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

So, OP, you want a board that's 'inclusive' but that specifically EXCLUDES a group of women on MN? I don't think you know what 'inclusive' means.

The 'sex and gender' board isn't the 'GC' board - anyone can post there, and do. People with different opinions can post anywhere on MN. Plenty of non GC people post on sex and gender, the fact that most posters are GC just reflects MN users.

How would it work - MN can't ban people from certain boards and not others. Are you just asking that all women (and men, presumably) who believe in biological reality should be banned from a parenting website? You do realise that since Maya's case GC beliefs are protected?

You're essentially asking for the equivalent of a board that excludes Muslims, or Christians, or Jewish people.

man alive woman, the board exists, it's right here

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism

have at it and stop whinging

wow - the level of rudeness and passive aggressiveness on this thread is beyond me. Who knew people can be so passionate about a new discussion sub category 😅

Is it only Monday?

Aren't support threads created for topics where someone wants to feel safe in the sense of most not arguing against the concerns the OP expresses?

Safe spaces are now often used in quite different meanings, ranging from someone not truly being physically safe to demanding no debate that might make a person uncomfortable.

But another definition of a safe space seems important here, and this is the idea that a debate should be a safe space for all to express courteous disagreement without being silenced.

Eh?
That is exactly the point, though.
This, right here, THIS BOARD, was set up for GC women.
If anyone is unsupportive of that, of course their views will be robustly challenged and unwelcome here.
That, OP, is the raison d'etre for the existence of Feminism Chat.

I think we are just entertained by the attempted land grab going on.

This is a tough board to post on.

For a reason.

Yes, weird that - as the sub-category already exists.

I would certainly hope that MN do NOT split the Feminism: Sex& Gender topic into GC and non-GC categories. How utterly damning of all of us would it be if we needed two echo chambers instead of one genuine forum. If you want an echo chamber, go on twitter and curate your feed.

And in any case, if we were to do as the OP suggests, why just binary single-view spaces. What about all the various non-binary shades of opinion (aka nuance)? Are we just going to rule that out by fiat, through chat room architecture? Or are we going to proliferate topics every time there is profound disagreement?

What we need is civil discussion between varying views, and MN already work pretty hard to enfoce civility by removing abusive posts. I can certainly understand that it feels uncomfortable to be posting as the representitive of a minority view, but so long as abusive posts are disallowed, we surely need to tolerate that discomfort as the price of participating in discussion of contentious issues.

They would engage with you constructively here if you could stop denigrating those who disagree with you. Tell us why you think any poster should engage when your opening post is basically denigrating this board?

I don't know if you've heard of LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook OP. These obscure rather niche platforms all have lots of "non-GC feminism" boards where "GC feminists" are banned. Maybe they are more up your street. Let me know if you want links.

Op has it ever crossed your mind that the vast majority of people who are active feminists might disagree with your premise that feminism should be inclusive of male bodied people ? Maybes that's why you feel drowned out ?

Oh. And this post above also doesn't constitute 'stalking' you either.

Do you need anything further from us op, now that you know the board you were looking for already exists?

No. This board was never set up for GC women. I must point out that is not correct.

This board was always for all feminist discussions about sex and gender. For all posters of both sexes as long as it remained within the feminist parameters.

Thanks for your replies, @AskMeMore.

But how do you stop those groups from promoting some ideas which match gender critical views? They come at the topic from the opposite side, needing a name for the female sex class to keep us down while we need that name to fight their attempts to keep us down.

Another way of looking at this question is that the far right groups agree with trans activists on the importance of sexist gender stereotypes about how women should behave, though they differ in who should be allowed to (or be forced to) act out those stereotypes. So we should also have a discussion on the clear overlap between far right and gender identity views about what a woman is.

Which I am not seeing anywhere outside Mumsnet and Ovarit and a few Twitter accounts.

@PlanetLuna I just want to say that I've always considered myself to be a feminist and have always livedmy life as I want to live it, despite gender restrictions.

I never considered the 'trans-movement' to be any threat at all to women and thought (and still think) that everyone should be able to live their life the way they want to live their life i.e. live and let live ....... BUT this board has made me question the demands made by some trans people. There are far-reaching consequences should these demands be met.

I have never taken the 'feminist' comments on these boards as gospel truth, but because of them I have started to research and actually THINK about the effects that some trans demands are having - and will have. Yes, sometimes the comments on this board are harsh and maybe not couched in the language that you want to hear ...... but they speak the truth.

People suffering from GENUINE body dysphoria are being ill served by the movement that has grown up in the name of 'trans-rights'

I don't understand why you need a 'safe space' to discuss your views with like-minded women and yet you deny other women a 'safe space' to discuss their rape/ domestic abuse or a 'safe space' to get changed in after swimming or a 'safe space' when trying on clothes in a shop or a 'safe space' for our daughters to use the toilet at school ........

Rest assured - toxicology tests have shown no poisons being administered on this board !

That board is Feminism Chat - that is the whole point of that board. Why don't you go over there and post to your heart's content if you don't like it here?

Also, people disagreeing with you online is not being 'unsafe'. Being attacked in a toilet as the 10 year old victim of Dolatowski was is being unsafe.

If you don't like a discussion online then you don't have to stay in that chat room. There is a specific other board for the discussion you want already and loads of other boards on MN including Chat and AIBU.

@nepeta
I’m trying to catch up on responses & jumping around a bit.
Not sure if I replied to you earlier, but thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Oh dear, someone is disagreeing with @PlanetLuna and so she needs to have a whole forum set up for her!

It’s pretty divisive to imply - by the categories you suggest - that feminism that is sceptical about gender stereotypes is not inclusive.

Who are you @PlanetLuna to judge who is inclusive and who isn’t?

Also, I think you're confusing 'tolerant and supportive of' with 'blindly agreeing with'.

No-one is intolerant of non GC posters on here. We'll argue with them because we don't agree with them, but we don't report, we let comments stand. It's the other side doing the reporting and deleting comments almost all the time.

Also (and I'm sure this point has already been made, but the FT is to long for me to RTFT), the whole flaming internet is a place where we experience huge and massive hostility, trolling, stalking, agression, doxxing etc for expressing any kind of GC opinion. So how about a deal: This one little tiny oasis of GC-majority becomes more welcoming to non-GC views in return for the whole flaming internet dialing down its persecution of GC views.