Feminism Boards

[Superlambaanana]

Whats the difference between the Feminism Chat board and the Feminism Sex and Gender board?

There's a thread on the Chat board about the Girl Guides' trans policy- surely that should be on the Sex and Gender board? And I see threads about discrimination against women on the Sex and Gender board which aren't related to gender (in the trans sense).

Maybe it doesn't matter.

Or maybe the Sex and Gender board isn't intended to be exclusively about trans issues as feminism is obviously a sex based issue.

Or maybe the trans issue is now so entangled that it's impossible to have a discussion about feminism without referring to it, but I do hope that's not the case!

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a board for trans related discussions and a separate one for all other feminist discussions?

The trans issue takes up a lot of airtime here and seems to be drowning out other discussions about feminism- discrimination, women's rights, women's history, feminist literature etc etc. I'd welcome a break from the constant head fuck of the trans debate which I believe is, in itself, a form of discrimination against women as it is forcing us to spend so much time talking about men's desired rights!

don't plan to start reporting posts and trying to have them moved as I am relatively new and am not clear on why there are two boards if the boards don't have a clear separation of purpose/ focus

We try and separate humans into two categories for the same reason.

Perfectly put.

I think things will be clearer if we replace the term "trans" with "cross sex"

"Cross sex rights", "cross sex healthcare", "cross sex identities"

This makes it easy to differentiate between the rights of trans people to be treated fairly as human beings with resoect to employment, personal safety, choice of clothing etc and the demands for the right of people to be treated as if they were the sex they are not.

But there's no such thing as 'cross sex'.

But the whole point of self-id is that it's NOT about sex, it's about the gender identity you feel, and that is what -literally - makes you a man or a woman.

@Superlambaanana

It's just that I find the two feminism boards confused, with no clear delineation between topics based on the board titles.

This was exactly the argument made by the regular posters when a few people campaigned to split the board. We all agree with you! But they insisted on making a naughty corner.

It doesn't really matter which FWR board you post in as far as I know. When the issue was raised of 'well you'll get people complaining that it's on the wrong section' MN assured us this wouldn't be an issue. That said, threads get shunted off to the S&G section still.

haven't seen anyone defending trans rights on MN yet

Remember trans includes agender and non-binary people. I'm never clear what 'trans rights' means, is it usually a shorthand for 'must be treated as the opposite sex in every circumstance'? because that is a very outdated understanding of what 'transgender' means. And it's insane, no female should be treated as male for e.g. cancer screening, so we need to be clear about exactly what 'trans rights' means, but it's not a movement that likes specifying what anything means so we all just talk in circles until the male people get what they want.

Yes that is my point. Many so-called trans rights are predicated on gender identity but are actually cross sex demands. I think we should use language that makes that visible.

"Trans" heathcare is not general health care for people who happen to have certain gender identities, it is the health interventions and subsequent ongoing care using hormones and surgery to attempt to move the physical sex of the body closer to the opposite sex. It is cross sex health care.

"Trans" rights to use the single sex spaces of their choice are not the right to use a space that aligns with their gender identity because there is no such thing, these spaces predate the construct of gender identity. They were created as single sex spaces. The "right" being demanded is cross sex access to single sex spaces.

If TRAs want sex and gender to be different, let them make the case for rights and protections that have always been sex based to switch to gender basis rather than slipping it in unchallenged under an obfuscation of language.

trans is the only issue facing women and we cannot talk about women unless everyone has first agreed to adopt the same definition for women.

Of course it's hard to talk about something unless we ALL agree on the same definition. It's stupid and pointless otherwise. We all know what a cow is, or a house or a car but we can't say the same for the word woman, and it's especially demoralising when the leader of a main political party can't describe one accurately. You need a starting point before you can discuss fair pay, maternity rights, safety in medical care etc etc.

Exactly. What precisely do you mean when you say "trans rights" @Superlambaanana? Would be helpful.

I don't think we need to wait for agreement on the definition of Woman to deal with the symptoms of sexism and patriarchy, like rape, VAWG, unequal childcare burdens and economic opportunities. We do not want to stop doing things that mainly benefit female people just because the odd trans identifying male may also be included. However, these are practical actions that mainly take place offline, so once a post has been made to signpost something needed or happening, the discussion tends to naturally tail off.

However to understand and tackle the roots causes of these things we do need the language and freedom to publicly discuss the lives and needs of female people, our challenges, needs and aspirations (because woman should have the right not just to be safe but to try and achieve their potential). This is analysis, debate and research as much as practical action and as such does drive longer discussion and is naturally more visible online.

We do not want to stop doing things that mainly benefit female people just because the odd trans identifying male may also be included.

You are misunderstanding the problem. It's a common error. It's not that transwomen themselves are a particular threat, it's that removal of safeguarding for women (ie turning single sex spaces into mixed sex spaces) increases the risk of VAWG from men.

