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 if only feminism can be discussed here (which I have no issue with), why do so many support a woman (Posie Parker) who is clear she is not a feminist?

Indeed. Amazing how many men and libfems need 'safe spaces' online but women aren't allowed safe spaces irl. What a bizarre request. This is one of the only places women can express themselves online; and even this is subject to targeted reporting and some irritating rules about terminology eg the Acronym which Gets male People angry. The LGBT boards exist, the feminism chat boards, the rest of the internet...what's the point in another one?

Remember when we used to have FOUR boards in the Feminist section?

I can’t remember what they were all called because only the terfy one was busy enough to bother with.

Chat
Theory
Events
History

maybe?

Hey ilovemyspace

You know, if you go off and do the research for yourself and it makes you really consider what is going on. That is really all that any poster on these threads can ask for.

It is the posts that simply repeat unevidenced opinion that is false, or is misrepresentation of the truth or is simply posted to shame posters that get push back.

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

Totally agree - and isn't that what many trans- women are trying to do - land grab!

there have been many attempts to police the naughty ladies

Oh come on, no one is being trolled 🙄

Disagreed with, yes, sometimes robustly. But that's the thing with the real world you have to be able to cope with people having different opinions

😂

Don’t be daft, no one thinks there is an agenda that ALL gender transitioned people have signed up to.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Oh, are you serious?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Laughing aside, I propose the following:

• Feminism Chat
• Feminism Sex and Gender Discussions
• Try making your argument better
• Grow Up
• Realise that if a counter "GC" argument trumps your argument, it is not derision or hostility, you just have a shit argument.
• Continue to post opposing viewpoints where we're all very fluffy and nice and why can't we just accept that unwanted penis haver into all our spaces and sports, and awards and prisons. Come on ladies, be nice. You had your rights for a bit, be grateful and let the men in. Who knows, you might convince us!
• No, seriously, grow up
• There's always Chat. If "non GC" feminism is as popular as you say, we'll all be swarming over there I'm sure. Make it popular enough and MN might consider your new category request. Put the work in!!

HTH.

Are you asking for a BBC style moderated debate, OP? One where sufficient people have to agree with you so it doesn't feel biased?

I'm not really a posey Parker worshipper, but I would say I am GC.

I look forward to meeting you on the general chat board and will robustly disagree with your white supremacist point, not because I don't believe TWAW for all purposes, but on the grounds of it being a bit basic and the type of argument that really shouldn't get you much beyond a basic A level pass. The argument that because you share a few views with someone (it's generally right wing) you must be a nazi or white supremacist or whatever is really feeble and very unoriginal in my view. I am a vegetarian and quite like dogs, so I must be the same as Hitler. I once voted Tory, so I must want disabled people to die. I have a religion, so I must hate abortion. You can cut it so many ways - lots of people from ethnic minority backgrounds are socially conservative, by the way, but their views clearly only count as a foil for making certain white liberals feel good about themselves. If you argue better, you might even win a few rounds with the GC feminists on their board :).

Perhaps ask that on one of the many threads that are still active.

Do you consider Maya Forstater a feminist? Do you understand that people can still be actively working for feminist outcomes even when they feel they have to reject feminism? And that some women feel they need to reject feminism due to the actions of other feminists?

I am sure that this has been gone through in detail on the many threads about Kellie Jay Keen on this board.

The only people who seem to think that this board thinks all trans people are evil are the ones who come on to tell us off

You can absolutely post those on chat. I think though OP you have to also consider that people will respond to those with their opinions. Some will be very serious and some will be mocking. I think you should probably consider what you are looking for. If you want conversations which are supportive of your perspective it will be difficult to find that generally on mumsnet. If you want a robust discussion some if that will involve robust debate.

Honestly I struggle with some of these

Gender inclusive language often reduces women to body parts, cervix havers, menstrators and it only refers to biological women, cervix haver will never refer to a TW, I’m not sure that TW for example would appreciate being referred to as prostate havers. Many feminists reject the term cis because it presupposes they believe that they have a gender identity distinct from their biology. To me woman is a material state of being not a feeling. i only conceive of myself as being female because of my body.

I don’t think Lesbians are anti- trans I think Lesbians by definition (same sex attracted) won’t date TW but may include TM for obvious reasons. They also have to consider the impact of changes in access to single sex spaces as women regardless of their sexuality.

