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

Perhaps it could be called the "Sarah Jane Baker is our model" talk board.

If there is another board specifically to talk about transgenderism in a 'favourable way for women', does that mean that anyone coming on this board disagreeing with the GC women, will have their post transferred across? As happens now on AIBU?

Because there are numerous people who come on here specifically to disagree. Some because they genuinely do, but more often because they like sticking it to women.

If you're going to split the boards into agree/disagree, then might we all be left in bloody peace?

I too would like to know this.

Of course, it sounds like an echo chamber in the making. You know, like the accusation that is frequently thrown around on here....

Always strange to see what point of view the people who actually want an echo chamber have. It is the same hypocrisy that underlies many of the accusations that are lobbed at this board though.

I agree with PP about it having already been separated out but if you want another board and @Mnhq want to provide it fair enough - However I really, really object to your proposed title for the board. I actually find it offensive.

You use the word inclusive which suggests this board is exclusive - you're trying to imply that this board is transphobic. It is not. It is just has a lot of users very critical of a gender ideology that ignores material biology. That is not transphobia of itself. Many transmen and transwomen also hold the same views.

If you want a separate board you need to call it something like the 'social gender discussion board', as that reflects your views, and do not call it something that is a veiled and offensive dig at others.

I don't know - inclusive but non-gc - is actually a hilarious oxymoron. It would make me laugh every time I saw it.

Gender identity ideology cannot stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, because it's batshit and ever changing.

This is what I mull over repeatedly. Contrary to the belief of some here, I have plenty of "are we the baddies?" moments. I'm not used to being out of step with my fellow left-wing friends (and former friends, in some cases) - the friends with whom I celebrated the legalisation of gay marriage and bemoaned the newly-acceptable xenophobia in the wake of Brexit campaigning - so I regularly test my thinking, seek to understand how GI can make some sort of sense, look for the scales falling away from my eyes.

But there's just no logic to it! Destabilising language so there are no common meanings any more; increasing harms to women; turning physically healthy - if sometimes traumatised, or autistic, or potentially gay - children and adolescents into lifelong medical patients; claiming murders and suicides that just aren't supported by statistics or reporting; denying it's a mental illness but still demanding 'gender-affirming' surgery or threatening they'll kill themselves; driving a coach-and-horses through safeguarding; demanding to be 'accepted as themselves' but changing everything about themselves to resemble the opposite sex; TM legally agreeing to 'live as the opposite gender [whatever that means] for the rest of their life' then promptly getting pregnant...it doesn't matter which aspect you focus on, the whole thing is a mass of contradictions, incoherence, lack of logic with nothing hanging together or making any kind of sense.

@ValuePartnership hi yeah it's a pretty big deal to a lot of parents

some people think the correct response to gender non conforming (gnc) youth is conversion camp or shunning - I disagree and don't think we (as parents) should do that

some people think the correct response to gnc youth is puberty blockers social transition and major surgery - I disagree and don't think we (as parents) should do that

It is quite possible to disagree with both of the above.

What do you do if your kid is distressed because they don't think they fit the stereotypes well enough. Seems to me the kindest best and most honest answer is screw the stereotypes you're perfect just as you are and don't need to live up anyone's ideas of what men/women have to be like.

What do you do if your kid is distressed because they don't think they fit the stereotypes well enough. Seems to me the kindest best and most honest answer is screw the stereotypes you're perfect just as you are and don't need to live up anyone's ideas of what men/women have to be like.

I think that’s the position of most women on here, and the most sensible idea I’ve seen for a long time.

I think OPs problem is that some Feminist Chat is pretty GC as well. Poor love, nowhere to go on mumsnet...

I hear Reddit is welcoming?

I really have tried to understand OP's position but its so contradictory I can't make sense of it. What OP wants is not inclusive and its not feminism - feminism doesn't support gender stereotypes.
OP wants an exclusive board where the kind of robust comments we are subjected to are banned, where you aren't allowed to challenge a false narrative or ask for facts.

I think what OP actually wants is a trans discussion board. What's stopping OP asking for one?

Indeed. I take it we won't be allowed to go onto that board and say hey, you're talking a whole load of sexist claptrap? In which case no one can come over here and hey, you've all bigots.

to echo chambers for the price of one!

Not sure they thought this through.

The board could look something like this...

First post: KJK is a Nazi because reasons. 25 replies all agreeing.

Second post: JKR is a transphobe because reasons. 20 replies all agreeing.

Third post: GQ women are all fat and frumpy. 10 replies all agreeing.

Fourth post. There is no fourth post.

There is an LGBT Parents board but I suppose there could be a ‘Transgender Allies Chat’ section for people who aren’t LGBT parents but don’t want a general LGBT Chat board because that risks the awkward L, the awkward G and the awkward B having their say on T encroachment?

Doubt it will be very busy but 🤷‍♀️

I'm taking that third post personally, while agreeing.

@BenCoopersSupportWren me too - I still keep thinking I must be missing something.

I’m trying really hard to understand the libfem / twaw pov but I can’t make sense of how to align it with protection for women and children.

If you want to argue your case that transwomen are women, go ahead, op. Nothing stopping you.

I think there is an Astrology topic, you could try there too.

So I believe. Set forth OP - no-one will contradict you on Reddit (at least not last time I looked).

The OP wants feminism to include men but not include women.

I think this feminism deserves a new name…

Dickpanderism?

Ballpalmerism?

Penispersonism?

Meninism? 😀

Having watched the OP quickly resort to labelling others and the board with the usual slurs on other threads on this board, I suspect the motives for this thread is rather simple once you have seen it.

FemmyMenism?

Perhaps it’s time for a revival of The Whigs?

(no h).

Men's rights activism.