Can MNHQ set up a new discussion category called Feminism: sex & gender discussion (inclusive, non-GC)

[PlanetLuna]

MN, will you please create a talk group/category of Feminism: sex & gender discussion (inclusive, non-GC)?

MN appears to currently have only 2 feminism categories:
Feminism: chat
Feminism: sex & gender discussions

But the Feminism: sex & gender category on MN is predominantly GC, with its emphasis on trans exclusion ideology. Feminists who do not subscribe to those beliefs are often unwelcome and treated with derision and hostility in discussions. Certainly not always as some GC posters do enjoy open, intellectual discussions but often enough that engagement can be toxic & intimidating all around.

It is almost impossible for non-GC feminists to find inclusive/non-GC feminist discussions, and we have to wade through unpleasant (for us) GC threads while attempting to do so.

GC feminism dominates on UK parenting sites in particular. However, inclusive/non-GC feminism is extremely popular around the world (especially in places like the US, NZ, and AU) and in the UK among younger feminists and those who do not see trans rights as a threat to women & girls’ safety. Many UK feminists are non-GC but may feel silenced on MN.

The addition of another category will help open up and improve MN discussions while reducing the toxicity and hostility that many feminists on both sides experience in discussions.

So I propose the following feminism discussion categories:
Feminism: chat (general)
Feminism: sex & gender discussions (GC)
Feminism: sex & gender discussion (inclusive, non-GC)

@MNHQ

I see that the posters replying to OP with derision are self evidencing OPs reasoning.
You couldn't make it up.

I agree.

There will always be the odd few on these boards but it’s such a shame when they get taken over by posters attacking or making fun of posters.

There are some posters that will have a proper discussion and I’ve learnt a lot on MN and used it when I’ve needed advice.

But there are some posters who make me think that I’m not going to bother posting if all I get is abuse and I believe there have been many MNers who felt the same and left the site.

Would you be nice if someone has repeatedly labelled you with slurs and then in the OP continues to denigrate the board? If so, why?

Serious question?

Options: As in life these are try to talk to people rationally, attack or avoid/ignore/move on. I don’t know the thread you’re talking about but I don’t see this as an attack the way so many people seem to. Also there’s a difference between disagreeing and attacking. There’s people discussing on this thread, but more attacking and slagging off over the op’s head, which, no matter what was said I honestly find the lowest form because I’d hate my kids to ever encounter someone talking about them, but in a gang

By the way, another really nice 'personal attack' tactic there. Frothing for one poster, stalking for me, I am happy to keep listing them.

Me 'stalking' you is what? An attempt to claim some kind of victimhood?

Who uses that kind of rhetoric on an MN discussion board where people can easily look and see evidence or significant lack thereof?

Show me the derision. Disagreement is not derision.

Your views are actually exactly the same as most GC feminists. You're a bog standard TERF. If you announced that you care about changing rooms and toilets and sports on Twitter then you would be loudly denounced as a transphobe.

Which is largely the problem here. Views that are, in fact, entirely moderate have been smeared as being extreme and discriminatory.

The other part of the problem is that you have completely bought into that (mis)characterization. There's an obvious disconnect between your view of yourself as a Good Person (and who doesn't want to see themselves as a Good Person), and the fact that Good People don't hold extreme and discriminatory views. So you've resolved that by inventing a fictional divide between the Good TERFs and the Bad TERFs. When actually they are one and the moderate same.

I'm very late to this thread and I haven't read it yet

But I just wanted to say 'no thank you' to this idea

I'll start reading the thread now ....looking forward to it

I don't think many people mind if the Op thinks we're all awful people, she seems pretty convinced of that already and I doubt anything anyone says would change that.

Thanks, @AmuseBish.

It’s not accurate to say all of your posts were “polite”. But sorry for use of “frothing” - I found your repeated questions a lot, especially as I was otherwise engaged.

I singled you out, unfairly perhaps, but I didn’t want to ignore you. It wasn’t just you - there are so many demands that I explain/justify/validate my request to MN.

