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

It's always odd to me when posters declare that they are not "GC" and never could be. To me, "gender critical" means simply being critical of gender as a concept. Critical of its use to impose a hierarchy that subordinates women, critical of imposing gender roles and stereotypes on people, critical of those who would denigrate or punish those who step outside those gender roles and stereotypes. And so on. I'd have thought that every poster who self describes as a feminist would agree with being critical of those things.

@wontbesilencedbyyou ’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’ Ummmmm you do realise women were discriminated against before any one knew what xx was because it’s immediately apparent who is male and who is female. Particularly in the past when the make up, wigs and facial feminisation surgery that many men choose to indulge their fantasy was not available. Women were discriminated against on the basis of sex. They continue to be discriminated against on the basis of sex. Not because they say they are a woman. Your point is incredibly foolish. Woman is not an expansive term. It applies to one of two types of humans. And yes there are much more important things in the world to be discussed than this nonsense, however it is men centring their desires that has meant this topic has consumed all in its sights because now women are not even allowed to have ownership of their own sex. Speak to the men deluding themselves that they are women, not the women pointing out they aren’t.

It's always odd to me when posters declare that they are not "GC" and never could be.

Yes. They don't understand the concept. No feminist can be uncritical of gender.

Women are oppressed on the basis of their biology, and gender is the means by which it's done.

People appear to think 'gender critical', as a concept, has only arrived in conjunction with transgenderism.

Instead of transgenderism forcing detrimental stereotypes on women, and feminists naturally opposing it because they have always been critical of gender.

Waay before transgenderism entered the arena.

”Her voice was ever soft, gentle and low / An excellent thing in women”

Isn’t your desire for those with the softer voices just another stereotype of what women should be like - part of that narrow view of what a woman is like that you say you grew up with?

Because one of the points of talking about “what is a woman” is precisely about those kinds of stereotypes. Why do transwomen adopt feminine clothing, and not the behavioural aspects of femininity that women are still routinely and normatively policed on? (Soft voice! Share! Don’t look too forward! Don’t be pushy! Don’t be bossy! Don’t take up too much space or dominate conversation!)

Why is it all appearance and superficial characteristics of traditional femininity that are part of the inner gender identity? And not all the messages that are sent to boys and girls from birth about what women’s personalities are like versus men’s?

For example, I have what might be thought of as quite a masculine personality according to many gender stereotypes - I’m quite driven, outspoken, hyper-rational, good at spatial analysis, no-nonsense, I like driving, take no prisoners intellectually etc., good with money, work in a male-dominated institution. I’m also sexually attracted to women. But I quite like skirts - find them comfortable - and have long hair. Why am I not trans? Should I doubt my inner gender identity because so many of my personality traits are socially coded as masculine? Why should clothing and hairstyle be the determinant, when clothing and hairstyles change regularly over time with fashion?

These are part of the problems with gender ideology that GC feminists are identifying. Why is the evidence of “gender identity” so superficial, leaving many other “gendered” norms intact? Why should women speak in low quiet voices for fear of being thought not quite the thing? Do men with “loud voices” ever get tone policed by other men and told to shut up in favour of the more softly spoken men?

(I note that Robin Moira White, who often appears on these boards, did not want to alter her vocal tone on the grounds that her original masculine voice was a big advantage as an advocate in the law. Why should that be the case? Why would adopting a female-sounding voice be a detriment in a male-dominated career, I wonder? Could it be those social stereotypes again?)

They livestreamed the event and promoted speakers through their social media.

Dear lord. It's a public event and no one has the power to stop anyone filming it.

They were filming women talking about their personal experiences of suffering at the hands of men.

I can't imagine why people don't want that to reach as many ears and eyes as possible.

So many feminists that love promoting these men on feminist boards! I think they have a crush!

The fems that push this bunch of losers must have the hots for them because they can't stop taking about them here. They are always in their thoughts and they must love to watch their videos because they have them available at their fingertips. They must think they are cute and really like to watch them over and over.

Which one do you fancy the most @sweetcreams.

Don't be shy, we know you have saved their videos so you can dream about your favourite one.

@myveryownelectrickitten I see your points. But if we can all agree women are socialised to be quieter and fit into these narrow moulds, surely we should give a chance for the women who have fallen victim to that to have their voice heard just as much as yours? Good for you that you are an outspoken, driven woman, but I don't see how me saying this forum should listen to those quieter voices would be a problem if this is about letting women be heard.

Also your argument presents a lose/lose situation for trans women. If they play into the behaviours women are often policed on (don't be too pushy etc.) you would argue that they'd be appropriating womanhood even more so than you think they are now, and adopting harmful stereotypes. If they are just themselves and probably less likely to fit into those moulds because they were socialised male, then you criticise them for not doing it. So if you have crippling gender dysphoria and decide to transition, what are you supposed to do? Sit in the corner and never socialise with another human again?

