FWR

[MarsScarlet]

FYI: I've name changed for this to avoid a pile-on.

This post is about the overwhelming negativity and hostility with the FWR board that new posters and posters with a differing viewpoint face if they attempt to use the board.

There is a persistent group within the board that are, to put it simply, hateful towards others. Despite posting there on and off for more than 4 years, I have never felt welcome, despite not holding any particular extreme views or being abusive to others. Without exception, I am accused of being another poster, or a man, a TRA, or some kind of paid activist. This occurs again and again until I leave a thread in frustration.

I’ve seen this happen to many other new posters. Few return. Why would they? Such an acidic atmosphere doesn’t encourage healthy discussion. I’d just like to discuss women’s rights, but this board makes discussion impossible.

I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, except for @MNHQ to request the board to tone down the rhetoric a bit and back off on any new names they may see on the board. Let people engage with you rather than actively drive them away.

Well as the OP hasn't been seen for a while...

None of the things you have said make any sense at all UNLESS you redefine the word woman to include some men.

You don’t get to do that. When people try and redefine my word, I’m going to fight against it.

Exactly. "Most vulnerable women" my arse. Women are the most vulnerable women. Adult human female people.

someone tried to re rail this post which pisses me off something chronic.

I bought some Jaffa cakes today and they have definitely shrunk i could just about manage half moon but total eclipse was too tempting….

Can you tell us EXACTLY what the transphobic rhetoric is that is regurgitated. Oh and the bigotry too if you get a chance. What are these bigoted things that the women on FWR are saying?

I personally am happy to be disagreed with if the person who is disagreeing with me can do more than call me names or accuse me of thinking things I don't think or can refrain from calling me a bigot just because I disagree with them.

ETA, I can now see you've posted further after this post, so you may have answered the above.

I'm going to categorically state, right now, that any attempt to compel or shame women to share spaces with men when they are vulnerable and feel violated by it is misogyny. So don't bother with the accusations of "transphobia" if you're a misogynist. I'm not interested. Misogynistic people are bigots in exactly the same way as "transphobes". If you talk to women who are speaking up for their rights to privacy and dignity like something you scraped off the bottom of your shoe, you are unquestionably a misogynist. Hope that's crystal.

Safeguarding relies on knowing sex and age.

No one would think it was safe to allow a 5 year old girl to undress in the same room as an adult male stranger. Both in terms of potential imminent danger to the girl, and normalising the situation - just because one man might be safe others wont be - the girl needs to be aware of normal and not normal situations.

Given this, and given no human can change sex, why is it unreasonable to say no adult males in female spaces?

Does it bother anyone that men who claim to have a female gender identity get to ignore safeguarding because transphobia is seen as worse to some people?

When you suggest trans women shouldn’t have access to women’s spaces, you’re denying their identity and reducing them to some imagined "threat." That’s transphobic.

Humans CANNOT change sex therefore, logically, transwomen are biological men and THAT is why they shouldn't be in (biological) women's spaces.

However you lost all credibility with this. Why do it?

blownawaybyit · Today 21:20
AccidentallyWesAnderson · Today 21:17
Derail from what?
Show quote history
Shh, the grown-ups are talking.

Ah @Boiledbeetle I was just thinking about you as I was reading this thread and thinking about our lovely threads. Can I offer you a teacake, snowball or caramel wafer? I personally feel the need and I've only read up yo 11.30am. I flipped the thread to see where we were up to and saw that we were right where I suspected we would be. Do you feel a poem coming on? I think I might 😁

@Ereshkigalangcleg totally agree

The poster did actually attempt to explain, which is admirable, I think -

“When you suggest trans women shouldn’t have access to women’s spaces, you’re denying their identity and reducing them to some imagined "threat." That’s transphobic.

When you lump all trans women into a category of "males" invading sports or spaces, you’re promoting harmful stereotypes. That’s bigotry.

When you throw around terms like "ideology" to describe basic human rights and dignity, it’s dehumanising.”

So in a nutshell, men should have access to women’s spaces and sports because denying them their identity overrides and is more important than woman’s rights to dignity and safety and promoting harmful stereotypes (fuck actual stats eh) is bigotry. The last point didn't make much sense to me.

