Does anyone else feel that the tone has changed on this board?

[ViceLikeBlip]

This board has been incredibly important to me, especially when I felt like I was losing my mind because no one else seemed to see a problem with self ID, and everyone else seemed to believe TWAW (or, I now realise, everyone else was too scared to suggest they might not believe TWAW).

You guys helped me rationalise my thoughts, and realise I wasn't some awful transphobe, and I've been really grateful to be part of this community. And I really felt like I belonged: we were pro women's rights, not anti trans rights, and we didn't believe that all transwomen are dangerous perverts but rather we recognised that dangerous perverts do exist, and they will readily take advtange of any loophole that gives them access to women.

More than anything, you guys have been an absolute mine of information - facts, stats, latest developments, and you've pointed me in the direction of news articles and twitter rows that I never would have seen otherwise. I'm genuinely grateful for this.

But recently the mood seems to have shifted significantly. There seems to be a lot of open animosity and ridicule towards all things trans. The recent outcry about M&S letting some people put their pronouns on their name badges felt uncomfortably close to clamouring to have M&S "cancelled".

I guess I used to feel like this was a safe space where I was with like minded people, but now I don't think everyone on here can hand-on-heart maintain that they're not anti-trans anymore, and it makes me very upset to see this shift happening (and happening quickly).

@TurquoiseBaubles I would challenge misogyny in a discussion about racism and white supremacy as well and have done.

@Helleofabore I expected people to discuss things rather than simply calling me a troll and a man.

So you will challenge the racism, homophobia and misogyny of some Trans rights activists? Good to know Julia

If race and mysogeny weren't different they would not be called different things

Are you implying that it's ok to ridicule women's bodies because they are different to men's ?

Btw I have been called a man before in here and it doesn't bother me. Not sure what the big deal is there?

@ArabellaScott

Fascinating posts, foxgoose! Would be great to read more on the history of blackface and musichall, etc.

Sure! -- off the top of my head the two main books in the field are Eric Lott, Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class, and Sarah Meer, Uncle Tom Mania; but there is lots on this topic and out there online too these days, so I should think googling "Tom shows" would throw up a lot of stuff.

There is a lot of interest in this field and in the connections and relationships between different and related civil rights movements at the moment, often because it rightly offers the opportunity to do important work on forgotten feminists and activists, particularly black and Jewish women writers and activists.

This has been a really interesting thread because I've been wondering recently whether there has been a change in tone. I've always rejected gender stereotypes and have never been able to understand why the concept of 'changing sex' has been acceptable other than as part of the acceptance of such stereotypes. However, for most of my life pretending that men can be women and vice versa has had no impact on my life so I was pretty much live and let live on the few occasions I thought about it. Now it is having an impact and, since joining MN about three years ago, I have become much harder in the lines I take. I use sex-appropriate pronouns and terms when talking about people whatever their gender identity and, whilst individuals should be respected like all human beings, feel no obligation to give any respect to an ideology I completely disagree with. Like so many others I am furious about the onslaught against our sex-based rights and have become far more politically active in real life than I ever was before. The change in tone on MN probably is a lot to do with Maya winning her case. Posters are able to be clearer in the language used and there seem to be far fewer deletions. No-one should be afraid of robust, well evidenced debate if they have a good case to put.

@julieca

Okay I have read back and see purgatoryofpotholes challenging racism. The only poster who I have seen in the past who does always do this.

My point though was about a lack of nuance. That is what this whole thread is about. And lots of you are interpreting that as about refusing to be kind. For many of us it has nothing to do with that. It is about the racism and homophobia that is common in the GC movement.
Comparing womanface to blackface, extolling PP and dismissing her racism, and complaining about anything LGBT related. Not everything LGBT related is an issue for women rights. For example routinely attacking any display of the rainbow flag anywhere.

Again, as you haven’t replied to my previous reply to your previous post saying this, gender ideology is by its very definition homophobic.

[quote julieca]@foxgoosefinch I wasnt talking about you when I talked about sloganeering.
I have agreed several times that various forms of oppression are intertwined. We see this in lots of contexts. Disability oppression also intersects for disabled women with misogyny. I don't disagree with any of that.
But do you accept they are not that misogyny and racism are different? Race is based on a social construct for a start. And although they intertwine, their histories are different.[/quote]
I've already said in a post upthread that they are different but interconnected? I certainly haven't said that they are the same. But knowing more about the history of blackface - for example, the crossdressed "mammy" character in blackface plays - do you still think that it's racist to talk about them both as connected to each other?

The change in tone on MN probably is a lot to do with Maya winning her case. Posters are able to be clearer in the language used and there seem to be far fewer deletions. No-one should be afraid of robust, well evidenced debate if they have a good case to put

Exactly.

@BloodinGutters of course it is inherently homophobic.
Sorry you don't realise I am in agreement with the general points made on this board. That is not my issue.

So Julia what is your issue?

@foxgoosefinch I knew about those things and yes I still think it is racist.
I also don't understand when so many black women say it is racist, the response seems to double down. I have seen these discussions many times. So you don't think its racist, why not simply stop using the comparison if it offends so many black women?

@334bu racism and homophobia and a lack of nuance.
And no I don't expect women to be perfect. I don't agree that PP is someone to be admired either. Too much dog-whistling racism. Like getting her supporters to chant women's lives matter at Trafalgar Square.