I feel like a lack of dysphoria also explains why even though you may have a masculine personality according to stereotypes, you're not trans.

She literally said they sponsored the events AND covered the insurance.

https://twitter.com/ICanSeeForever1/status/1632322400430768133?t=a1YB04ruAlocToVd7CIpTw&s=19

@sweetcreams can you explain CPAC Australia's far right positions? What do they advocate or support that demonstrates a far right agenda?

So when people who are normally not known for their support of feminism, yet somehow they now care more than the so called "women friendly left" i would say that is not really a sleight against the women who work with them but more a very large red flag as to how messed up and crazy everything has become.

It also says a lot about you that you see an issue with women getting insured and given a platform to speak without limitations.

OP

(one of) the problems here is you've walked into our board to tell us how you don't want us on your new inclusive board. Okay dokey then, but it does come across as

The 'critical' part of gender critical means critical in the same way as critical thinking not critical as is my father was very critical of his mother. You can have critical thinking and discussion OR you can have thought terminating cliches, no discussion and shunning of those who say the wrong things.

Here is what being GC means to me

Sex is real binary and immutable. I find comments or arguments that I am not a woman due to the fact my ovaries don't / haven't always worked right to be deeply offensive. There is no part of the process of building a human being from scratch that doesn't sometimes go wrong and no organ system that always functions perfectly. I have problems / have had problems with my ovaries working right, that does not make me a non-woman, unwomanly. I have seen people refer to me as intersex and use my condition to 'prove' that not only am I not a woman but that my existence proves there is no such thing as women. I assure you I find this extremely hurtful and offensive.

Sometimes it matters.

most of the 'bad' women here have discovered a red line or lines things that they cannot agree with without surrendering essential principles for me the first main one is / was

adult human females who are same sex attracted existed before stonewall changed the definitions of the word lesbian and continued to exist after stonewall changed the functional meaning of the word lesbian. I find the changes homophobic and sexist and will continue to believe that whilst a person can be heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual there is no moral superiority to women being heterosexual or bisexual and no moral imperative for homosexual woman to try sex with men transwomen or that they are allowed to opt out of certain sexual acts but they are being closed minded bigots if they just refuse to date transwomen en masse.

I do not hate heterosexual men that fancy lesbians, I do not believe that they should be stripped of (any) human rights. But no matter how much 'lesbian' porn they watch, how badly they want it or how entitled they feel I will never agree that a heterosexual man is entitled to decide that from now on he will be having sexual romantic relationships with homosexual women.

I do believe that all children deserve clear and accurate information about conception & contraception, I think losing that hurts boys and girls but puts the girls in much more danger as the consequences of conception are not equally distributed.

sex is real and sometimes it matters.

@Eyerollcentral Yes agree that women have been discriminated against on the basis of sex and the associated social construct of femininity, but my point was...even if we defined women the way some people on this forum do, what next? Let's say it's purely about sex, so an adult human female. We'd be having the same conversations about awful men, but with trans people removed from the equation. The men actually causing harm would still be walking around, but years have passed where people have wasted their time talking about this. So I'm saying that I'd rather focus on just stopping awful men, without randomly putting the focus on the 0.1% of people who are trans. It would all come out at the same place so why not just get there faster.

Trans women are ALWAYS appropriating womanhood, as they are men. It’s always a pretence, because they are men.
‘So if you have crippling gender dysphoria and decide to transition, what are you supposed to do? Sit in the corner and never socialise with another human again?’ No, you should seek psychiatric treatment to help you accept your sex. Transition should only ever be a last resort where treatment has failed and indeed this was the sensible approach taken until the trans lobby started their campaign to remove the need for psychiatric assessment. Of course this is wildly irresponsible because it’s a bad idea to self diagnose yourself with anything. ‘I’m trans’ could very easily not be the reason for someone to feel
uncomfortable with their body. Indeed many trans patients have other serious psychiatric issues which should be treated. The trans lobby wants to sacrifice confused and ill individuals to store up their ideology. How any one can think this is acceptable is beyond me.

No, women have been discriminated against because of their sex. Societal expectations of ‘feminity’ have been imposed on women as a result of the disproportionate power of men in society. The ‘associated social construct of feminity’ was a by product of patriarchy, sex alone is the basis of discrimination against women.
There is only one definition of woman - adult human female. It’s not debatable. That is what a woman is.
‘ We'd be having the same conversations about awful men, but with trans people removed from the equation.’ Trans women are men, so they should be excluded from the equation. Trans men are women so they very much should be included, as should the discussion around why the largest increase in those reporting a trans identity are teenage girls - why do so many girls think life would be better if they weren’t female? When I was teen girl the big issue was eating disorders, generally triggered at the onset of puberty which funny enough is when most of these teens begin saying they are male. Do you think that’s a coincidence?
’The men actually causing harm would still be walking around, but years have passed where people have wasted their time talking about this.’ Yes and deluded trans women will still men. Even after they are dead they will still be readily identified as men as it is evident from their bones. I find it bewildering that your idea to tackle it is to say to women look just let them say they are women rather than confront with trans women with the truth that they are men. I think you need to examine how much of your childhood conditioning prevails as you still seem to think that the girls should shut up and let the boys do what they want.
’It would all come out at the same place so why not just get there faster.’ But at the end you wouldn’t be a woman, you’d be a ‘cis woman’, a ‘birthing parent’ as opposed to a mother, etc. And btw the terrible men would still be there but now they will be sitting beside you in every single female space telling you that you must recognise them as women.