As a BAME woman I can’t say I feel GC feminism is aligned at all with white supremacy. The reality is white supremicists are very unlikely to be on the side of women generally, they like controlling female sexuality (racial purity etc). Happening to agree on one thing (that biological sex is a material reality) does not mean agreeing for the same reason or on anything else. As adults I’m sure we can accept that sometimes people we do not like may share a view with us on one topic or subject, that doesn’t make someone a member of your team.

Feminism and neoliberalism I’d be interested in hearing your view on that.

I suspect you will get similar responses if you posted that on chat. You may find someone who agrees with your perspective but mumsnet cannot create a safe space for you.

Humans can’t actually change sex and recognising this isn’t hatred.

I don't think people on this board think 'all trans people have some evil agenda'.

They do tend to think you can't tell nice transwomen from men claiming to be trans to access women's spaces (which is why safeguarding then leads to keeping all male bodied people out)

People also distinguish between TRAs who do seem to want to remove any sex based provision in favor of gender based provision, and trans people who want to go about their business quietly (and who would probably be quite happy for 3rd spaces, but the TRAs don't want those).

@Helleofabore I do not consider Maya a feminist.

No one 'hates' anyone.

Women object to their rights being harmed and to having no accessible single sex spaces. Male people identifying as women does not always work for women.

Calling that 'hate' and trying to stop women talking about it does nothing to solve this problem.

This whole discussion about what is a woman is stupid imo. We can be anything we want to be. Our gender or sex does not define us, we define ourselves.

But coming back to your point OP, GC females have a long way to go to join female sisterhood, that is for sure. Who knew the male brain they were born with would/could still control their thoughts and feelings even with gender reassignment. I think a forum that you feel safe talking to others like you is really important.

I feel sorry they werent born into the body they identify to, its a real shame, but don't make those of us who were born into tge right body your chess pieces, we're not. But if you become more inclusive and open minded, you may yet be welcomed into our sisterhood and that mean's stop labelling me.

Gender is made up bollocks, forcing people into prefabricated ideas of how women and men should behave , the word should always be sex .
Gender was only used in the past because some people didn't like the word sex and its implications, however we all knew that gender meant the same thing , now it doesn't, like so many words it's been repurposed.

Ha ha ha ha. You've got the whole of the rest of MN to post on,but that's still not enough? Sounds somehow familiar......

@Regularsizedrudy

I think you'll find that if you go onto that board, there are some male to female trans people who are admired and praised for their honestly on the limitations of sex change, so it isn't simple as you say.

I don't think anyone hates trans people, though I agree that sometimes the language is too robust for my taste. What most people on that board really, really don't like is the "trans women are women, no debate" tone of campaigning that has been used to silence women though, or the death threats that people like JK Rowling have to put up with for putting their head above the parapet. Most people on the board would happily match for third spaces. If you want to call that hatred, I'd call that a bit of a misrepresentation but 🤷‍♀️

anyone engaging on those topics would do so with the understanding that some feminists simply do not agree with GC feminism and do not want those conversations derailed

This remark makes no sense at all. You cant ask for a discussion about feminism and then say only people who agree with your definition of feminism can take part.

Although ironically you could turn it on its head and say as this board is currently ghettoised by mumsnet (not by the users who didn't want it) to "sex and gender" that those who want to discuss this dont want it derailed by anyone who doesn't think this is a fundamential issue for feminists.

Is part of the problem that the one thing we all agree on that the creation of "chat" feminism is such an insult that nobody wants to be on it..

Otherwise why aren't all those who either think the gender and sex aren't part of feminism, or that everyone on this board are unpleasant, using chat.

It makes no sense at all.

Why wouldn't you just start using chat and stop worrying about who says what here.

If you think it being called "chat" is a slur then ask MNHQ to label it something more meaningful and just start contributing.

But as I said up thread, I do think one of the consequence of the undemocratic split of the FWR board is that some women now feel they have to conform to this false segregation.

Effectively by hiving off "sex and gender" MNHQ (not the contributors) have created a less well rounded board. If I was of a suspicious nature and believed in conspiracies, I would suggest that was the underlying reason for doing that. That they hoped it would prove that gender critical (ie the underlying basis of feminism) would wither away and cease to exist.

So all this shows is that the only people who think feminism should be parcelled out are MNHQ, and those who think that anyone who talks about feminism should have their shared analysis of feminism.