I don't think we need to wait for agreement on the definition of Woman

Why not? We all knew what the word meant twenty years ago. A lot of the general public STILL go by that definition even today. It's even in all the dictionaries that we all use. But when it comes to womens protections, safety, health, research, sport, pay/jobs etc suddenly the definition is blurred. Funny how we all know what the word man means, just not the word woman. Everything will be built on sand unless we take the time to define what was, is, and will be "woman". And "gender" of course.

Way to crop the point of my post :(

I feel very strongly about it. You can't have a meaningful discussion about anything unless you know what it is. Otherwise it's hot air and an utter waste of time, energy and effort on everyone's part. And this is too important for that.

And my point was Yes, the discussion needs clear terms but practical things that support women can still be done even while the definitions are fudged and we should not stop doing them.

For example, a Women in STEM initiative would create new opportunities for women even if it was accessible to trans women as well. If we said we don't think it should happen until the definition of woman is agreed, those opportunities would not be created. Idealy yes, 100% of the opportunities should be for women as you and I understand it, but I'd rather see women get 90% than 0% which is what happens if we stop any support of women until the definition of woman is agreed.

Not doing something that will benefit a target group out of fear cheats will benefit too is not always the best strategy for the target group.

You're ok with women giving up 10% of what is theirs. Where do you draw the line, 20%, 50%? It's this 'kindness' and tolerance which has got us into this mess in the first place. No. If you a man stay away from women's spaces, sports, awards, refuges, etc. It's that bloody simple.

I will fight for the recognition of women as a sex class and the case for 100%.

In the meantime I also recognise that 90% is better than 0%. I do not accept trans women are women but I will not cut off my nose to spite my face by rejecting real world support that will in practice benefit women.

It's not kindness or tolerance, it's bloody minded practicality.

So this is interesting. What you're saying is that the two boards aren't to separate topics, but to separate two feminist factions?!

Right, so I now realise I have inadvertently waded into and/ or reignited a dispute between two factions - who are divided across two boards, but also appear to be divided on whether it is ok to discuss women's rights before everyone, everywhere has been forced to agree on a single, universal definition of the word 'woman'.

I do believe that there is only one way to define a woman and anyone who thinks that definition can include men or penises is nuts.

But I do not believe we have to pause the wider debate about women's rights until such times as the trans debate has reached some kind of agreement- which it never will of course, or everyone has signed up to a single definition of 'woman'.

Frankly, if feminists can't join together to defend women's rights and are being divided into two boards/ factions by nonsense issues like these, then I really am depressed.

The two definitions are mutually exclusive.

I honestly am coming to the view that MNers aren't helping the trans issue at all because the boards are all over the place, and the threads are really just a lot of hand wringing and over exaggeration, resulting in a blurring of the actual issues, leaving room for prevarication and misdirection. Which is exactly what the trans lobby wants.

I did have a bit of a grim smile at 'hand wringing and over exaggeration'.

The recently published book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' lays out in stark detail why Scottish women in particular have serious concerns how all sorts of women's rights/representation/services up here have been affected by institutional ideological capture.

But I do not believe we have to pause the wider debate about women's rights until such times as the trans debate has reached some kind of agreement- which it never will of course, or everyone has signed up to a single definition of 'woman'.

Can I ask where you have gotten the idea that anyone wants to "pause the wider debate"? I don't think anyone does, and I've been here years.

Yes you'll get some random MNer posting any thing they've read about any trans person on the S&G board but you'll get someone different discussing points of law, and others too discussing a child who wants to transition, others wondering if they're agender because they don't feel they have a gender identity, others discussing male crimes. It's not a hive mind.

I wonder if OP had read any of the older threads about what is happening to lesbian spaces?

Frankly, if feminists can't join together to defend women's rights and are being divided into two boards/ factions by nonsense issues like these, then I really am depressed.

@Superlambaanana I think you've had the origins of the two boards explained in some detail now. Can you explain what you mean in this sentence? Again - most people here did not ask for not agree with the split.

If the fact that there are two URLs to post on depresses you then take it up with MN but it's literally just that. You don't have to "choose a side" that matches your personality. It's not two teams, it's not warring factions, it was some idea that got pushed through.

In fact we even asked to make the two boards extra linked by having a link to the other one at the top (other boards don't or didn't have that). This was granted, so people can navigate between them more easily.

Personally I tend to post on whatever interesting thread title comes up in Active, then I might click through to whatever board it's on.

Right, so I now realise I have inadvertently waded into and/ or reignited a dispute between two factions

Actually I see why you might think this from this thread but it was two or three posters who came onto FWR (no idea if they were previously regulars) asking for a split because they didn't like how it was and felt they couldn't post. I don't even know if they've stuck around since then.

It would be like if I went into Style and Beauty and asked for it to be split into "style" and "beauty", a few others going "yes please, make-up is a huge waste of money and upholds unrealistic beauty standards, I don't want to read about it when asking where to buy T-shirts" and then MN splitting it because why not?