MN needs a closer watch of FWR

[BodegaSushi]

There is a concerning growth of posts with racist undertones cropping up on these boards, all under the guise of being proudly 'anti-woke'.

Apparently diversity is 'woke' and worthy of derision.

This is the thread I'm referring to here.

Disney went woke now they're going broke www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4836570-disney-went-woke-now-theyre-going-broke

Mumsnet needs to looks at why that board draws such types of posts, and why posters feel so comfortable openly airing their racism.

If another poster posts something that is deleted how responsible do you feel for that post?

He doesn't think he's being racist, he thinks we're being transphobic for not seeing that the problem is "cis men", not trans women.

Then when you start talking about what sort of crimes a disproportionate amount of trans identifying male prisoners have been convicted of, that's a transphobic dog whistle, apparently.

The they do it too, and the we aren’t disproportionately racist are not very good excuses.

Then you'd better find some way of demonstrating your claim if you want it to be taken seriously, because I don't accept that FWR is disproportionately racist on Mumsnet, or compared to any other mainstream talk platform.

I'm not making "excuses". I don't believe what you're saying.

I am sure there are covert racist posters on MN. it would be surprising if there weren't. The difficulty is identify what posts are due to racism v other reasons.

As a way forward to exploring structural racism there is the issue that is frequently talked about on FWR about black women in the UK and US experiencing less prenatal care, being taken less seriously when presenting with pregnancy-related health concerns and being more likely to experience traumatic births with the risk of maternal/infant mortality. I seem to recall reading some concrete evidence regarding this cited on FWR and I think it is appalling and an issue that all feminists should be concerned about.

People had definitive proof that 98% of sexual assault and all rapes were carried out by black people? Because that is "what we are saying" about male people. Sounds like he's a massive racist if he believes that.

Once you see it's all based on, and drenched in, deliberate dishonesty, you can't un-see it.

Exactly. See also "why are you happy for lesbians to be in female spaces". Er, because they are women and have equal rights to access them? It's you who are implying straight women are the default and lesbians have less rights to access their own spaces.

Not sure if this is aimed at me but if so, I didn't say it makes it ok.

I was saying it's a MN issue not an FWR one.

And yes feminists should.
But probably not on the 'sex and gender' board, it should be on the 'feminism chat' board as it isn't a 'sex and gender' issue.
And different feminists can choose to centre different issues.

I'll say it again slowly.

We can actually come up with repeated examples of them doing it.

You refuse to do so. So far the only thing you've come up with has been something quite far fetched about surrogacy, and unless I've missed it, you haven't explained how you think people are supposed to express the view that surrogacy is buying and selling babies in what you consider to be a non racist way.

Can you be explicit?

I have picked up on a few things in pp but can you say more on what is distressing or problematic?

No one has yet answered whether the basic statement you cannot change sex, which underpins FWR, is included or not

There was more to it than that if you read the thread and my summary post.

It was the sum of the parts. Your deconstructing and then only mentioning one small piece of the whole is not an accurate representation.

I have noticed your derisory and condescending tone.

But probably not on the 'sex and gender' board, it should be on the 'feminism chat' board as it isn't a 'sex and gender' issue.
And different feminists can choose to centre different issues.

I'm sure I've seen it on the S&G board which seems to have become by default the more general board (so I have been told).

My point is that I think that it is important for feminists to acknowledge the structural racism that women of non-white ancestry face and as part of our feminism to work to address this. But this is something tangible and not just posturing about language.

Sometimes there is a discussion which can touch on both issues.

For example, one of the worst gender neutral euphemisms for women I have ever seen is "black birthing bodies" in an article about the problem of black women getting substandard maternity care compared to white women.

It's bad enough when the phrase is something like "people with cervixes" or "pregnant people". But why is it that when the women concerned are black, they become "bodies"? How dehumanising.

