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 saw it asked upthread what the old subtopics for FWR were.
I remember it as:
feminism: support
feminism: activism
feminism: theory
feminism: books (or possibly reading?)

@PlanetLuna - you mention lesbians. Do you think that a lesbian who is exclusively same sex attracted, is transphobic if they refuse to have penetrative sex with a male bodied ‘lesbian’ who still has his penis? Is it OK for male bodied ‘lesbians’ to exchange advice on how to breach the ‘cotton ceiling’ - ie. how to get into lesbians’ knickers?

Do you see the difference between sex and gender? Sex is biological reality, and cannot be changed - only cosmetic changes can happen. Gender is the societal expectations of men and women, boys and girls - the stereotypes - girls like pink, dollies, playing house, wear tutus and pink, and boys are rufty-tufty, physically active, like getting dirty, playing sports like football and rugby, and abhor pink or any gentle activities. Men can’t be nurses or look after children, women can’t be engineers or CEOs.

It is the gender stereotypes that women in particular have been fighting against for decades, so now it is completely normal for women to wear trousers, eschew make up and fluffy pink things, and play ‘rough’ sports - and even get paid as much as the men. And if you had asked me 5 years ago, I would have said that battle was largely won - and then the trans rights activists turned up with their rigid adherence to gender stereotypes, and their insistence that if you like things in the feminine stereotype list, you must be female, no matter what your biological sex, and if you don’t like the feminine stereotypes, you must be a boy.

Cant you see how regressive this is? Don’t you think it is better to tell people that they can wear and like whatever they like, and it does NOT define them, nor does it mean they should be condemned to a life dependant on medical and surgical treatment.

Are you happy for vulnerable women to be locked up with violent, male bodied rapists and sexual predators - or do the ‘lady feelings’ of these men outweigh the safety of women?

Does a rape survivor need re-education if she doesn’t want to share her trauma counselling group with a male bodied individual?

How can you protect women and girls if you can’t define them?

This is the kind of patronising reply I hate.
The gender critical movement in Britain is steeped in associations with the far right. Second wave feminism was clearly on the left.
There is a massive difference between the gender critical movement and feminism.

If you want to call gc feminists 'far right', best start another thread, eh?

I think that the OP is conflating reasonable discussion and committed views with bullying. Bullying is defined as personal vitriolic attack and I have not seen any evidence of that from GC posters; in fact there are many articulate compelling arguments made in protecting women's rights.

To state sex is real and immutable is to my mind a truth and is in way a bullying statement. It is a strategy to prevent opinion by stating any discourse of the consequences of sex not being real as 'bullying'. To prevent opinion is scary in a pluralist democratic society founded on liberal values.

Can you please post the evidence that ”The gender critical movement in Britain is steeped in associations with the far right”?

Because this statement in relation to what people refer to as gender critical feminism, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all.

I look forward to seeing the links that evidence this.

@AskMeMore

Yes, that well known former donor to the Labour Party, jk Rowling. Massively right wing. Most GC posters and activists are left wing.

Not being funny but I'm not really in favour of a board where I can be libellously smeared as being a nazi for s&g but I'm not allowed to defend myself. I somehow don't think the OP would like it the other way round and mumsnet's woulwouldn't like it either way.

You have missed the support of Proud Boys, Hearts of Oak and CPAC at Standing for Women events?

That should read 'mumsnet's legal team' - it's hard to type while the bus is going over speedbumps 😳

The only provable link with Hearts of Oak is with transactivists.

Is this the same as the 'Hitler was vegetarian so all vegetarians are Nazis' argument?

@nepeta The reason far right groups overlap with GC groups is because a key part of fascist ideology is about policing gender and denying bodily autonomy to women - trans or cisgender - and basically anyone else who doesn't fit a strict, readily identifiable gender binary. Which is exactly what GC people are also doing. It's also not new that far right ideologies use 'protection of women and girls' as a cover for their ideologies, nor is it unusual for anti feminist and far right groups to have prominent women among them. US anti abortion groups are often headed up by women, for instance. And I cannot tell you how much it makes my blood boil to see trans people - particularly trans women - scapegoated as 'groomers' or 'predators', distracting everyone from people who are actual predators. For all these reasons I will be standing in solidarity with trans people, and supporting feminist, inclusive and progressive spaces. The one space where I can guarantee to be free of the far right, free of gender stereotypes and a progressive safe for people to express themselves are LGBTQ spaces. They've certainly saved me in the past and I'll be remembering that.

