Aggressive Feminism Boards

[PerverseConverse]

I've been on this board for a while now and long enough to understand the issues and why women are so vocal about them and angry that our rights are threatened.
I'm frustrated reading on other threads, or on social media that this board is aggressive, shoots down discussion, and calls people names if their views don't match the majority. I can't say that I've seen that myself. All I see is intelligent discussion and persuasive arguments. Any goadiness is appropriately dealt with from what I've read as are any views that don't match reality. Maybe that's what upsets people: that their delusions are challenged with indisputable reality.
I'm still new to feminism and learning daily but I see women fighting for other women and prepared to get flak for that. I see some women who have been well and truly brainwashed by the trans movement and by men and the patriarchy in general. And that's the other criticism: that we are too focused on the trans issue. That makes me angry. The trans issue is the major one affecting women and girls at the moment and it's right that we are focused on it.
These complaints are coming from women who are calling themselves feminists and it baffles me completely that feminists can't understand the biggest threat to women and girls.
Now, I'm aware these so called feminists may well be trolls but I don't think they all are. How can some feminists be so opposed to other feminists passionately protecting their rights? Rights that are for ALL women.

Why does someone's definition of woman matter to this discussion?

You've got this all arse about face. Perhaps you think the order of argument goes like this:

Ooh look. A word, a collection of sounds! Wumm-unn. This sound should probably be a very important one. What possible meaning can we fill that sound with? Let's argue over the wordysoundthing.

Meanwhile, what is ACTUALLY happening is this:

Oooh look. Half of humanity, VERY different from the other half, completely different bodies! Wow, look what their bodies can do! Hang on, why are one half of humanity enslaving the other? Why are they using them like animals? Why are they making up lies about the brains of them being inferior? Why have they made laws to criminalise their bodies? We need a completely unambiguous wordysoundthing that describes the half of humanity that are getting the shit kicked out of them just for being born into this particular body type. Wumm-unn ought to do it. Thank goodness we now have a sound that completely differentiates the two types of humanity by their body types so we can set about pointing out the real differences between the two types, and calling bullshit on the fake differences and unfair treatment! Now we can get to work making life fairer for this particular body type group.

It's not about a competition to fill the word woman with meaning. It isn't:word first, meaning second.
No.
It's reality first, name second.

It's about how desperately opposed some people are to acknowledging the half of humanity that have a certain body type and have always been treated like second class citizens.

See it, but deny it, and make it impossible to discuss it.

What's your visceral reaction to 'allowing' this half of humanity (my half) a word, any word, to describe themselves, if that word distinguishes themselves factually from the other half and throws into sharp relief the real differences between the two halves of humanity?

There are 3.7 billion of us born this way, and we're different from the other lot because of our bodies.

This 'debate' is and has always been a fight to deny the existence of my biological sex as a category worth its own name and rights.

So, fine, don't define 'woman'. But I challenge every TRA with this. Should the half of humanity born female be 'allowed' a single, unambiguous name that relates to their specific biology, and which distinguishes them from the other half?

How strongly do you want to prevent 3.7 billion people from being recognised as a common biological group, with a common word?

You’re supposed to argue back. Debate, being your facts and opinions to the table. If you do t have an internally consistent and logically/scientifically correct argument, you won’t get very far.

I have been trying to debate but as usual any point that I make is ignored and then a different argument is brought forward.

I have questioned fact/proif vs opinion.

Answer my point on that.

Many laws aren't based on fact. They are based on opinion. It isn't fact that murder is bad. It is opinion.

Why do we have to argue only on facts? We can argue on opinion or views.

LassWiADelicateAir

Of course, express your views!! But don’t complain when they are challenged. You already know what you’ll get here, right? So deal with it. Debate your points. But don’t tell us to ‘be nice’ against a style of feminism some of us believe is actually oppressive. I have many lovely liberal friends and we all respect each other’s right to a view on things. But they know, and I know, that we’ll engage in heated debate on certain topics. If we aren’t prepared to accept that, we should not enter into those debates. Sometimes their words sting me, sometimes mine sting them. But I try really hard not to tell them how to speak.

I’m not complaining about your engagements here or that you have different views, style of campaigning or whatever. I just am asking that the ‘ this is a mean space ‘ stops, as I think it’s a significant waste of time.

With that I’ll leave you passionate ladies to it.

I havent called you any of those things. Don’t think I’ve called anyone else them either.

Do you think making all spaces and services unisex is safe? If so WHY?

You tell me, it’s the definition that you have all been putting up on billboards and using as your ‘shut down’ argument. Surely you know what it means?

My question wasn't a serious one. Of course its ridiculous.

'Denotes to be' in that context doesn't mean superficial stereotypical characteristics because they are not the signs that you can produce ova.

