Women and girls' sex-based rights

[StephanieSuperpowers]

Well, here we are...

I expect so, but it's nice to keep up with (and know the MN usernames of) people you've been discussing feminist topics with for around 20 years

I've just read this article, linked on another FWR thread (Glosswitch is always so very on-point, I reckon she's definitely a MNer!). The scoldings about the roundabout language that GC people have had to use to clarify their meanings sounds so very familiar to me.

thecritic.co.uk/how-to-spot-a-witch/

Thanks for that link Kuc. It is a really good summary. As you say Glosswitch is always on the button.

And by the way it's nice to 'meet' the lurkers from JTT. I do hope you'll join in the discussions on here.

Hi, as with the other place I don't think I will post much but that was always one of the most interesting and informative threads on JTT so I am glad that it is able to continue in some form.

“female inner lives and boundaries are but a fiction created by bad women to justify their primary impulse, which is to exclude others and make them feel bad.”

”Right now, I have no particular desire to describe women as “adult human females” or to talk about “the sex class who gets pregnant”. I’m perfectly happy with “women” or “women and girls”, only I wish to avoid endless, disingenuous lectures on why “it’s not just women who get pregnant!” or “women-only spaces are for women with penises, too!” Women are forced to over-explain or resort to circumlocution when describing our own bodies and lives, whereupon the words left to us are seized upon as “dogwhistles”. Look! She’s still saying it, only this is even worse!”

Ha. Very familiar indeed!

(Need to get better at MN formatting)

(Still furious)

Excellent as always from glosswitch.

Incidentally, I am enjoying the piety. How much evil have the righteous driven out? Glad for them.

I wish they’d have the courage of their convictions. Make it clear that you have to accept gender ideology if you want to post on the forum. It makes a mockery of the charter statement: “to promote discussion of ideas at all levels. We support free speech, even for people we don't agree with or like. We don't support hatred or discrimination.” People here obviously means the default male and doesn’t include women. It’s seems to be just fine to discriminate against us, in fact it’s not even recognised that that is what is happening.

I'm particularly enjoying (irony klaxon) the men dismissing it as a minority issue that we should just stop banging on about. Women, know your place!

With respect to some of the ongoing discussion on this thread, I realise that the context may be difficult to grasp for MN FWR regulars who don't know where the new exiles are arriving from.

So.

You all know how, when the Sex vs Gender topic escapes from FWR into, say, AIBU and a whole load of previously unaware MNers go "Good grief!"? And you get angry posters shouting about how they don't want to see it and they'd never go there to sully their eyes/BeKindSouls and misrepresenting everything that FWR is about? And frantically reporting to make MNHQ move the thread?

Imagine that instead of having a FWR board within the whole of MN, there is a forum that had One Thread about female sex-based rights. And loads of the posters on that board angrily shouting about how they don't want to see it and they'd never go there to sully their eyes/BeKindSouls and misrepresenting everything that One Thread is about. And now that those posters have won, they're (apparently) still proudly patting each other on the back for shouting about how they don't want to see it and they'd never go there to sully their eyes/BeKindSouls and misrepresenting everything that One Thread was about.

@VaginaRegina Quite.

Anyway, there’s no good outcome there for us, so I say let the men have their forum. I understand how attached some people feel after 20 plus years, and admire the impulse to try salvage something but we are being/have been treated abominably. Time to accept defeat.

My son is gay, and he is also gender critical. He's in first year of university, and has found a group of friends to share a house with next year. Those friends are all biological women, and a couple are trans. He is quite happy to share a house with them, as they are good friends, and he knows very well not to talk to anyone at university about GC topics - plus (as we all know and have said repeatedly) being GC is NOT being anti trans, so why wouldn't he have trans friends?

I'm extremely proud of him, and how mature he is. What's sad for me is that the original talkboard in question was my equivalent of MN when I was pregnant with him. We had a parenting thread on there, with people I am still friends with almost 20 years later.

However I cannot stay there after seeing what a lot of the regular posters really think of us, so I'm off to browse the rest of MN and actually post (I've had a MN account for years, just not really posted on it).

I know the board you're coming here from - it was your restricted threads that first made me aware of what was going on, and brought me over to Mumsnet.
It's really sad to see what has happened there, but I'm glad you can all regroup here.

Splatts Your son sounds like a fantastic young man, and you're rightly proud of him.

And yes to the other place having been like my MN too, when I was pregnant and through the early years of parenting.

Susie Green though, eh? Feels like we've been waiting for this moment for some time. Not exactly a ringing appreciation of her service from mermaids, was it? Wonder what they're getting ahead of...

Have obviously not been paying attention, as I thought Mermaids pretty much was Susie Green. Wonder if it’s the decision to sue the LGBA?

Or something even worse than has been revealed before coming out (unlikely though that seems).

Splatts my son is the same, only older - he has graduated. A lot of his friends were trans-identifying by the end of university, mostly mathematically inclined men.

He found that a lot of his (other) friends are actually GC, but they all just kept their heads down, in general. They didn't want to be labelled as TERFs. It's like a secret club!

They've 44 staff now, apparently and a pile of volunteers

IMO, there's something coming - having been a charity trustee when there was a problem, I know that one of the things you do is write to the Charity Commission saying "we found this issue, so were doing our statutory duty and informing you', and here are the measures we've taken to mitigate it". Showing that they take their responsibilities seriously is always a good look.

They may have had a head's up from the Charity Commission, or done an internal review, or had legal advice, or know there's more to come (e.g. in the press), but that's my reckon.

On the other hand, the lack of even an interim CEO name does make me wonder if Green flounced/has another issue. Maybe the trustees wanted to take an action she wouldn't countenance. Or maybe they just asked her to leave and didn't think ahead.

HI there, life-rafters, I hope you find this place a harbour for however long you need.

Hello! I lurked on the thread over there but never got round to posting. There’s every chance I’ll lurk here without saying anything (much) too but you lot have pointed me in the direction of plenty of interesting stuff and I’d miss you if I didn’t follow you here.

Hi artant

and thanks for the MN welcomes (even to those who have been here bit)

I'm not sure I want to stay there on other topics. Why stay on a site where we've been told in no uncertain terms that we are lower than the low and where our opinions are so unwelcome that TRSOH posters have been encouraged to chase us away?

Yes, thank you for the welcomes! I've been here for a while but have name changed for this thread.

That's touchy of us. It's not like they're calling stochastic murderers and evil bigots.

Oh.