Is it ok to criticise someone for being gender critical?

[WookeyHole]

I'm rubbish at explaining this whole debate and whilst doing a bad job, a friend told me that being gender critical was not an acceptable position to take. It set me thinking... between her and me I'm ok with her saying that and we have healthy debates about our points of view. But IIRC it's been called protected belief? What does this mean for its use in a public forum?

Actually anaily

I too look forward to your answer to this. In our discussion about sex based rights for females to be specific. This is one of them. Safeguarding for women in prison. The right NOT to get pregnant in prison, and not to be assaulted.

And you know, you cannot downplay this because there are seven sexual assaults by transitioned male prisoners in female prisons on record at the moment. Who knows how many women have not come forward.

Sex based rights do cover 'discrimination' yes. But they certainly cover safeguarding needs as well.

Please answer Purgatory's questions in the final post on the thread you didn't return to despite stating:

People do care, just not here, here it's mainly middle class feminism against gender here, those in prison aren't (mainly) middle class. Gc can raise tens of thousands for men kicked out of a course but can't raise a penny for prison services. The feminism here is quite different, it's just a single issue group. (another great example of the depth of your own prejudice)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4356627-Womens-Wellbeing-in-Prisons?msgid=111045818#111045818

It fits in with our discussion.

Sorry.

anaily The analogy stands Oh no it doesn't! It's, quite rightly, been deleted.

@Artichokeleaves

So why is it bonkers to say that it's important to have provision as well that they can access, so that female people who cannot used mixed sex spaces are not excluded from female spaces and resources? Because inclusion matters doesn't it? And not discriminating against people matters? Even the female ones?

There are specific group services available, gc is a new group so gc people can ask for gc only group spaces. There are religious specific groups. Most are trans inclusive as well as trans only services. You need to push for gc only services or spaces rather than trying to exclude some from existing groups. If that makes sense.

The analogy stands, gc seem to think they are superior to trans, like kkk think they are superior to non whites. Both wanting to separate and segregate the latter. GC revolves around trans like kkk revolves around poc. That's my view, which i know is an unpopular one here.

But GC women don't think they are superior to transwomen, they just know they are not the same. So how is that possibly analogous to the KKK?

@RedDogsBeg

anaily The analogy stands Oh no it doesn't! It's, quite rightly, been deleted.

I get censored a lot for not being gc here. The irony of free speech here. It's only free speech if it's mumsnet approved.

I get censored a lot for not being gc here. The irony of free speech here. It's only free speech if it's mumsnet approved.

Don't be so wet, if a GC poster had posted what you had using the word trans instead of GC they'd would likely be facing at the very least a suspension if not an outright ban.

There are specific group services available, gc is a new group so gc people can ask for gc only group spaces. There are religious specific groups. Most are trans inclusive as well as trans only services. You need to push for gc only services or spaces rather than trying to exclude some from existing groups. If that makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense, not a lot of what you say does to be fair.

I get censored a lot for not being gc here

You don’t seem to know what ‘gender critical’ means, so I doubt it’s that. It seems likely that your posts are being deleted for the more mundane reason that they do not comply with talk guidelines which require a basic level of civility.

I get censored a lot for not being gc here.

No. You get asked constantly for evidence to support your assertions that you overconfidently make. And usually displaying your rather obvious prejudice.

The fact that you cannot post without resorting to vile attempts of monstering or demonising women who do not agree with you is very clear.

If you actually wish to have a civilised discussion, then drop the monstering tactics, produce some evidence to support your claims and get on with it.

You are now claiming victimhood. Another obvious tactic because you can never have a thorough mature discussion about the trope you import from twitter but don't seem to understand.

You are being deleted for making negative generalisations and vile ones at that. Own it.

Just for you anaily:

Sweeping negative generalisations about any group, including trans people and gender-critical feminists, won’t be tolerated.

You are being held to the same standards as everyone else on this Board, get over it.

There are specific group services available, gc is a new group so gc people can ask for gc only group spaces. There are religious specific groups. Most are trans inclusive as well as trans only services. You need to push for gc only services or spaces rather than trying to exclude some from existing groups. If that makes sense

It makes no sense whatsoever.

There are single sex exemptions defined in the Equalities Act which already exist. These are not 'GC' only services. They are single sex services, for those who are female. There is no need for additional services to be requested, they already exist.

Trans people are excluded from these spaces due to their sex, not their gender.

And why is it OK (as you state above) for There to be 'trans only services' but apparently is horribly bigoted (you've referenced the KKK in some posts) for There to be female only services?

You're not censored because you are not GC, you make sweeping generalisations and rude remarks which are not allowable under Talk Guidelines.

And your arguments are poorly worded and thought out, but that's a separate issue.

For the avoidance of doubt anaily that statement is from MN Talk Guidelines which you agree to abide by when registering to join MN.

