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

You don’t think men are or can be a threat to women and girls? Why not?

As PPs have noted, I think Reddit will be right up your alley, OP. That's OK, if 3rd wave liberal feminism is your thing and you don't want to see any blasphemy against your beliefs, there are definitely online spaces that you will enjoy.

OP just a heads up, quite a few of us on here find being called "cis" very offensive, please don't.

What about the women and girls excluded from their only space so that a male with a TQ+ identity can have their preferred and most comfortable choice?

Why do those born male matter in ways that those not born male don't?

Why is inclusion a male-only thing?

Yes, to women's equality of access and inclusion, men with TQ+ identities are not just a threat, they are actively excluding and doing harm. And that's before we go and talk to the rape and assault victims about whether or not they agree with you.

Maybe that'll be allowed in the new shiny board

Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls.

Trans women offending patterns are no different from other males. In fact in terms of prison population trans women are over represented when it comes to convictions for sex offences when compared to the rest of the male estate.

now that doesn't mean all trans women are a threat in the same way not all men are a threat. But it does mean safeguarding women and girls needs to be the same for both

@PlanetLuna
You don't think that Isla Bryson, Katie dolatowski, Karen White, barbie kardashian, lexi-rose Crawford or Jessica yaniv pose any threat to women and girls?

They're all convicted rapists who are transwomen. Why do you think they are no threat to women and girls?

Are you a mother, OP?

Just as a thought experiment, would you let your nine year old go to the ladies' loo (couple of toilets, cubicles, shared sink) on her own in a cafe?

What if a man dressed as a man followed her into the ladies a minute or so afterwards, would you jump up and check if she was ok?

What if a man with lipstick on followed her in? What would your assumption be?

What if a more feminine male, but clearly a male, followed her in?

What if a woman followed her in?

Same treatment, or slightly different, depending on perception of risk?

It's just nonsense. Yet more bogus bollocks to stop women talking about the issue.

'Men aren't a threat to women'.

Snort.

As a feminist, I simply don’t subscribe to a paternalistic view of womanhood.

@PlanetLuna what does this mean? A “paternalistic view of womanhood”? I’m confused. Can you expand on this a bit more?

Would “a paternalistic view of womanhood” be a traditional male viewpoint on women? When predominantly fathers tell women who and what they are and what they should do? Or men in general tell women what “womanhood” is? (Come to think of it, what is “womanhood” other than the fact of being a woman?) So a paternalistic view of womanhood is the traditional view of the patriarchy?

I can’t think how that might be anything to do with second-wave feminism or gender critical feminism, which are critical of the idea of “womanhood” being anything other than the fact of being a woman. And gender critical women aren’t exactly “the patriarchy” and neither are most of them men. This is mumsnet, not dadsnet, for example. A matriarchy, one might think, rather than a patriarchy!

Could you explain what you mean a bit more? Do you mean you don’t want the kind of feminism where men tell us what a woman is? Like, I don’t know, the Owen Jonesey type of men who keep telling us what women are. Or even the Dylan Mulvaney type of men, they quite like to tell us what women are, too. So you don’t like those men telling us what womanhood is? Is that what you mean?

You might stand a better chance of convincing woman that transwomen aren't a threat, op, if you could persuade them to stop threatening women with rape, death, doxing their parents, sending them bomb threats, and describing, in quite creative detail, exactly how they want their children to die.

I'm not trying to denigrate people, OP, just to point out that many women and girls make safeguarding calls every day for themselves and others, based on just basic feelings and perceptions of risk. Lots of people answer the questions differently and I am not saying how people should feel about any of these categories of people, it's just that this experience of having to decide is something that really weighs on lots of women. If it doesn't weigh on you, then I think you are quite lucky.

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.

Please don't use "cis" on this board. Women do not require a prefix that renders them a subcategory of their own sex. It's demeaning.

What exactly would make you see TW as a threat to women when:

• male rapists are housed in women's prisons and TW have sexually assaulted women in the female estate
• women are losing access to opportunities such as sports scholarships because they are being given to men
• women are being driven out of services/groups and deprived of opportunities because they are no longer single sex
• the lie that you can change sex is driving a culture of life long medicalisation and sterilisation of vulnerable children, many of whom are autistic
• studies show that following transition, TW retain male patterns of sexual criminal behaviour

Even after all that, you don't address the issue as to how women are meant to know who are genuine TW and male predictors?

You can use long words and terms like nuance and intersectional to try and obscure what's happening here, but it's simple.

You cannot change sex.

Saying you can makes the distinction between male and female irrelevant.

Without that distinction how can you be a feminist?

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.

Bollocks. GC feminists think gender is regressive bollocks that should be consigned to the bin and who don’t think liking a gender stereotype usually aligned with the opposite sex makes you that sex - which is the exact opposite of the TRA position. Who do you think got the groundswell of support moving for the “let toys be toys” and “let clothes be clothes” campaigns? The GC feminists you try to smear and denigrate, that’s who.

The only binary GC women believe in is sex.

Perhaps the two FWR boards should be renamed “second wave / radical feminism” and “liberal / ‘choice’ feminism”. Then threads on any and all topics could be started on either board from that board’s prevailing perspective - with posters from the other board welcome to explain why they disagree, of course.

(Believing men can be women and should have rights to women’s single-sex spaces isn’t any type of feminism, mind you. How fucking insulting to reduce the material reality of womanhood to a man’s perception of feminine stereotypes.)

@PlanetLuna

In 2022, 23 transwomen were convicted of sexual offences in the UK. Of these, 15 were with child victims, 7 with adult victims, 1 with animal victim.

