New sub-section please?

[RatRolyPoly]

Hello MNHQ, may I gently put forward the idea of a new Libfem sub-section please? I don't know if the idea has been floated before so I'm not sure what appetite there would be for it, if any at all, but in the interests of feminism being accessible to all women and for the benefit of all women I'd like to raise my hand in favour.

By "all women" I primarily mean women such as myself, who would appreciate a section on Mumsnet to discuss feminist and women's issues without what is serving to all intents and purposes as "entry criteria" on the existing board; that being the obligation to deny the legally recognised genders of a group of individuals - contrary to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

This situation, I believe, has become the case due to prevalence of a certain brand of feminism having become overrepresented on this board, but serves the purpose of excluding and silencing the valid views of many women and feminists.

I'm not attempting in any way to discredit or silence the position of this current majority, merely to suggest that a specific board is needed to enable the voices of liberal feminists to be heard; not least by each other, in order to discuss the ongoing struggles faced by women in today's society.

Cheers.

Very long post incoming as I have gone over past posts with a fine toothed comb now, so apologies

I would like this because I feel some MN users would appreciate a way to raise topics and discussions in the context of liberal - as opposed to broad-based or any other - feminism.

This makes no sense to me tbh. There is no need to bring up certain topics 'in tyhe context' of a particular branch of feminism? Why would there be? Bring up the topic if you want to discuss the topic. But all feminists, indeed all people, are free to reply if they want to.

But on a subsection someone could specifically target a question - about porn for example - to liberal feminists

People could do this anyway.

'Liberal feminists, what are your views on porn' as a thread title, for example. Yes people who are not libfems will probably reply. But, such is the nature of a dicussion forum with different views and not an echo chamber.

(yes, with the trans debate so widely discussed on the main board most likely being one of the reasons) you're not all that likely to stumble across more than a hadful of liberal feminists on the general board right now.

Totally disagree. From what I see, liberal feminists are by FAR the majority on the boards. Just many of the libfems are gender critical also. So while you seem to think that the board if overrun by radfems just because many posters can see an issue with the trans agenda...this is simply false. There seems to be the assumption that only radfems think sex is important (and indeed that sex is the basis of womens oppression) but this is totally wrong.

Sorry on closer reading this entire thread does seem to be a bit of a 'you big meanies, I want people to stop talking about trans issues'. I would love to stop talking about trans issues, its getting very tiresom. However, whilst trans issues actually threaten womens rights directly right now, trans issues are extremely important and cannot just be ignored.

If you disagree with what is being discussed there then of course you can come on there and argue your point of view. If people counter argue and you don't have anything to come back with, then, we'll... That's what debate is about isn't it?

No, it seems many posters view people disagreeing with them as attacking. If a few posters disagree thatn its a pile on. Rather than being in the minority opinion. I find that odd. Its kind of like those who will make AIBU threads, get a bunch of YABU replies, and flounce, then ask for the thread deleted as people disagreed with them. A discussion forum is really not the right place for peopl;e who cannot handle different opinions. Maybe a invite only facebook group or something where people who express the 'wrong' opinions can be banned or something.

see how long it takes to descend into "the defense of liberalism within feminism", so not leaving much time to discuss any practical feminist issues at all.

Again, surely the point of a dicussion board is to discuss your opinions though. And yes, that would mean defending them too. Even to other 'libfems'. This idea that libfems agree on all topics is frankly, bizzarre. As is this idea that people disagreeing with you is them attacking, which seems to have cropped up a fair bit over the past few days (not specifically you, a few of the new posters)

I know very little about feminism academically and the labels attached to it. Is the suggestion that radical feminism does not believe that men who have self identified as women are women and liberal feminists would believe this? I would state I am a liberal rather than a radical person, I am really not radical at all and am rather surprised that believing the first statement makes someone radical? I may have totally misunderstood the situation as I have no background in using these terms.

And THIS is the problem with this suggested liberal feminism/radical feminism split. When the real reason for the request is about trans threads. Many many liberal feminists also see a problem with the whole thing. So a seperate liberal feminist section would still be dominated by trans threads, until such a time as the transactivists stop aggressively pushing for the removal of womens rights, and the political parties wake the fuck up and stop burying their heads in the sand.