I don’t mind debating issues around gender but that wasn’t the purpose or intention of today’s post. I just wanted to ask MN if a non-GC category could be set up because I thought the general feminism category wasn’t for ideological g&s stuff.

Thought experiment:

If MNHQ were to comply with this request and make a special new board for Feminists Who Think Men Can Be Women do you reckon MuskyElon, Marge the PIE, ConfusedLand and PleasingSuggestions would go to the new FWTMCBW board or do you think they would stay here with us?

I’m thinking the latter.

There is no GC feminism category though. Do you never pause to think actually maybe they all have a point?

I haven’t been here long, and don’t read every thread, but everything I’ve read has been the same as you say you believe.

I have never seen anything saying all trans people should be banned or are dirty perverts, just comments as yours that they can wear what they like, call themselves what they like but stay out of our spaces.

I have only seen people saying someone thinks mens rights become before womens and you want children to have hormone blockers in response to people saying that they think that.

I don't think many people mind if the Op thinks we're all awful people, she seems pretty convinced of that already and I doubt anything anyone says would change that.

Why on earth would you make an untrue statement like that?

What about the 'Feminist Chat' board, OP? Why not post there? It's supposed to be for 'non sex and gender feminism'.

@PlanetLuna you are free to post any of these on either the Feminism chat or Feminism S&G boards, or even on other boards. But how are you expecting everyone to agree with you?

Feminism and neoliberalism sounds a good topic. I might post on a thread on feminism and neoliberalism to point out how throughly neoliberal “choice” or liberal feminism is - especially “non-GC feminism”, which is often deeply intertwined with specifically American neoliberal ideas about autonomy and personal choice being “validated” above everything else; especially the validity of body modification, cosmetic surgery, sex work and porn. These are all highly neoliberal industries, and show how implicitly rightwing “non-GC feminism” is: even though it often pretends to be of the Left, it’s an individualist philosophy of the American left (which is to say, our centre right). Much current “left wing” thought is actually not very leftist at all.

Lots of material here for a thread! - we can discuss Marx and Engels, the development of feminism, the history of neoliberalism and identity politics, differences between the US and European leftist movements, and so on. There are plenty of women here who know a lot about Marxism and the history of feminism, the labour movement, American history and politics - let’s get cracking on the topic!

Or were you just looking for a thread on which everyone would agree with you that GC feminism is fash-adjacent or something like that? (Sure there are plenty of echo chambers all over the internet if that’s what you want.)

Why on earth would you think that any of the topics you’ve proposed only have one morally or factually right viewpoint and other opinions should be excluded? That would be the very definition of an echo chamber, wouldn’t it? Do you realise that the entire point of abstract discussion is critical engagement?

Also, where was AmuseBish anything other than polite, please?

Oh op ! Stirring up s&g and the rf threads , this will not go well , if you thought criticism on the royal thread was bullying, your about to have your ass handed to you here!

The two threads are enough! , bad that they were split as it was, anyone who thinks feminism includes men , is no feminist and I'm shocked at your opinion but not surprised.

So, you don't see it as an attack, but you want to tone police the people who do see the words that the OP has used in the OP and who have seen the language and denigration, sometime quite aggressive, they have used towards others on other threads.

I thank you for answering. I think we should agree to disagree on this. I don't believe that many people on this thread see this thread as ever being made with positive intentions.

OP - you want a feminist board to talk specifically about sex, for people that don't think sex exists, and inclusive of penis people [even though sex doesn't exist] but not inclusive of vagina people that know sex exists [but your acknowledgement that sex must exist otherwise you'd not be able to exclude the vagina people that know sex exists?

Right?

I haven't seen any gc feminists asking for a space separate from genderists.

true dat

quite striking really

@PlanetLuna because of the way that you have described the posters that post here? Your own descriptions.

@PlanetLuna Im reposting my question in case you missed it. Thanks.

GC women ask for it all the time. Sex based spaces to change away from males and prisons.
As for discussions, it's the other way around. Gender people aren't up for discussion with opposing views.

Don't 'liberal' feminists hate it when it is mentioned just how based in individualism their feminism is? I don't really know if this OP would be able to handle people pointing out the inconsistencies. But, hey, let's try it!