Have feminists brought this upon themselves?

[Lessthanaballpark]

I’ve heard this opinion so much lately, mostly amongst men who seem to be enjoying the struggle between feminism and trans-activism and the threat to women’s rights.

The opinion is that feminists have been attacking male spaces for years and now are getting their comeuppance.

Or that we’ve created the language of inclusion and gender that has led to this.

It’s a mean spirited attitude for sure. But is there any truth to it? Has feminism hoisted itself with its own petard?

I have seen many, many TRA's on here insist that human beings as a species can literally change sex and that saying that this isn't a biological reality is transphobic.

I've known people explain to me that transubstantiation literally happens during mass, that hell literally exists and that interpreting history and the bible any other way is evil and I shall be damned because of it. I've also known people who strongly believe that the moon landings were faked, and that if they do not spit at the sight of magpies bad luck will follow them.

It's a free country with multi faiths, multi cultures and multi beliefs. The boundary is trying to forcibly evangelise and harass others for not sharing and performing your personal beliefs.

aliasundercover

I was going to try and write something similar. It's the tactics and strategy that are similar. In particular the "stay in your lane" argument. Throw in some cancel culture and all of a sudden certain people won't make waves or will go along with it.

alias spot on
It annoys me too because men/white people/straight people/able bodied people are perfectly capable of spotting an "ism" when they see it.
I know the original intent was to stop e.g. white people saying "that's not racist" when it is. But the effect is to provide an opt out for the advantaged class

If you believe 'TWAW' you aren't gender critical

Which is why I said I'm not. And I probably phrased it badly - I believe that TW need spaces away from men. I believe that TW are in danger from men. As are women. I genuinely fo not believe that sn actual TW who sincerely believes they are a woman is a danger to natal women. I am personally happy to share space with them.

I also believe and réalise that some women can't or don't want to share a space with TW and I believe for that reason there should be space for them in the way they want it.

I do believe that there are people who are using current policy/legislation to harm women, or wish to, and we need to find a way to protect us from them. There is a solution/balance which we haven't found yet. But we will.

My thoughts on this are not fully formed and they are a tangled mess because life is a tangled mess. The signal to noise ratio is ridiculous but it is difficult to cut through it.

Part of my "problem" is that ever since I have been aware of being alive I have kicked back at being pushed into any kind of gender role. But this is a massive digression so sorry for that.

Again, though, to answer the OP: nope. Feminists haven't brought this on themselves.

Part of my "problem" is that ever since I have been aware of being alive I have kicked back at being pushed into any kind of gender role. But this is a massive digression so sorry for that.

To to fair Brefugee, the foundations of what you believe sounds very much like many people who post on this part of MN.

Perhaps the difference is we have already begun to see where acceptance of the mantra has led. To males who identify as women now stating that since they have been accepted as women, why are they not accepted fully that they are female too and just like every other woman for all purposes. There are several very prominent trans activists pushing for that very degree of acceptance.

Hence I asked about the two scenarios on the previous page. Because, you have already stated that there is a limit to your belief in the mantra. You already recognise that there are those who wish to harm women, legally, socially etc.

For what purposes do you accept TW AW outside your own person acceptance of sharing space with them?

And why do you believe that they are actually less danger to natal women than males who are happy being identified as men?

I also believe and réalise that some women can't or don't want to share a space with TW and I believe for that reason there should be space for them in the way they want it.

That means that you don't actually believe that TWAW. If you truly believed that TWAW, there would be no need to ever segregate TW from women.

Part of my "problem" is that ever since I have been aware of being alive I have kicked back at being pushed into any kind of gender role. But this is a massive digression so sorry for that.

That is gender critical.

If you believe that ‘woman’ is a gender category that can include men and women regardless of sex, you agree that people should be classified according to gender roles.

Feminists have done nothing wrong.
It should be straightforward. If people transitioning do not want to use their existing facilities they need to campaign for separate ones, not force their way into facilities that already have a purpose.
Women's facilities are already taken by women.

@aliasundercover

I bought it for my Dad but he couldn't deal with it - he said it was "relentless" and too much. Try living it, I said

Brilliant. Did you get a reply?

I think there is a way in which not feminists but many activists have ‘brought this upon themselves’. There has been a fashion over the last decade or so for statements along the lines of eg: “if you’re not gay you don’t get an opinion - gay people decide what homophobia is”,
; or “white people don’t get to define racism, black people do”; or “men don’t get to tell women what sexism is”, etc.
I think most people kind of believed - or at least accepted, or decided not to argue - with this type of statement, and it’s brought us to a place where trans activists are claiming only transpeople get to define ‘transphobia’. People are used to going along with this type of claim, so many (especially white heterosexual males) have just shrugged and agreed without realising what these definitions are.
So now we have trans activists saying ‘transwomen are women’ and while most people find this laughable they have been trained to accept it’s not their business.