It seems you can give as good as you get and I suggest you keep contributing when you have something to contribute and don't write off MN as only inclusive of trans-critical posters

Indeed. Honestly, I don't understand this assumption that people in the fmeinism section do not want pro-trans people to post. I see people constantly asking pro-trans posters to stick around and discuss their views, but they tend to post 'transphobes' and then diddle off. Or will totally avoid anything at all that they are asked, and then accuse posters of a pile on. I am sorry, but if I had a strongly held view..I would be able to explain why I had that view. I would not take people challenging me on that view as a personal attack, why on earth would I? I find that so strange. I have minority views on a lot of topics. I am a regular on another forum that is/was mainly pro-trans (less so now, since people started actually reading my posts instead of denouncing me as a bigot though..I have peaked maybe half of them so far) and at one stage I had near the whole forum firing questions at me and...its fine. I didn't accuse them of being bullies. I do not flounce. As I expected to be challenged for my views and could defend my position. I understand that others have a different opinion, and posting that different opinion is not hate. And them asking me why I hold my opinion, is not bullying.

You could start a thread in feminism where you coherently put across your arguments for trans women being actual women.

I would genuinely love someone to do that. I would. All there ever seems to be is insults and flouncing. Or admitting they can see the issues, but why asking can't we all just be nice.

2With a subforum, if there's a thread on, say, legalising prostitution (Note: there is no single libfem view on the subject); whilst there may be however many posters saying "never, no way, terrible thing to do" and however many posters saying "yeah actually, I think that makes things safer for everyone", you won't get five pages of people saying "anyone who thinks this is a good idea is no feminist" and stifling debate on the actual topic. Because, you know, the very fact of a Libfem section kind of legitimises the idea that you can indeed still be a feminist but not subscribe to every or any one "feminist" point of view!"

I see. I think you are vastly overstating the amount of posters who would actually say such a thing, tbh. I have seen people say stuff like that, but its actually really rare (unless I am on the wrong threads). As such, I really do not see how a thread about legalizing prositituion would need to go into its own subforum rather than the feminism section in general.

That was just an example of how a thread might go differently when contextualised in a different space Quentin, that's all. No doubt you're right that a certain kind of man sees such topics as an open invitation.

No doubt you're right that a certain kind of man sees such topics as an open invitation.

I actually specifically avoid any threads about prostitution, porn of lapdancing, because of the men it attracts. I used to think that people were overreacting about it, but no, definitely not.

porn OR lapdancing, even

I really like this idea. There are so many threads in the Feminism section solely focused on how "trans women aren't real women" that I daren't go over there to discuss anything relating to feminism now, mostly because a) I do wholeheartedly support trans people and I find it so incredibly depressing to see all the hostility and unkindness surrounding them, and b) it's all so focused on that, there's no room to discuss anything else. I agree that a sub forum that's declared a "trans-safe space", or that at least calls for an embargo on bashing trans folk, might leave more room for other topics to be discussed.

Fab idea OP

Hmm, OnTheList, I was initially torn as to how to respond to your post, but to offer a retort to every point I feel would not help. That's because I think we're talking at cross-purposes here and I think that can be highlighted in your very first response:

Me: I would like this because I feel some MN users would appreciate a way to raise topics and discussions in the context of liberal - as opposed to broad-based or any other - feminism.

This makes no sense to me tbh

That's the thing, THIS is the point. If I can't convince you that the context within which you frame a debate is important, that it impacts how a thread might go, that if affects who might see it in the first place and what type or mix of posters might respond on it, well that's why we don't and can't agree. Because my case rests on that. That and almost only that.

Almost everything else - the trans stuff in particular - that's a debate for another day on another thread; I assure you I do not want a one-sided area for trans debate. This is not about the trans debate. But I will be having that debate on the feminist section in due time, and I'll see you there

I say almost, because the other thing I wanted to pick up on was your saying liberal feminists are not as underrepresented on the main board as one might think. This made me think, and you may well be right; maybe you are, maybe you're not. But in the very simplest and most unscientific terms possible, would you say the "vibe" in the main Feminist forum is what you would describe as "liberal"? I'll leave it to you to think whether or not that would have any practical effect on the people and the posts you find on there.

a sub forum that's declared a "trans-safe space", or that at least calls for an embargo on bashing trans folk, might leave more room for other topics to be discussed.

Thank october. Whilst I'm not sure a trans-safe space is enforceable, I think a sub-forum which encourages liberals into in and validates a liberal approach can only result in a more liberal tone!