Anyway I've answered you in good faith, which isn't easy when I've had numerous people @-ing me with ridicule and sarcasm etc. Makes me realise how extra awful it must be to be trying to exist as trans person in this current climate, I guess!!!

No thank you

And I cannot tell you how much it makes my blood boil to see trans people - particularly trans women - scapegoated as 'groomers' or 'predators', distracting everyone from people who are actual predators

But some trans people ARE actual predators.

Isla Bryson, for starters.

I think you should call it “pro trans” or “anti women” rather than “inclusive”. It’s not inclusive of women’s rights

Well I have missed this. Most of the people I've encountered in UK GC are center left - proper left leaning not the left the US has.

I googled the groups and they seem to be US based? Are they at UK events as well ?

Thing is though they may agree with my GC views - I expect that one of the only places our world view intersect - they may be right on one issue for their own reasons - doesn't invalidate my concerns about women rights and safeguarding.

@onegirlandherdog

a key part of fascist ideology is about policing gender and denying bodily autonomy to women - trans or cisgender - and basically anyone else who doesn't fit a strict, readily identifiable gender binary. Which is exactly what GC people are also doing.

I appreciate you probably won't want to reply to this, but can you explain how it is that GC people are also policing people who don't fit a strict identifiable gender binary?

@onegirlandherdog

I think maybe you should do a bit more reading. GC women don't oppose anyone's bodily autonomy (they just want single sex spaces) and they want to be free of gender stereotypes (which is where the far right and trans campaigners intersect - if you ask Eddie Izzard what makes him a "girl" you'll get a spiel about femininity and lipstick, basically, or if you ask Sam Smith about being a wife he will talk about doing domestic tasks).

If you read the U.K. communist party manifesto, you'll see they oppose self ID because genderism is used to oppress women. But they are, of course, very right wing communists!

Funnily enough @PlanetLuna I pointed this out to you earlier and as you know, @jeffgoldblum and I tend to come from different perspectives on the royal board but are saying the same thing to you! You’re fine over there in very heated discussions with the vast majority not agreeing with your views, as you often point out and I don’t think you’ve called for that board to be divided up? You’ve started this thread and insulted the entire board and regular users from the get go but are surprised or offended by the tone of responses? I think you knew exactly what response you would get and just like the drama of wading into a board where your view is the minority opinion. It’s literally what you do every day. No issue with that myself but I just think your thread is disingenuous and deliberately goady.

Unfortunately, your post is just speculation to back up your own prejudice. Hearts of Oak is just one e
example of a far right group has concrete, demonstrable links with transactivists but none with SFW.

@onegirlandherdog - GC women don't believe in gender. It's bullshit.

Your view that it is somehow connected to sex is much more aligned with far right views than mine.

Sex is biological. Gender is bollocks. Dress however you want, have sex with anyone who will have you. Humans can't change sex.

I'm a feminist (GC) who disagrees with some things regarding Posie Parker, most specifically with her understanding, or lack, of American politics and culture. I also argue quite vehemently with posters who love to fawn over the lastest unoriginal thought by Matt Walsh. I've also had some very rude comments sent my way. But I just dealt with it, I guess. I believe strongly in freedom of speech and civil debate. You learn nothing living in an echo chamber.

We don't all agree here, and you do need a thick skin when going against the grain. However, I find it interesting that the not-GC topics are the only ones that get people asking for its own safe space. OP, feel free to post but don't expect agreement, but I would encourage you to hone your arguments if you feel like staying.

These right wing US groups don't have "GC" views, as in, they are emphatically not gender critical. They are gender supporters. They support gender roles and want to enforce them for themselves and usually for others, often seeing such roles as innate, "natural", appropriate etc etc. They support a gender hierarchy where those gender roles are used to subordinate women, and anyone of either sex who doesn't conform to their ideal.

The only overlap is the acceptance of biological sex as real.