I usually get shot down pretty quickly here on MN when I write about this sort of stuff, and it usually turns out I’m wrong, so feel free to fire away :). I’ll get back to making bad puns and weak one liners.

I think there is some real truth to this. And your separation of feminists from activists is interesting. Some might say that it's a distinction without a difference, but in any case we are talking about the people who are, in the public sphere, arguing the "feminist cause."

I would expand your point to say that we seem to have accepted that activists can make any argument that sounds good and convincing, even if it's not well founded or has real flaws. If we believe in the cause we'll let the slogan stand. Two years ago for some reason there was a rash of "Love is Love" slogans and signs around the city I live in. A stupid slogan, but if you said so, people considered it homophobic, because obviously it was only about that and complaining about it meant you supported homophobia.

The left became very cause oriented and against strong, rational debate, and this was well before gender ideology was in the picture.

Brefuge, I think you believe exactly the same as most women here. Most women here believe that TW need support, are vulnerable and need separating from men.

I think that many women here just decide to fight one battle, the one for women and girls. Given that TW wants unfettered access to these spaces there is a clash. Once you have had the same arguments over and over, many women don’t always feel the need to say “of course transwomen need their spaces too”, “of course transwomen are vulnerable too” every single time. But in the clash between between and transwomen (hospital wards, prisons, sports, etc), women here support the women and girls. Every time.

And just like someone focused on charities for dogs not always have the time for charities for cats, some women don’t have the time to fight for both women and transwomen. 🤷‍♀️

That is gender critical

Not how the rest of the internet uses it, though.

But I didn't mean to disrail and I won't be answering questions because as I said I'm still untangling a lot of stuff.

Not how the rest of the internet uses it, though.

How do you think the rest of the internet uses it? I don't think this is a derail, because I think it's important to be able to talk about what words mean accurately.

'Gender critical' should be really clear. It just means to criticise gender sterotypes, particularly with respect to feminism and the impact of gender expectations on women.

Well Brefugee, I don't accept the label of 'gender critical' for myself because I have seen exactly the misinformation that trans activists have been spreading about what 'gender critical' means.

I, personally, am a late comer to this argument. There are aspects that I agree with and aspects that I don't agree with discussed on this board. The one thing that I have learned is that the people who are keen to silence others will use attribute false beliefs to those who post regularly on this forum under the term 'gender critical' or 'the GCs' or whatever.

They rarely will stick to facts, or evidence. I mean, the trope that comes out is things like 'the GCs are anti-vaxxers', 'all gender critical feminists are right wing' etc. Then comes the 'anti trans' labelling.

When in fact, I rarely see regular posters on these forums make such outrageous falsehoods. We try to stick to facts and science and usually specify that it is only 'some' people to who follow extremist thinking etc.

That is just my take on it. I have tried very hard to ensure my own teen does not stick labels on themselves, as I have certainly rejected as many stereotypes as I can in my own life.

That is gender critical

Not how the rest of the internet uses it, though.

To be clear, I think that the very same group who seeks to redefine the word 'woman' has also sought to define the term 'gender critical' beyond what it initially meant. There is plenty of confusion because of this. Often people come and say 'I am not GC' because they have gathered the definition from twitter or other parts of the internet but not from feminists who are 'critical of gender.'

It is like being told what a woman is without actually speaking to one and asking them.

I think I am more about abolishing gender completely rather than merely being 'critical' of it. And a great many of others are.

it’s brought us to a place where trans activists are claiming only transpeople get to define ‘transphobia’.

It's worth noticing though that the same people who say this do not believe that only female people get to define femalehood, female experience and show no equality of respect to female voices. It is supposed to not be ok for women to have a say in what is transphobia and what isn't, but supposed to be absolutely right that people born male can define what a woman is, redefine it to a feeling that a male person can share instead of a biology, and that female people have no right to a separate word, space or voiced experience.

It isn't respect for a value: it's merely a nice, fashionable veneer over plain old sexism.

We have inclusion - that excludes women. We have kindness - which is what female people are supposed to give unconditionally to male people without reciprocation. We have diversity - but of a kind that punishes women for diversity that does not fit with the political aims. Intersectionality, for example of being female AND of a faith, race, culture, trauma or disability that precludes you from sharing mixed sex spaces? No. These nice words are meaningless, they are just covering up the reality.