@julieca I've been part of many discussions on here where many posters have discussed how they feel uncomfortable with the comparison between blackface and 'womenface'. I can certainly see why people see a similarity but I certainly feel disquiet about it because I have seen comments on other boards and other platforms that many black women find the comparison racist. In the same way, I have read many conversations that women of colour (I apologise if that's not a term people identify with - I've seen many different terms being used) feel that GC feminism does not speak to them because they feel it can be be too narrow an outlook, without being intersectional enough - that makes me worry that we're creating an exclusionary situation without really meaning to.

However, I don't think that racism and homophobia are rife in the GC movement in the same way as I don't think that all posters on here are a hive mind. We discuss, debate and think about the arguments we are exposed to. There is a specific focus on gender ideology because of the current huge movement to redefine the definition of woman - there are ongoing court cases in Scotland for example. That doesn't mean we don't care about other aspects of feminism or don't want to address and discuss discrimination due to intersecting forms of oppression.

And if you are looking for outright homophobia, Stonewall have changed the definition of homosexuality from same sex to same gender, essentially eradicating a protected group.

@bordermidgebite

Women also were not seen as fully human But as chattel , goods

Ownership of woman is passed from father to husband when the father gives the bride away

Still is in many parts of the world, including supposedly free ones. The quiverful movement and the fundamentalist church of later day saints in the us see women and girls as property owned by their father until he hands her over to a husband of his choosing.

But what about all the TRAs who are racist?

It's racist to point out that blackface and crossdressing were intimately connected even though they actually were?

So as not to be racist we have to not mention this fact? Or gloss over it? Or pretend it wasn't the case? Or just not mention that even in the most recent chronological incarnation of blackface, the kind of television shows that had blackface as an element also had drag acts right alongside?

Well this is fucking hilarious isn’t it? Do you see how the tone changed OP? Do you see where it changed and question the motives behind it?

@334bu

But what about all the TRAs who are racist?

They have a lot going on. Be kind!

[quote julieca]@foxgoosefinch I wasnt talking about you when I talked about sloganeering.
I have agreed several times that various forms of oppression are intertwined. We see this in lots of contexts. Disability oppression also intersects for disabled women with misogyny. I don't disagree with any of that.
But do you accept they are not that misogyny and racism are different? Race is based on a social construct for a start. And although they intertwine, their histories are different.[/quote]
For what it's worth I don't think comparisons with blackface are especially helpful. A couple of years ago a number of black women explained here in detail why they didn't like it and I largely agreed with the points they made.

What is currently happening to women and girls is abhorrent enough to stand as an atrocity in it's own right without invoking the fights of other demographics.

I will say though a few people here making those analogies is a drop in the ocean. In his recent Netflix special Dave Chappelle made that same comparison to an audience of millions. Because he's a black man who talks extensively about race many people will now also use it as an analogy and probably won't be told otherwise because Dave Chappelle said it too.

I fear you have your work cut out on that score.

@foxgoosefinch misogyny is interconnected with every oppression. No one is saying don't talk about that. But I don't see others directly comparing anti lesbianism to misogyny by the names they use, even though the two oppressions havé a common root unlike racism and misogyny.

So can we talk about the racism demonstrated by some Trans activists?

@Needmoresleep I think GC is clearly a movement, a growing one. And spokeswomen are emerging.

Lets agree to disagree.

I am pretty much invisible. Like many women of my age you would pass me in the street and not notice me. Its fine, my children are close to finishing University and are embarking on independent lives, I am healthy and have enough money for a comfortable retirement, I did right by my parents, and get on well with my husband. I live my life the way I want, try to minimise my impact on the environment, pay my taxes and give to charities, and try ensure I take 10,000 steps a day. I also try to take people as I find them, regardless of class, race or religion. I do not join movements. I also don't believe that intersectionality is a useful tool, and prefer to promote equality of opportunity to approaches that tend to imply victimhood.

I doubt we would find much common ground, but then diversity of opinion is fine.

I do however object to people taking away my language and my ability to describe myself. I object to people taking away my dignity, and that of other, often more vulnerable, women. I object to the unnecessary and unsafe medicalisation of children. I object to men playing women's sport without acknowledging their physical advantages. I dislike the way these decisions are so often made by men without consulting women.

I also object to phrases like racist, transphobe or bigot being bandied around if I, or other women, try to express reasonable views.

If someone behaves in a racist way, call them up on it. However do not assume that the way you analyse the world is sufficient to insult or "other" people who do not see things the same way.

Like transgenderism, I think intersectionality grew out of US sociology departments in the 1990s. Again not something most Nans would recognise.

[quote julieca]@BloodinGutters of course it is inherently homophobic.
Sorry you don't realise I am in agreement with the general points made on this board. That is not my issue.[/quote]
The point is I replied to you, you didn’t acknowledge or discuss my reply, then you throw a tantrum about everyone not replying to your post.

No one owes anyone a reply. If people disagree they might reply, if they agree they might reply, throwing the thread off topic because people didn’t reply to you the way you want is ever so slightly hypocritical when you yourself didn’t reply to every response to you.

If you want a discussion about what you want try the suggestions pps made to start your own thread. Plenty posters will want to stay on topic and you’ll likely receive more constructive replies on a separate topic specifically for the points you want to discuss.