@Eyerollcentral This feels like it's the horseshoe effect of two opposing views agreeing on some things, but coming at it from different angles. I agree that misogyny definitely impacts teenage girls in a way which needs to be tackled by facing the actual issue: misogyny.
I'll ignore the personal comments about my childhood (come on...really?!?) but I will say that "It’s not debatable. That is what a woman is" is slightly ironic considering all the criticisms of #nodebate on here. I feel like what you're saying is the exact same of what people on here accuse trans rights activists of doing: shutting down conversations. It's just you think yours is the right way of having no debate...because doesn't everyone?!

‘ I agree that misogyny definitely impacts teenage girls in a way which needs to be tackled by facing the actual issue: misogyny.’ How can you tackle misogyny unless you know what a woman is?
I only mentioned your upbringing because you did. You made the point that you had been brought with expectations of how women should behave, that’s why I referenced it.
‘"It’s not debatable. That is what a woman is" is slightly ironic considering all the criticisms of #nodebate on here. I feel like what you're saying is the exact same of what people on here accuse trans rights activists of doing: shutting down conversations. It's just you think yours is the right way of having no debate...because doesn't everyone?!’ How can you debate biological reality? Tell me what you think the points are that challenge the definition of woman.

@wontbesilencedbyyou This is not about no debate. It's like saying it's not debatable that the world is round. It's a fact that we all know to be true. We can prove it's true. It's a waste of time and energy to debate what a woman is. Everyone knows this.

To include men in the definition of women invalidates almost every women's issue because data can no longer be gathered.

If cars can identify as bicycles and you consider them bicycles you can no longer gather correct data about the average speed of bicycles.

@wontbesilencedbyyou

for me the definition of woman is pretty important, but I get that you may feel the same. As I see it the case comes down to this

On the one hand transwoman MP sums it up in parliament as "Being a woman has nothing to do with being female" and whilst I do not agree I know at least roughly what he meant. I do not deny that such a concept or feeling exists but I do believe that taking the word for "adult human females" to describe this concept is disrespectful of all women.

IF I agreed that the other system of classifying humans was superior I would switch to using it I rather like learning about new classification systems. The claims are generally some combination that it is kinder and/or more inclusive - I do not feel either of these claims stands up to scrutiny.

You do know that 99% of sexual crimes are committed by men and this figure does not get any lower when they identify as women?
That figure is all the justification needed to keep males out of spaces where women are vulnerable. Now please explain, very slowly, why you want to give a free pass to men who identify as women? It makes zero sense. Either men are a danger or they are not, in which case campaign for mixed sex spaces and have done.

@OneMorePlant @Eyerollcentral Surely everyone thinks that their POV is the round earth, and everyone else is the flat earth. I just don't think that's a good basis for a discussion: it's true because it's true. Seems very tautological.
Also surely you could still separate the data by who is trans and who isn't, to still see trends which are effected by biological sex. This would be better for everyone.
Finally, I think definitions are complicated. It's the 'is a hot dog a sandwich' debate which I think best demonstrates this (I know...insert joke here 😂)

@OneMorePlant you are right - I am tired and should go to bed

It's one of my bad qualities that I am right so often 😜😂 Sweet dreams!

@Apollo441 "Now please explain, very slowly" Patronising AF but I'll take the bait then step away because I'm tired and I feel like my original point is more related to this thread than all my later posts.
Because even 0.1% of 99% is still a very small number compared to the amount of normal men walking about actually hurting women physically. By only focussing on the bad trans women, you're letting all the other (numerically many many many more) bad men get away with it.

‘Surely everyone thinks that their POV is the round earth, and everyone else is the flat earth.’ Sorry do you not believe in facts? Observable, material reality is not an opinion.
‘Also surely you could still separate the data by who is trans and who isn't, to still see trends which are effected by biological sex. This would be better for everyone.’ How do you define who is trans? Is it only people who have fully transitioned and have obtained a GRC? Or is it anyone who declares they are trans? You see the starting point has to always be clear definitions, otherwise any data is useless.
‘Finally, I think definitions are complicated. It's the 'is a hot dog a sandwich' debate which I think best demonstrates this (I know...insert joke here 😂)’ I have to ask you again, what do you think is complicated about the definition of a woman being adult human female?