male. Gender ideology is very regressive, if you don't stereotype male or female interests, clothes etc you don't have gender as it is now understood; if any type of body can have any interest, wear any clothes, fancy whoever they fancy, what is transition?

There always existed a small number of people with dysphoria and they got long term mental health care and rarely, surgery; but even then it was understood both by the medics and the person that they did not and could not change sex. And female single sex spaces are for safety but not they're not just for safety - they're about enabling women to participate in society as well. Whether that's the Muslim girl only allowed to go to Guides because it's all female, or the woman ducking into the pub ladies' loo to get away from a harassing drunk, or the new mum who only feels she can breastfeed around women. Women deserve our own spaces, not just if we're in danger.

I doubt that you even know what most of my beliefs are or my background, so I am not surprised that you would make such a comment.

I must admit that I have always found your assertion that you are a feminist to be more wishful thinking but then, I also understand that there are different streams of feminism. And you seem to belong to one of those who believe that feminists should work for the progress of all people even when it comes at the expense of female people's needs.

I am all for empowering women and dismantling the patriarchy. I just feel the need to label myself to do so, nor do I feel the need to include a sub group of male people in my efforts, especially when there is evidence that that inclusion is harmful.