I suspect that this wasn't done in a deliberate attempt to be racist, it's just that the people who come up with this terminology are so careful about not using words which could offend someone with a particular identity that they completely ignore how the words they have chosen may be offensive to other groups.

So black women at risk of dying in childbirth become "black birthing bodies", presumably in order to avoid hurting the feelings of a hypothetical pregnant adult human female who identifies as a cat or a potato waffle, and almost certainly doesn't actually exist.

Exactly how much of a respectful tone do you think we should use towards a poster whose tone is basically tantamount to defamation?

My point is that I think that it is important for feminists to acknowledge the structural racism that women of non-white ancestry face and as part of our feminism to work to address this. But this is something tangible and not just posturing about language.

YY and I also think it should be on the sex and gender board rather than the low traffic "feminist chat" which is hardly surprising as I was opposed to the split in the first place and my opinion hasn't changed.

'all female people' Except many ethnic people have told you and are trying to tell you that it is a hostile environment for them, a point you conveniently seem to ignore. I haven't missed the point of the board and I say that as a non white biological, British born female. You have missed the point of my post and that of many other ethnic women. This OP wanted to discuss racial undertones and almost everything else has been discussed than the original point. We are happy to discuss protecting the rights of natural born females but women on these boards also need to acknowledge that those rights they wish to protect are often not fully accessible to ethnic women.

For example, one of the worst gender neutral euphemisms for women I have ever seen is "black birthing bodies" in an article about the problem of black women getting substandard maternity care compared to white women.

It's bad enough when the phrase is something like "people with cervixes" or "pregnant people". But why is it that when the women concerned are black, they become "bodies"? How dehumanising.

Yes, there was also a tweet from a charity about "native people with vaginas" or similar, and ironically it was trying to make a point that their experience of being forcibly sterilised (I think) had been erased.

This OP wanted to discuss racial undertones and almost everything else has been discussed than the original point.

Because it was derailed by pro trans posters wanting to talk about opposition to "wokeness" in general.

No, you’ve come up with one example that has been often repeated with the only evidence being hearsay. Which you are happy to take at those posters’ word.

The fact is that most evidence ends up deleted but we saw it, you saw it. But now you’re denying any racism other than racism from your opponents ever existed. For the record, left wing, right wing, TRA, GC don’t matter there are racists on FWR across the board. There is no group immune from it. It is depressing that a thread on racism cannot be hijacked into accusations that it’s all a plot by TRAs or whatever to smear FWR.

The few areas where Black posters say something is racist, but the majority (white) disagree this evidence stays and again, as expected, when I link one example of it, the majority (white) again claim there is nothing racist about it despite all agreeing when “TRAs do it” it is racist.

In the face of such blatant hypocrisy, why would I expect anything different to happen if I link another and another thread? There will always be denial and go find “real” evidence coming from you and others. This is an exhausting cycle and one I am only too familiar with. You refuse to listen.

Because it was derailed by pro trans posters wanting to talk about opposition to "wokeness" in general.

And to be fair to them that's exactly how the OP framed it.

The title of this thread does not suggest that only racism should be discussed. The OP of this thread does not suggest that only racism should be discussed.

I absolutely agree that it is something to discuss. And that there are many specific issues to address.

However, if a person is claiming that it is an issue NOT discussed on the board this thread is about, then that is a falsity.

Whether it should or shouldn’t be discussed on S&G board is a wider discussion. I am open to it because then it gets eyes and traction.

It however doesn’t really fit the narrow scope that the board was restricted to by at least one of the very people complaining on this thread.

👏Great point, which will no doubt spectacularly be missed. Because ethnicity is not as important gender <<sarcasm>>

Hang on, do you think that all posts are put onto every FWR's desk for oversight before they get deleted?

That doesn't actually happen you know. People on FWR have just as much other stuff going on as anyone else. We do not see every single post on every single thread.

The fact is, we are wrong if we report it and wrong if we don't and we apparently are expected to know who is and isn't racist before they post and somehow using the powers of WHITE people stop them from posting racist things.