These included among others

Two counts of penetrative sexual activity with a girl aged 13 to 15

30 counts of sexual assault against 7 child victims

Rape of a child under 13

Sexual assault of two young girls and indecent exposure

Rapist and child sex offender convicted of inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity

Sex offender convicted of possessing indecent images of children and breaches of Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO)

Multiple sex offences related to a public masturbation spree, witnessed by children

Sexual abuse of two children

21 child sexual abuse offences

Possession of prohibited images of a child, possession of extreme pornography depicting rape and SHPO breaches

Child sex offender convicted of breaching sex offender notification requirement to inform police of any new address

Ian Bullock: Sexual assault of a woman in a train station women’s toilet

Repeat sex offender again breaching SHPO

Et cetera

In addition to these sexual offences, 12 transwomen in the uk were convicted for other violent offences including

Behaving in a threatening or abusive manner towards a woman and her toddler, adopting a fake identity, breach of SHPO

Abduction of a child following grooming via the internet

Prolonged violent assault on a woman

Assault by beating and criminal damage

Two charges of causing harassment, alarm or distress to teenage girls

Racially-aggravated disorderly behaviour and breach of Criminal Behaviour Order

Multiple counts of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, issuing threats, exposing genitals to police officers

Four charges of assault, one charge of threatening and abusive behaviour and prejudice relating to sexual orientation

Stalking order imposed after making threats to kill a woman

Et cetera

Please can you explain your statement that transwomen pose no threat to women and girls?

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

You're a feminist who thinks men can be women too?

Transwomen, being male, pose the exact same threat to women and girls as any other male.

Pretending that a subset of men are harmless because they claim to be women is pure stupidity. A mockery of the most basic safeguarding.

The only requirement to have a 'womanhood' is to be an adult human female.

@PlanetLuna is it the dress, the lipstick or the special inner feeling.that makes a male with a trans identity any less of a threat than any other male?

I thought that when the figures from the MoJ and the census were inspected, it turned out that trans-identified males had higher rates of sexual offending than the average man. Did I miss a revision?

That is quite shocking seeing them listed. How anyone can think that transwomen pose no threat is beyond me. I’ve asked @PlanetLuna twice now but they don’t seem to be answering any questions

Hey OP- sorry in advance for the long post, I have a lot to say on this.

Just wanted to say that I really agree with your sentiment that this forum can be unpleasant. I came to this site about a year ago because I was told it's transphobic and I wanted to check it out.

I'm not and will never be GC, and I disagree with the vast majority which is said here... but I stayed, because there were a few things things I actually agreed with, from a group I never thought I'd find any common ground with. I also find some of the quick quips amusing, and as a woman who was brought up to fit into a quiet, narrow mould of what it means to be a woman, I've grown to really admire so many women who post on here (even if we disagree). There are many people on here who outspoken and take no prisoners, without being condescending or cruel. I realise saying that will make me hated by both sides, but whatever. I think both sides need to listen to the other side in a way which is genuine and objective.

I think there are loads of women on here who see nuance and want to have that discussion. For example, people who want to support trans women but have a problem with someone who came out as a trans woman yesterday or trans feminine individuals who are 6ft 5 with beards walking into their bathrooms. I'm not saying I agree with those people, or that that happens as often as reading this thread would make you think, but it's the nuance on this forum which the majority of people are here for and I think there's space for that.

Unfortunately, what you also see here is a small minority of people with much louder voices always piling onto someone who shares a hint of not being GC, pulling them to shreds. Always with the same responses- like 'define a woman!' (Side note: I find that pointless. Women have been discriminated against for years before anyone thought women could be anything but XX. Even if we do settle that debate- what next? Are men going to magically stop discriminating against us? Will we stop getting mansplained to, raped and trafficked disproportionately? I think women have bigger issues than excluding a tiny minority).
An example of this- I read a thread here yesterday by a man who called all trans women autogynophiles. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of women on this thread wouldn't agree with that, but he wasn't called out for that particular comment from what I remember. I found this interesting, when you compare it to every word being torn to shreds on here by someone who isn't GC sharing a view.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think it's separating out the forums will help. I just think the quieter, reasoned voices (some GC, some not GC) need to push forwards more. As I'm writing this I'm pledging to do that.

@wontbesilencedbyyou are you seriously tone policing women on a feminism board? Why? why exactly should we listen to you? Have you told the gender ideologists to #bekind? Or are you ok with the rape threats, the death threats, the doxing, the assaults? Go and tell the TRA to let the quieter , reasoned voices speak and do come back and let us know how that went won’t you?

Good for you, wontbesilencedbyyou. I disagree with several of your points, but it's always good to get good faith discussions from people with different angles.

And if the issue is more that as you see trans women as women and you don't accept that a crime by a minority of trans women should invalidate that (rather than there actually empirically being no threat whatsoever, which is not an unreasonable POV even if I don't agree), another interesting thought experiment is whether there are any circumstances that might change your view? What if they offended at twice the rate of males against women? Ten times? A hundred times?

In other words, is there a point at which the theory must bend to fact? I am really interested in your answer on this.

The equivalent evidence challenge for GC women might be to ask if their views might change if there is no offending, or only offending at a female rate

There is no such thing as "non-GC feminism". If you are an actual feminist you have no choice but to be critical of one of the most misogynistic ideologies of the last 50 years.

It's like asking for an environmental forum without people who are critical of coal mines, big oil companies and pesticides. It makes no sense what so ever.

This!