I only know you from this thread and I haven't seen anyone call you a haindmaiden here. If people call you a haindmaiden, prove them wrong with reasoned argument and fact.

Why do we have to argue only on facts? We can argue on opinion or views <

Not when discussing actual facts. I reserve the right to ridicule flat earthers and climate change deniers. Similarly it is stupid to debate what the words man and woman mean. They are based on material reality that exists in every cell of our bodies.

Now I really am going! Enjoy your Sunday

Murder does harm. Wtf? That's a fact not an opinion.

'Denotes to be' in that context doesn't mean superficial stereotypical characteristics because they are not the signs that you can produce ova

What is a sign you can produce ova then?

A different thread started yesterday.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. So not sure why you brought it up in response to my post about my own post and the shitty response on the hide the thread thread?

Give your opinion and defend it.
It's not a difficult concept.

It’s not a shut down argument. It’s supposed to get people talking.

The general view on the GC side is that we want to talk about this. Get it out into the open. Shine light on it. Get people thinking. Get them arguing and debating.

Except we keep being told to be nice.

And when we aren’t, there’s a bomb threat, or the meeting is shut down, or the masked men turn up, or an hysterical 999 call is made which makes five coppers and a police horse turn up (to find three women politely handing out leaflets.)

So the reason people arenpossed off at being told to be kind? It’s the subtext that if you’re not, there will be consequences. And as I said before, fuck that. No.

Of course, express your views!! But don’t complain when they are challenged. You already know what you’ll get here, right? So deal with it. Debate your points. But don’t tell us to ‘be nice

I have done nothing of the kind. You complained about a poster twisting your words yet have just invented an entire dialogue of things I supposedly have said.

Most of these posters can't actually defend their opinion on this with facts and logic, which is why they think we're mean for asking them to do so when they call us "transphobic".

Where has anyone here called anyone tranaphobic though?

Murder does harm. Wtf? That's a fact not an opinion.

Of course it does. So does a lot of other things that are legal.

You can kill someone during a war - that does harm but isn't illegal.

Withdrawal of medical treatment that leads to death - that causes harm but isn't illegal.

Lots of surgery or medical interventions cause harm but aren't illegal.

So it isn't fact that causing harm makes something illegal.

Where has anyone here called anyone tranaphobic though?

It was all over the other thread, as were most of the posters on this one.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. So not sure why you brought it up in response to my post about my own post and the shitty response on the hide the thread thread?

Because I said threads disagreeing with what has been happening on the FWR were either locked or shutdown over the weekend.

You then said that was because of your post.

I was explaining that was one of the threads, but that there were others.

You asked the question and I answered.

Obviously causing harm is not sufficient to make something illegal. What is your point and how does it relate to the tone of debate on this board?

Well I see none of it here, so it’s not happening obviously. Wilful ignorance works both ways.

And when we aren’t, there’s a bomb threat, or the meeting is shut down, or the masked men turn up, or an hysterical 999 call is made which makes five coppers and a police horse turn up (to find three women politely handing out leaflets.)

Where on earth has that happened on MN?

What a hypocrite you are Penny

This is your post

What I mean is, if you’re complaining about the style of feminism that dominates this space, why come here? I don’t go to liberal feminist groups etc and then complain they’re not more radical

This is you asserting if liberal feminists don't like the predominant style why are they here. This forum was not created as a Radical Feminists group.

I think the poster who said that the problem is that a debate in person will usually be one on one rather than one on 50 (even in the House of Commons, which is not exactly a friendly chamber of debate) has summed up in a nutshell what the issue is.

This board has reached a critical mass of people who are very gender critical, and includes some (but certainly not all) people who are so far over the line they cross into being anti-trans or willing to defend those who are anti-trans.

If you don't agree with the consensus (even if you are against self ID) then you are overwhelmed with responses and that won't produce a sensible debate in the same way that 20 people in real life responding at the same time to one person would not.

A good example is the "non aggressive definition of woman thread". OP asked for GC posters to refrain from posting until the debate is underway but there are 21 responses all giving the same definition and agreeing with her. To go in there and even try to debate is futile completely ignoring the merits of each side's argument.

I doubt there is a way to change the consensus on the board but it does mean it becomes an echo chamber with a feedback loop - the more overwhelming the response, the less likely someone is to want to post here unless they already agree.

No BrownPaperTeddy read your own post. It isn't me who is confused and confusing, it's you. Your post makes no sense in relation to my question.

don't know why. I can't believe it was just for that one post. It was more likely that the OP posted something and then received lits of people agreeing with them on an article which was clearly fake and which showed a distinct lack of critical thinking skills on behalf of some FWR posters.

Exactly Lass!

Before FWR became trans-dominated I was never, ever told to leave if I didn’t agree, or that I was speaking on behalf of men if my opinions differed.