Just concretely, I don't think subforums here effectively create context. I almost only find interesting threads by looking at Active, and I'm not going to post different opinions depending on the subforum where a particular thread is. (Though it's possibly that might influence which nn I use ;-) )

I agree about scanning Active for things I might be interested in or know about relax, I definitely do that too regardless of where they're placed. However, I do go and search out specific forums when I'm desperate to MN and there's nothing for me in Active! So I trawl the Allergies board in particular at the moment because there's often loads of relevant stuff there for me, and the chances of me catching it on Active are slim.

Also when it comes to posting threads, I always try and target my questions to a particular audience. Particularly in the Property forum lately; I'm looking for a specific type of person to see it, although responses are welcome from all corners and frequently you get excellent advice form unexpected quarters, but I want to make sure the people who might spend their spare time trawling Property will see my post directed at them.

I agree that a sub forum that's declared a "trans-safe space", or that at least calls for an embargo on bashing trans folk, might leave more room for other topics to be discussed.

Thats not what the OP is asking for though, apparently. Its nothing to do with trans threads.

But in the very simplest and most unscientific terms possible, would you say the "vibe" in the main Feminist forum is what you would describe as "liberal"?

Generally, taking trans threads out of account (as gender critical libfems exist) I would honestly say its about 50/50. Obviously a lot of trans threads exist, and if you are going to say that the only people with issues on that topic are radfems then you would think that radfems outnumber liberal feminists a lot though.

Also sorry for the length of that post before rat..I knew it was longer than my usual ones but did not know quite how much longer until i pressed send lol

I agree that a sub forum that's declared a "trans-safe space", or that at least calls for an embargo on bashing trans folk, might leave more room for other topics to be discussed.

I'd point out that there are a number of "out" trans posters on the Feminism Chat boards who feel welcomed and able to post about their experiences and views. Feminism Chat is not a TRA safe space, perhaps, but it's not fair to characterise it as a "dangerous" place for trans men and women

Thats not what the OP is asking for though, apparently. Its nothing to do with trans threads.

Nope, but I don't mind hearing what other people want, or indeed what one might hope for in a liberal sub-forum.

Obviously a lot of trans threads exist, and if you are going to say that the only people with issues on that topic are radfems then you would think that radfems outnumber liberal feminists a lot though.

I'm not saying only radfems feel that way - of course many, many liberal feminists feel that way too (although I have no idea how many, not least because I think there are a lot of liberal feminists silenced on the subject by the prevailing views) - but what i think is that I climate of liberalism is missing in the current Feminism section; and I think an alternative space would be really beneficial for Liberal Feminists.

Don't worry about the post, I just didn't want to offend you if I didn't take it point by point, but between us I think we could have hit the word count for our debut novel

Well despite my loads of extra words on the topic since my first post, I still do think if theres a demand then fair enough. I just really really do not see how it would work or quite who would decide which topics/posts are suitably liberal and what would happen if someone who had some liberal beliefs took home there so to speak but then posted some of their less liberal threads also. If that makes sense

I think sometimes I do not understand the difference between liberal and radical feminism if I am honest. To me, something like the Nordic model would be both radical and liberal. Radical as its more..to the root cause of womens oppression, and liberal as it does not hold back a womans right to chose that 'career' for herself as its making her choices legal, but criminalizing the men. But to modern day liberals, this would be unsuitable, as it makes the men in the wrong. But surely, it is the behaviour/views of men that keep women oppressed and treat like shit. So, the men (as a class, not all men etc) have to change somewhere along the line. We cannot just ask them to be nice. That does not work, clearly.

Either way, good luck with your request I guess :)

onthelist

I really liked your post at 19:04

Really well thought out whether all the points are agreed with or not

OnTheList I’m another one saying your post of 19:04 was a great. I think like you my views probably cover the whole spectrum of feminism- so ask me my view on one topic and you will form one opinion, ask on another and you might form the opposite.

Where we disagree is that I am less charitable on if there is demand then fair enough set up the sub forum (not that I can stop it if HQ want it). I think the whole request, despite all the long and obscure analogies, has been to get an area where being critical of the trans agenda is not tolerated. I believe most posters on Mumsnet are liberal feminists, even if they don’t spend hours debating it - they just live their lives. What is happening is that more and more people are becoming aware of the TRA and are realising the pitfalls with selfID.