Note too: those who worry about women here speaking too plainly without first reassuring that NAMALT, obviously they care about this group and that group and the other group and all the right reassurances to be allowed to speak their own view? Find me anything. ANYTHING on twitter from activists that ever shares first that of course NAWALT, NAFALT, of course they want women to have equality of rights and of course women should have privacy and dignity and care in trauma - show me anything at all where this is a reciprocal expectation equally applied to people born male and their allies, as it is to females.

It is still restricting females from equal freedom of speech about their betters. It still views females as voicing criticism they have no right to. It is still the lingering on of, shhhh before the ducking stools and scolds bridles are brought out.

Is this what you want your little girls to grow up experiencing? Is being of service to and always secondary to male people, second class citizens, instead of having their own feelings, their own voice, their own ambitions and freedoms really the future you want for them? We've reached the point where this is becoming a very serious question.

To be clear, I think that the very same group who seeks to redefine the word 'woman' has also sought to define the term 'gender critical' beyond what it initially meant.

Thank you (all) - more reading required (by me) I think.

Tbh I generally reject labels anyway so all good

It's a bad principle though. As is this idea that if x sort of a person says something is offensive or bigoted or phobic, it must be accepted as true.

How that doesn't become an obvious stick for those so inclined to use against people they don't like, I don't know. It's like there is some sort of noble savage assumption that x sorts of people wouldn't ever be interested in asserting power. Presumably they can't be just mistaken, either.

For links, the Break it Down for me thread has become a great archive of up to date studies, statistics, papers and articles that are worthy of reading. And to see the progression over the past few years.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

@Brefugee

That is gender critical

Not how the rest of the internet uses it, though.

But I didn't mean to disrail and I won't be answering questions because as I said I'm still untangling a lot of stuff.

I know this isn’t the same but I’m permanently pissed off in the change of staycation to mean ‘going on holiday somewhere in your own country’

The change of GC to mean ‘love gender…honestly, think its brilliant and also hate transpeople’ pisses me off as well, obviously

I know this isn’t the same but I’m permanently pissed off in the change of staycation to mean ‘going on holiday somewhere in your own country’

I agree. (Although at least nobody is claiming that Brits holidaying in Spain are ‘staycationing’).

You say that merry i did hear someone say it about visting their apartment in spain

I think in their head they thought they were staying in their home…therefore it was a staycation

Wellbehavedwoman

Is this the book that is mentioned?

www.abebooks.co.uk/Invisible-Women-Data-Bias-World-Designed/30643153351/bd

Not how the rest of the internet uses it, though.

Yes, because there is a concerted campaign to demonise women who stand up for women's rights. Feminism is gender critical by default.

I don’t think it’s feminism per se, that’s brought this on themselves, because for one thing these issues affect all of us. It’s potentially harming our children also it strikes at the heart of fairness and justice.

Where I think that attitude comes from isn’t specifically feminism at all, but identity politics itself, and I think some feminists have leant into that in the past.

Obviously you can’t do things like analyse gender or sex based violence without looking at trends in who the victims are (usually women), and who the perpetrators are (usually men), without doing some class based analysis.

However what has occurred is a race to the bottom in terms of who can claim to be the most oppressed, deserving of the most protection etc. And also the “lived experience” claim. It makes it damn difficult to make objective claims, when all someone has to do to rebut you is say “my lived subjective experience trumps anything you have to say”, and I have seen some arguments devolve into that with some feminists making that argument. I think some people on the wrong end of those discussions in the past do view view so many feminists falling victim to it as something of a comeuppance.

I however am deeply disturbed and saddened by these recent developments, I’ve never claimed
to be a feminist man (in part precisely because I didn’t want to fall foul of the identity politics side), however I do consider myself a fellow traveller to a lot of feminist goals and ideals. I want to see an end to gender based violence, I’d like to see women taking up much more space in public discourse and leadership positions.

It’s tough not to see this current erasure of women’s voices as very worrying. Even if it’s women I disagree with on specific points, I would never dream of wanting to see them put in their place, shut up or shut out of the conversation. Reason being is, it’s a complicated world I know I have huge capacity for error myself so who knows what I am wrong about? I’d prefer a world where we could all air our thoughts freely, respectfully
if possible, but if that’s not possible at least get the ideas out there.

Melanie Phillips explains later in this podcast how some of the more radical elements in feminism seeded the trans rights movement we have today m.youtube.com/watch?v=F3LKVmOTIzg

I’d have to reluctantly agree with her. Over the past 15 years or so I’ve slowly moved from disagreeing with almost everything Melanie Phillips writes to slowly and reluctantly agreeing with her.