Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

That it's not just what you say, it's also how much you talk about it.

574 replies

NicolaHare · 12/11/2018 20:48

Surprise, another trans thread! But the dynamics of online spaces fascinates me.

Take MWR. Some stats. Feminism Chat has been active since 2010. At this moment 364 pages of threads have been generated. 144 of those pages contain threads that were created or active since January this year. At the beginning of 2018 a significant portion of threads were trans themed and these threads tended to contain the most posts, and the board has only grown more fixated with the topic since then. You have to go quite a ways back to find a page of threads that isn’t 90-95% to do with trans people.

Nowhere else on the site is so obsessed. For example: on the LGBT themed boards you only have to go back 1 or 2 pages to find threads from 2017 and earlier. There aren’t any trans threads in the 1 and a fraction page of threads from 2018 on the politics board. There are, I think, about 2 in the half dozen pages of threads from this year in the currents affairs and news forum. And in 2018, all the education forums combined have generated about 5 trans threads.

This is weird, right? Why is a general feminism board with an overwhelmingly non trans userbase so fixated on a group of people they don't belong to and the issues surrounding them? It would be weird regardless of what anyone in any thread had to say on the subject.

Not surprising, though. Trans sceptical feminism ironically almost always ends up focusing on the transgender question to the exclusion of all other topics that its proponents believe that trans inclusive feminisms are neglecting, and so neglects them to an even greater degree. Honestly, I’m sceptical that they are being neglected at all: it seems to me that conversations about pregnancy, menstruation ect are happening in public view at far greater volume than ever before, taboos surrounding bodily functions are increasingly discarded by the discourse and pop culture, and that when we talk about erasure we’re actually quibbling about terminology, the trappings of language and not the substance of the conversation. To assign a motivation to the common theme on feminism chat of “We are being silenced elsewhere!” a significant part of it might be the catharsis of imagined persecution. “We are saying the truths THEY don’t want you to hear! We are rebels!”

(This interview with a former gender critical trans woman is worth reading. It’s American and several years old, but it describes the many of the other toxic intellectual cul-de-sacs you can observe in MWR. www.transadvocate.com/is-sadism-popular-with-terfs-a-chat-with-an-ex-gendercrit_n_18568.htm)

But to set aside the discussion of substance. Do you think that the mere volume of trans threads in feminism chat is indicative of a kind of transphobia? If it were a forum of straight people talking about nothing but same sex attracted people, even if what they had to say was positive would we not be inclined to see in it's users a troubling insecurity with regards to queerness. If it were a forum of white people talking about nothing but people of colour in the most effusive terms, would we take this at face value or would we assign sinister motives (as the resonance of Get Out suggests many would)?

OP posts:
OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 13/11/2018 22:24

That's an American survey.

That doesn't mean the same is true in the UK. What with the UK being culturally different in many respects. Cos its a different country.

merrymouse · 13/11/2018 22:24

Any numbers on heterosexual people who identify as queer?

Electron1 · 13/11/2018 22:28

When did the youth not pick there own labels. That's the whole point of youth.

Some of this BS works on the young and gullible. Your only problem is we know what fetish and AGP is, rebadging it as gender identity might work on the innocent and inexperienced but it's as clear as day to the rest of us. We were not born yesterday.

MrsWooster · 13/11/2018 22:29

Cba to read the whole thread but linguistic patterns are a funny thing: "hating on" "folks" is such an odd construction that the op shares with other posters. As they say in Disneyland, it's a small, small world

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 13/11/2018 22:30

The endgame is to arrive at the definitions 'women' and 'ciswomen'.

deepwatersolo · 13/11/2018 22:30

Any numbers on heterosexual people who identify as queer?

You mean, the basis of this survey are a vast majority of people, who do not want to identify as gay/lesbian but prefer queer, because they are actually hetero, but have some gender-atypical hobby?

Haha, I might well believe it.

FloralBunting · 13/11/2018 22:31

So an acronym which is growing exponentially to include everyone who feels they want to be part of the rainbow family includes a lot of people who prefer to be called queer or bisexual? What do you think that proves?

Given that you think Andrea is entitled to be rudely 'self deprecating' about being a 'lesbian', I'm guessing that no one really knows what letter they are entitled to call themselves anyway.

RedToothBrush · 13/11/2018 22:34

What do you think that proves?

That having a bit of rainbow is good for your liberal identity street cred.

NicolaHare · 13/11/2018 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

merrymouse · 13/11/2018 22:41

I can see how it's an easy leap from 'non-interesectional feminists excluding men' to 'non-intersectional gay people excluding heterosexuals'.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 13/11/2018 22:42

Would you object to a cisgender lesbian making the same comment, or a gay man calling himself a faggot or flaming homo?*

Cis lesbian and gay man

Interesting choice of words

NicolaHare · 13/11/2018 22:43

That having a bit of rainbow is good for your liberal identity street cred.

So gay people aren't who they claim to be. How is this not homophobic?

OP posts:
Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 13/11/2018 22:43

Ooh plopsy

Bold fail

FloralBunting · 13/11/2018 22:43

Hey, Nicola, hardly any of the GC posters wanted the language restrictions. Twas the AWAs that pressed for that controlling bullshit, don't blame us.

I have no issue with an actual lesbian or gay man for that matter being self deprecating.

I have a rather large issue with a male bodied individual calling themselves a lesbian and then using derogatory language about lesbians.

Do I need to spell out why?

VickyEadie · 13/11/2018 22:46

MN censors the language GC feminists use, too - so please respect the fact that we are not allowed to use certain terms in certain contexts, either.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 13/11/2018 22:47

Call me Mary Whitehouse, but actually I am rather taken aback by the homophobic language OP sees fit to strew about with such abandon

Ereshkigal · 13/11/2018 22:47

The endgame is to arrive at the definitions 'women' and 'ciswomen'.

Yes. I agree.

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 13/11/2018 22:49

Please stop using "cis", *NicolaHare". It's offensive. And the use of it to describe lesbians isn't just offensive, it's utterly nonsensical.

VickyEadie · 13/11/2018 22:49

I'll be sticking with women and men and no amount of woke goady fuckery will convince me otherwise.

NicolaHare · 13/11/2018 22:49

Twas the AWAs that pressed for that controlling bullshit, don't blame us.

They did it first! They did it first!

Remember, both sides can be hurtful. Two wrongs don't make a right.

OP posts:
Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 13/11/2018 22:51

nicola

Why is it cis lesbians and not cis gay men

Ereshkigal · 13/11/2018 22:51

I'm not saying that anyone has to use it. But it would be nice if people could respect my right to IMO

You're labelling us with it though aren't you? And we don't accept it has any meaning beyond setting up a false dichotomy of female people being privileged for being female, over males who have often achieved highly in their fields, fathered large numbers of children, are listened to and taken seriously. Why do you think the transagenda has been?

merrymouse · 13/11/2018 22:51

Would I object to a lesbian making the comment?

Yes, because it's pretty clear that the term lesbian is not anachronistic, that everyone is not 'like queer' and plenty of lesbians think the L part of 'LGBT' is being ignored.

Ereshkigal · 13/11/2018 22:53

They did it first! They did it first!

They didn't "do it first" they did it on their own, Nicola dear.

Swipe left for the next trending thread