There are specific group services available, gc is a new group so gc people can ask for gc only group spaces. There are religious specific groups. Most are trans inclusive as well as trans only services. You need to push for gc only services or spaces rather than trying to exclude some from existing groups. If that makes sense.

No, not really.

There is no such thing as a 'gc group'. There is and has been for decades, single sex provision which has enabled all female people to have access to spaces and resources.

By forcing all these spaces to be 'trans inclusive' which in fact renders them mixed sex, females who cannot and do not wish to use mixed sex spaces are being excluded. Either exclusion is a problem - in which case it is a problem if it affects females too - or its a word being used to enforce male rights over female ones, which is not ok. Is it?

These females have been excluded from existing spaces and groups by male people wishing to be included. Why should those female people have to go and set up new groups? Particularly since when they ask for third spaces or female only spaces, they are targeted, attacked and thwarted by male people and their supporters who do not wish any female only spaces to be permitted, let's be honest about this. Rats have been nailed to doors to try and intimidate females away from this.

There is no such thing as gc as a group or political lobby or organisation - there are just females whose sex based needs don't match with the wishes and preferences of male people to be in all spaces with female people without exception. Those female people should not come second to male people or be regarded as less important.

And I still don't see what is 'bonkers' about any of this?

Crosspost with waitwhat with much the same points.

Such good points they need to be said twice (to paraphrase a famous song!)

GC is not new! It is the default position for the vast majority of people on the planet and has been for millenia. It is not 'bonkers' by any stretch of the imagination.

There are specific group services available, gc is a new group so gc people can ask for gc only group spaces. There are religious specific groups. Most are trans inclusive as well as trans only services. You need to push for gc only services or spaces rather than trying to exclude some from existing groups. If that makes sense.

I think anailly, you are again overconfident in your twitter derived argument. I have seen this tactic used also.

It completely falls apart when it is realised that actually 'gc' is the majority of the UK's position when the physical reality of who is being defined as 'women' is stated with honesty. I mean, that yougov survey that gets touted as a 'gotcha' for supposed inclusivity is a great source for just that very thing.

When women and men realise that 95% of transitioned males still have a penis, that 'inclusivity' you are referring to becomes the minority.

Unless, of course, you have some other peer reviewed attitudinal survey that you would like to post as evidence. No?

Did you also miss what Nancy Kelley stated just this week, anailly? To sum up her stance, currently there are female only services and that women needing those female only services, should get that support.

Did you miss that, anailly?

Unfortunately I missed anaily's responses to my questions. I'll assume they are ignorant enough to think that the kkk don't think the concept of race is important, and I'll treat their posts accordingly.

@MonsignorMirth

Unfortunately I missed anaily's responses to my questions. I'll assume they are ignorant enough to think that the kkk don't think the concept of race is important, and I'll treat their posts accordingly.

Good luck. I've been waiting on a response since September.

Hey Anai, www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4356627-Womens-Wellbeing-in-Prisons?msgid=111045818#111045818

Gender Critical is a stupid term and one we should move away from, to me it sounds like it was coined by TRAs the term "critical" invokes negativity and argumentativeness, even backwardness.

its a term that plays into TRAs hands by being inherently negative sounding yet also nebulous, gender critical it sounds so unfocused.

I call myself a biology conformist, I am not gender critical as I dont believe in gender in the first place, its a social construct and one that has different meanings in different cultures, hell it has different meanings between individual people here with many confusing sex with gender.

I think we would all do alot better if we called our stance something more positive and clearly defined.

I think we would all do alot better if we called our stance something more positive and clearly defined.

Interestingly, while you were typing that (which I entirely agree with), I was typing this:

The TRA / genderist position is that a trans identity overrides any sex-based legal, social or political rights and provision.

So it's the not the right for trans people to exist, be recognised and respected, treated equally, safely and fairly they are demanding, but that trans people are put ahead of everyone else's rights, needs and safety, and that everyone else's existence be redefined as a gender identity to accommodate it.

So can we please stop referring to this as "trans rights" and call it out for what it is - "trans supremacy"?

Replace "GC" with TING... There Is No Gender

(To paraphrase the Matrix... "Don't try and list all the different genders, that is impossible. Only realise the truth - there is no gender")

Or maybe FAE - Females Also Exist :)

It should be sex role stereotypes critical.

All uses of gender should be replaced with sex role stereotypes. That’s what gender is and it makes the veil fall if phrased that way.

It doesn’t role of the tongue though.

I prefer 'reality based feminism'. The mass gaslighting of trying to force women to believe things they know not to be true (sex being a spectrum and the assertation that males have no advantage over females in sports being two such examples of this) and calling them bigots while doing it has got on my last nerve.

I also quite like 'evidence backed feminism'.