Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman's Hour 20 October: Has Mumnset become too politicised?

242 replies

nauticant · 19/10/2020 11:02

I assume this is about the the audacity to criticise the gender identity ideology. I wonder if they'll have a proper discussion. Remember that Jenni Murray only felt free to talk only as she was walking out of the door.

OP posts:
Abitofalark · 20/10/2020 13:36

@Meic

I listened to the program and wanted to give Mumsnet a vote of support. I normally just read here because as a male single parent I feel like an intruder posting here. However that doesnt stop me from fully supporting a place where people can speak freely, even if it can be hostile to my gender as a whole. On the subject of the gender recognition act, there is an assertion running through this thread that the suppression and censorship is being driven by men. Obviously I cant speak for all men but I think this is way off the mark. On this particular issue I think that you will find that the majority of people (including that gender which many of you see as the enemy) agree with you and especially support your right to free expression even when we dont agree.
Yes, there are men who support the freedom to speak and do not support the current campaign or ideology. A few of them have been mentioned here quite often and maybe a couple have even posted. However this campaign is being driven by an organisation which I have long considered male and misogynistic, albeit in later years including women.

This doesn't mean I say you are a misogynist or only men are, and are to blame for everything wrong. There is a sort of default though and a hierarchy in which somehow women often seem to end up secondary or worse, even, as in this case as invisible. The GRA is badged, portrayed, pursued, perceived and adopted as a 'rights' agenda, and therefore embraced by all sorts of people, not only men but young, old, idealists, awareness and rights- and right-thinkers of the left and the 'progressive'; and more than that, by institutions, from the international rights one, such as the UN, the European Convention, the EU, Amnesty and so on down to our own political parties, Cabinets, government departments, lawyers, professions, education, polling companies, commercial firms, charities, even women's organisations such as the Fawcett Society the Women's Party - how did that happen?

SengaMac · 20/10/2020 13:46

Meic please check out the difference between the words 'sex' and 'gender'.

The Gender Recognition Act was named that specifically because the government was lobbied to do so by trans activists who wished to create confusion.

Your references to 'gender' should be 'sex' because you mean biological reality.

(And yes, we know, not all men etc)

Dogman · 20/10/2020 13:55

@nauticant embarrassingly it’s more Dav Pilkey... my youngest is obsessed!

Meic · 20/10/2020 14:03

Thank you for raising my use of the word gender so politely.
I should, of course, have used the word sex instead of gender everywhere except in the expression "gender recognition act".

It is merely a habit of conditioning and self censorship in places which have a different approach to the use of these terms. Not an ignorance of their meaning .

BoreOfWhabylon · 20/10/2020 14:54

It's up now to listen again

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000nl76

Starts at 25 mins in and they're asking for feedback.

Sarah was excellent - she says she's been on MN for around 18 years!

DonkeySkin · 20/10/2020 15:09

there is an assertion running through this thread that the suppression and censorship is being driven by men.

The massive online censorship (Twitter, reddit, etc) is definitely driven by men, as tech companies are overwhelmingly male.

I agree though that gender identity ideology isn't solely, or even mostly, a male project. Many, many women have embraced it, including most of the female political and media classes. Some of these women have been unbelievably vicious towards other women who question trans dogma, trying (and often succeeding) in making them unemployable and casting them out of polite society. Men didn't make them do that.

Clearly, gender identity ideology appeals on a deep level to many women, so it's erroneous to claim that it's solely a male creation, even though men are obviously its main beneficiaries (and women and children the losers).

EvenSupposing · 20/10/2020 15:32

[quote Dogman]@nauticant embarrassingly it’s more Dav Pilkey... my youngest is obsessed![/quote]
Mine too Grin and I saw yours amd considered a name change to LilPetey Grin

sultanasofa · 20/10/2020 16:06

Just listened, very interesting. Sarah Pedersen was fantastic. It made me proud to be a part of mumsnet!

Jane Garvey sounded so jittery whenever it sounded like the conversation was veering anywhere towards women's rights. It really stuck out because she usually sounds very fluent and relaxed.

The accusations towards FPFW, WPUK, and FiLiA were outrageous. 'Some people....' who? 'in some circumstances....' what circumstances? There was no evidence to back up the smears - it was the sort of thing Trump would say. And there was no balance because there was no-one to speak up for FPFW, WPUK or FiLiA. I've emailed Womans Hour to let them know my thoughts.

Overall, though, I'm happy to hear this topic raised on the BBC. If a few more listeners come for a casual browse of FWR to see what it's all about, that can only be a good thing.

Chicchicchicchiclana · 20/10/2020 17:01

I listened and thought it was a good interview. JG sounded a bit defensive of the BBC and like she doesn't really know too much about Mumsnet.

LittlePearl · 20/10/2020 17:19

I've said it before but I'm not at all convinced JG is fully GC. I have sometimes thought she sounds quite hostile to people arguing the GC view.

But maybe she's paranoid about being treated like the BBC treated JM, which I can understand.

JulesJules · 20/10/2020 17:30

This joint statement issued by WPUC, FiLiA and FPFW was posted on twitter
womansplaceuk.org/2020/10/20/joint-statement-comments-bbc-womans-hour/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Janevaljane · 20/10/2020 17:38

@LittlePearl

I've said it before but I'm not at all convinced JG is fully GC. I have sometimes thought she sounds quite hostile to people arguing the GC view.