Wholeheartedly agree. Although I do have a soft spot for a good parking thread too.

Yes, I'd like to thank that person actually for clarifying so admirably to any lurkers what the problem is.

Women wanting spaces free from men when we are vulnerable or need privacy and dignity is the majority view.

I find it PAINFUL that people lack knowledge on the most basic principles of safeguarding.

The entire thread is based on the premise that women are nasty, bigoted and unkind if they complain when they're being abused.

I wonder why MNHQ have not moved this thread over to FWR

Maybe what FWR is lacking is a more feminist analysis of parking disputes.

With diagrams, natch.

We cant allow men to circumnavigate sex based safeguarding because they could be considered marginalised in other situations.

Lots of men are marginalised - old, disabled, those without good english.

Its trying to compensate one issue with a totally unrelated one.

You claim to want “open and honest debate,” but where’s the honesty in pretending trans inclusion erases women’s rights? Where’s the openness when your version of “safe spaces” inherently excludes some of the most vulnerable women?

Including men - which transwomen are as it is impossible to be a transwoman unless you are male - does indeed exclude some of the most vulnerable and marginalised women from the spaces and services they should have a right to expect are free from males. But you don't care about those women do you?

Why can't TRA's ever explain why males with special identities feelings matter more than women's feelings, especially those who have experience sexual assault and the like.

Anyone want to have a bash?

I haven really ventured out of feminism on mn for a while. But a good parking thread could always tempt me out. If they could come to me in fwr, all the better.

1. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
2. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry. 14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/

So... Because I don't want a man in my women's spaces, that makes me transphobic? I'm not denying their identity. They are perfectly entitled to say they are a transwoman. I will be polite to them, I will treat them as I expect to be treated. I will expect their behaviour to be that of a decent person. However I'm also perfectly entitled to be of the opinion that a man can't change sex and whilst he may think he's a woman he still carries the same amount of chance as any man of being a threat to me.

As I am unable to determine if ANY MAN is a threat to me then in certain circumstances and situations than I personally will have to treat transwoman the same as any other man. That is not transphobic, no matter how much you think it is. Nor is stating the fact that humans can't change sex a sign of bigotry.

I'm quite happy to work with a transwoman, I'm quite happy to be served in a shop by a transwoman, I'm quite happy to stop and have a chat with my neighbour who is a transwoman. I have absolutely no problem with transmen either. Whilst they may find women do a doubletake when they walk into the womens toilets or changing rooms, they are perfectly entitled to be in there.

I don't have a problem with transpeople and I bear them no ill will, but I don't want men, however they identify themselves, in women's spaces.

Well yes it's quite hard to fix an issue unless you name it and just saying people are being meanies is going to do nothing

Again for any lurkers here:

As a woman, with a female body who was born a girl and has suffered more than my share of sexism and misogyny:

• I am not allowed to disbelieve that men can be women even though I think it's patent nonsense

• All these males are allowed to be abusive to me because of this disbelief and I am not allowed to say anything back

• I am not allowed to call said pseudoscientific, unfalsifiable, quasi-religious faith-based belief in gendered souls "an ideology" even though it literally is

• I am not allowed to campaign for a space free of males

• And I must be entirely subservient to whatever some of the most sexist men I've ever encountered fancy "being a woman" is.

No. That doesn't work for me, sorry.

Thank you, blownawaybyit for a very clear post. I mean that genuinely.

It's really rare that people who support these positions will write them out so clearly.

When you suggest trans women shouldn’t have access to women’s spaces, you’re denying their identity and reducing them to some imagined "threat." That’s transphobic.

It is 'transphobic' for any woman to advocate for single sex spaces or services.

When you lump all trans women into a category of "males" invading sports or spaces, you’re promoting harmful stereotypes. That’s bigotry.

It is 'bigoted' to say that men should not be able to compete with women or have access to women's spaces.

When you throw around terms like "ideology" to describe basic human rights and dignity, it’s dehumanising.

That's a bit of an odd argument, tbh. How else should we describe a set of beliefs? It's an ideology to believe that 'gender identity' takes precedence over sex. That's a value neutral descriptive term. Nobody is describing a human being when they talk about 'ideology' so how is it dehumanising?

But I forgot, you don't want to discuss. A pity, it might have have been interesting.