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

The claims:

1. Julie Bindel smiling and having her photo taken with The Heritage Foundation.
2. Kathleen Stock discussing with people on twitter that hanging out with an anti-choice campaigner is fine.
3. JK Rowling praising Matt Walsh's transphobic and extreme right wing film saying 'you make some good points' in front of her millions of followers. This can all be easily found on twitter and probably elsewhere.

(1) can find nothing on this, perhaps some confusion with another person and group as PP have suggested

(2) I think you're referring to this comment from Stock:

"I’m pro-choice. It may surprise some to know I talk to people who are positively pro-life. Not just their pro-choice political allies, who you also revile. But the full-on pro-lifers. They have fine qualities. I refuse to do this splitting. A person - yes, even you- is a mix." made on Twitter on 24/06/2022.

I'd like to know more about why this makes Stock beyond the pale? She is suggesting that engaging with people who have different view points is necessary for progress to be made.

(3) This is what JK Rowling said to Walsh:

"And your film did a good job exposing the incoherence of gender identity theory and some of the harms it's done. Many institutions I used to admire have uncritically embraced this dogma, but I reserve my ire for them rather than shouting 'coward' at individual women."

She is in the process of disagreeing with him about how women handle the attacks they receive from activists online if they express views that don't align with the gender ideology orthodoxy.

I'd love to have some feedback on this from @onegirlandherdog but I appreciate you don't want to post any more on this thread.

So not on FWR which is what I was referring to?

How ridic. That does not demonstrate that GC people are far right. It demonstrates a broad church of people, the vast majority of humanity in every country on the globe, are GC. It does not itself demonstrate that GC beliefs are far right. I really object to the idea that GC is a movement per se. It’s biological reality. The actual movement is transgenderism. Do you ever wonder who is behind that?

I think what you are asking for, OP, is an echo chamber, the like of which is available to you all over the Internet.

Indeed @Whaeanui , I didn't name them either, they outed themselves! .
Anyway I just wanted to give a heads up on here to beware of some posters, I've got to go ( home life!🙄) keep on plodding 😃

You can start a thread. The issue is the majority are not agreeing with you. This is the only place on the internet where women can talk about these issues so the population of those not agreeing will be high.

You can go to any other part of the internet. Reddit is utterly captured by moderators who agree with your views so would suggest there (aka basement incel men).

But you don’t have to go anywhere. You can also stay here. But you can’t make everyone agree with you or create an artificial ‘only people who agree with me’ area.

Posie Parkers tour was sponsored by CPAC a far right group. The links are real.

The lies, my eyes, they love those lies.

How many times are we to see the lies, they want a whole Mumsnet board for the lies so that the lies don't get the eyes on the lies and they can talk about these men to their hearts content.

Hahahaha.

DID YOU KNOW that slugs are hermaphrodites?

NSFW:

It’s actually because the vast majority of people throughout the world know you can’t change sex. People were content to live and let live until men kept insisting on getting in to women’s spaces and calling them bigots for saying actually I don’t want a man exposing his penis to my elderly mother in a swimming pool changing room or my daughter or me for that matter.

If you are prepared to allow the female sex class to be redefined into a mixed sex category in order to pander to the poor mental health or fantasy of some males then you are no feminist.

If you think removing women's right to single sex spaces, services and sports for no good reason other than it hurts male feelings to be told no, you are no feminist.

If you think a woman is anything other than an adult human female, you are no feminist.

Feminists centre females.

Sex is binary. It can't change.

Gender is sexist stereotypes.
There is no innate magic gender essence.

They already split the feminist section to pander to those offended by biological reality.

Go ask for a special trans board, or try reddit or any of the other women hating sites.

It's funny that those offended by GC women can not come up with any coherent, logical, intelligent argument for gender identity ideology.
The only thing we see from TRAs is emotional blackmail or threats.

I've read up to here and cannot cope any more with this nonsense. FEMINISM IS GENDER CRITICAL. IT IS WHAT IT IS!!! Anything else is appropriation. For those of you spouting any other such nonsense, know your flippin history. Without gender critical feminists you wouldn't be able to be writing such rubbish In fact you wouldn't have access to a computer without having to ask your husband for it. The lack of respect for the feminism that went before you is so uneducated you should be ashamed really. Research Germaine Greer, research Simone de Beauvoir, research the suffragettes, read The Women's Room. Know where we have come from. It is galling that you are so ill informed. Many of us here fought for you to have a voice, and you use it to betray women who are most vulnerable.

Meanwhile, actual conservative women have got Kishwar Faulkner to write an amazing letter.

That must sting in your Brighton salon you are permitted to hold by Russel Lloyd whatever his irrelevant name is, despite all the right wing denouncing you have done the hated right wing are doing what we need.

Tell us who CPAC in Australia is please. Because that is who you are talking about. CPAC Australia.

None of the TRAs ever explain the whole premise of their argument - that humans can change sex. Everyone knows they can’t. Society had evolved to a point where really everyone could wear what they liked, call themselves what they like. That wasn’t enough. Now we are being asked to lie about material reality. To accept that some people are indeed neither male or female. None of those things are true. People in general were happy to go along with the pretence because they felt compassion for people who are deeply confused about who they are. However as I say no pro trans poster has ever provided a cogent argument to support the idea that you can be born in the wrong body, quite simply because you can’t.

I am not a proper, academic, GC feminist in everything I think but find it is fine on this board. I am sure there are many others like me who found it by chance. There is the other one not called “sex and gender” for those who prefer it.

I wholly agree with @nepeta - what you are describing is simply not feminism nor any category within it because it's alignment with sex and gender is mutually binding.

You also label gender critical as anti trans which is strictly isn't. It solely centres women and girls as a priority which, is compromised by the inclusion of men and places a societal threat to women greater than already exists today.

Women are not a minority yet we hold second class citizenship based on our sex. There is no environment where including men in that sex class generates positive, improved outcomes for women and girls. It is purely degenerative in every essence of patriarchal dominance.

What you think is liberal feminism, simply isn't.

No, royal boards! Sorry I got confused!

It was not sponsored by them. They put the events on their insurance so that the women there would be safe. Just give it a rest, we know what actually happened.

Well that will be interesting...

Great post, thanks so much for your advice & thoughtful pov, @CeciNestPasUnPipi.

I made a good go of reading the thread but haven't rtft, so apologies... so i understand, would the new board be about the same topics we discuss here, but from the opposite pov? i.e. men can be women, single sex spaces shouldn't exist, children shouldn't have to go through puberty if they don't want to?

Anything sex and gender on the Chat board would be relegated to the naught step where us mean old women (and some men) would disagree with the above pov, so I can see the conundrum. That said, the entire rest of the Internet is a pretty "safe space" in terms of people who share anti-woman/anti-science views.

All of that said, if op wants a new board and there are enough people to fill it, why not?

Thanks for your interesting & thoughtful reply, @ilovemyspace.

To answer your question: As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood. Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls.

To answer your question: As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood. Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls.

So a male like Lia Thomas is not threat to the integrity of women's sport? Or their privacy and dignity when walking around naked in their changing room?

I'm sorry OP, but I don't understand what is "paternalistic" about womanhood. Genuinely interested.

On the issue of threat, are you saying there is definitely no evidence of threat or that even if there was evidence, you would not want to take it into account?