I suspect far more people are silenced for fear of being labelled transphobic than are silenced for fear that their feminist views will be shouted down.

I think the whole request, despite all the long and obscure analogies, has been to get an area where being critical of the trans agenda is not tolerated.

You're wrong.

I suspect far more people are silenced for fear of being labelled transphobic than are silenced for fear that their feminist views will be shouted down.

Not on Mumsnet they're not.

I suspect far more people are silenced for fear of being labelled transphobic than are silenced for fear that their feminist views will be shouted down.

I’ve hidden every single feminist board and it’s not because of transphobia.

Trans does seem to dominate feminism chat. You'd almost think that every other issue affecting women such as violence, pay gap, maternal discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, health discrimination, child care issues etc had been solved. It's important to discuss trans issues and how they affect women but it dominates feminism chat.

You'd almost think that every other issue affecting women such as violence, pay gap, maternal discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, health discrimination, child care issues etc had been solved

Yeah I understand that. But the issue is, the selfID thing is so important. Basically if it does go through, everything you mention, is unmeasurable as sex is meaningless. When sex is meaningless, sexism does not exist, its just people (with penises) discriminating against people (with vaginas) but we cannot actually name it. Male violence just becomes violence. If female violence is still measured, male violence is added into it as those men say they are women, so it looks like female violence is on the rise, females are suddenly raping and such. Its all a bit mental to me tbh, And all seeimgly from nowhere at all. Someone has been working hard somewhere along the line to get it to this stage on the stealth

Its annoying that trans is dominating everything. But its so important that I do realise why its dominating everything.

Quite honestly, if people think self-id is a good idea, then I would love them to come onto feminist chat and argue why this is so. Because at the moment I am slightly panicking that the word 'woman' will become totally meaningless and all the work done by women over the last 50-150 years will be completely undone.

So if someone can reassure me that this whole thing is a super idea then, seriously, I will take it. Please!

Yes please. The transbashing stops me looking at any feminism thread and, given that equality for women should be something this board strives for, there should be feminism threads that are welcoming and encourage people to read further.

But the issue is, the selfID thing is so important. Basically if it does go through, everything you mention, is unmeasurable as sex is meaningless. When sex is meaningless, sexism does not exist, its just people (with penises) discriminating against people (with vaginas) but we cannot actually name it. Male violence just becomes violence. If female violence is still measured, male violence is added into it as those men say they are women, so it looks like female violence is on the rise, females are suddenly raping and such

This^ This is why there are so many trans threads.

When sex is meaningless, sexism does not exist, its just people (with penises) discriminating against people (with vaginas) but we cannot actually name it. Male violence just becomes violence. If female violence is still measured, male violence is added into it as those men say they are women, so it looks like female violence is on the rise, females are suddenly raping and such.

Totally. How do we talk about maternity rights, childbirth, childcare and pregnancy when mentioning our genitalia and uteruses is triggering? How do we talk about the gender pay gap if we can't distinguish between men and women?

I would really like an answer because this is something I've struggled to get my head around numerous times

Does anybody posting on this thread saying yes please to a libfem forum even know what radfem actually is?

Because I do. And I post in FWR. And I can categorically say that most of the people posting there are not radfems.

I'm not radfem. I'm not libfem either. I suppose you could say that I'm radfem adjacent because I have a structural (radfem) and not an individual (libfem) analysis. But there is loads in radfem that I don't subscribe to.

This request is a cipher for the trans issue. Nonsense to suggest it's not.

This This is why there are so many trans threads^

The number of trans threads is a recent thing - completely co-inciding with the massive push to self-id - ie. it's a time sensitive, hugely important to the rights of women, issue.

You'd almost think that every other issue affecting women such as violence, pay gap, maternal discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, health discrimination, child care issues etc had been solved

Well, if self-id comes in, we'll never know, because we won't have any way to know if the people being discriminated against are the people formally known as women or not - which is why it's so pressing to talk about.

Roly - I'm clearly as thick as Bertrand, because I just don't get the analogies. Can you give a concrete example of something that you want to discuss in a liberal context? Because vegans and shoes is just confusing...

And I don't think that Betrand has anything to concede - since your memory of what was actually said was very dodgy, and turned what was a rude comment into a downright insulting one and you didn't see the difference - what else are you reading and entirely mis-construing!