But maybe she's paranoid about being treated like the BBC treated JM, which I can understand.

I've never heard her be anything than thoroughly hostile.
BlackForestCake · 20/10/2020 17:39

@DonkeySkin

there is an assertion running through this thread that the suppression and censorship is being driven by men.

The massive online censorship (Twitter, reddit, etc) is definitely driven by men, as tech companies are overwhelmingly male.

I agree though that gender identity ideology isn't solely, or even mostly, a male project. Many, many women have embraced it, including most of the female political and media classes. Some of these women have been unbelievably vicious towards other women who question trans dogma, trying (and often succeeding) in making them unemployable and casting them out of polite society. Men didn't make them do that.

Clearly, gender identity ideology appeals on a deep level to many women, so it's erroneous to claim that it's solely a male creation, even though men are obviously its main beneficiaries (and women and children the losers).

Those women‘s magazines that are dedicated to telling women they’re not thin enough, not fashionable enough, not sexy enough? They’re mostly written and edited by women.

In cultures that practice FGM, it’s the women who enforce it.

Female misogyny is nothing new.

jhuizinga · 20/10/2020 17:39

I've just listened to the interview with Sarah Pederson. I used to be a fairly devoted WH listener but gave up after the dire Belcher interview in June as there really didn't see to be any point to the programme anymore if it couldn't centre the perspective of women when discussing the GRA. I agree that Jane Garvey comes across as very uncomfortable with anything related to this issue. Sarah Pedersen was excellent, however, and I'm sure will bring new traffic to these boards. I downloaded her book to my Kindle earlier today so am looking forward to reading it.

FleetsumNLangCleg · 20/10/2020 17:49

JG: "Right so what has been said on Mumsnet for example about the Gender Recognition Act that...um...I was going to say...that couldn't be said on Women's Hour (rushing) we can certainly discuss it but this is a BBC program and we therefore are not in a position to campaign for one side of ...uh...any argument or for the other but they can on Mumsnet..."

Sounds like JG is quite aware that women are mad as hell that this issue was not covered on WH and is explaining to us that she was simply doing her job. Nothing to see here.

No Jane. Not covering it WAS biased. Does the BBC cover elections? How on earth do you do that if you can't be seen to campaign for one side of any argument? By doing your fucking job.

Melroses · 20/10/2020 18:20

there really didn't see to be any point to the programme anymore if it couldn't centre the perspective of women when discussing the GRA

They have one job 🤷‍♀️

Cismyfatarsey · 20/10/2020 18:26

Missed the program but just to reiterate. Buy the book!! It is fabulous and name checks loads of Mumsnetters. You might find you have been quoted.

And it is a wonderful record of the amazing Man Friday amongst other actions.

HandsFaceSpace · 20/10/2020 18:28

does it have stuff about the special needs board. That certainly was the place to be, back in the day.

Scout2016 · 20/10/2020 18:41

Sorry if this has already been said, but yesterday on WH they were taking about Victoria Wood and her joking about menstruation. Anyway the presenter said to the (male) author of the new biography "in case you didn't know Jasper, it's ladies that have periods". Rather reckless of her I thought.

boatyardblues · 20/10/2020 18:50

I listened while I was cooking. I thought Jane sounded fed up and worn down. She absolutely said the stuff that’s caused so much ire, but she also sounded like she was going through the motions and her heart wasn’t in the show anymore. I guess we’ll find out what she really thinks in due course, same as with Jenni. Sarah was great, but the programme itself was a dispiriting listen. If Jane wasn’t already headed out the door, I’d be tempted to ask whether she needed us to send in hostage negotiators.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 20/10/2020 19:02

I have just listened and thought it was a terrific interview, despite the pandering to trans ideology.

Janevaljane · 20/10/2020 19:11

If Jane wasn’t already headed out the door, I’d be tempted to ask whether she needed us to send in hostage negotiators

Grin I thought this after hearing the utterly miserable interview with the sculptor last week. Fascinating woman, JG sounded as though she just felt like saying "whatever"

EvenSupposing · 20/10/2020 19:15

@boatyardblues

I listened while I was cooking. I thought Jane sounded fed up and worn down. She absolutely said the stuff that’s caused so much ire, but she also sounded like she was going through the motions and her heart wasn’t in the show anymore. I guess we’ll find out what she really thinks in due course, same as with Jenni. Sarah was great, but the programme itself was a dispiriting listen. If Jane wasn’t already headed out the door, I’d be tempted to ask whether she needed us to send in hostage negotiators.
This. And she'd clearly read this thread, or her producers had.

Jane if you're reading juat say, "TWANT' during the show tomorrow and we'll abseil in and get you out. You could be enjoying a Sex on the Beach at the Bluestocking by noon Gin

Melroses · 20/10/2020 19:17

That is so sad. It was always a quite jolly programme even if they did not cover everything.

They also suffer badly from the WATM/MRA crowd.

Jux · 20/10/2020 19:45

@Destinysdaughter

Time for this methinks!
love it!