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

Gender critical 'feminists' are fighting for equal pay for women when that includes any man self identifying as a women and the inability to see a pay gap because data doesn't record biological sex, this allowing unscrupulous multinationals to exploit females and reinstate and reinforce the glass ceiling.

They are fighting for the right of women to be sexually assaulted or raped in prisons by convicted sex offenders.

They are fighting for the rights of women to be leered at in changing rooms by males who think that women prance whilst exercising and have girly giggling chats because they've forgotten their tampons.

They are fighting for the right to queue past urinals for a reduced number of cubicles.

I do think the question of what they are campaigning for is very relevant if they believe that gender replaces sex...

I must admit that I am not very educated in feminist theory. However yesterday on an AIBU thread a male rights activist showed their hand by posting this:

”Second wave had it (broadly) right. Third wave went off track. The backlash and ensuing GC movement is dominated by rabid, ill-informed and hate-filled rhetoric.”

I thought this was great at highlighting just how ridiculous these men’s rights activists are. Completely oblivious to the second wave feminists who are those he was denouncing as rabid, ill-informed and hate-filled.

This person was telling us all about what they believed equality was and how far women have yet to achieve it while telling us off for recognising the source of female oppression- their biology.

It really was a gloriously incoherent mess.

People who don’t understand what underpins women fighting for having sex prioritised when it matters, like to reduce it to a narrow focus, when we are saying ‘no…. It impacts on most aspects of our lives!!! And fuck off, we can tackle fighting for all those things while still fighting to keep sex prioritised where it matters’.

It is funny how they constantly look like morons describing what they think feminism is. Like you said, I'm a second wave feminist and also gen x which means it's in my genes to be anti-establishment which is always anti-women. So there is no way in hell that I could possibly support gender ideology.

They like to cry that they are the most marginalised but marginalised people don't get corperate sponsorships, their flags painted all over and laws and policies that override other people's rights.

Did you mean liberal or inclusive "feminists"?

I suspect RTB just missed off a ‘Non’ at the very beginning!

So

“Non gender critical 'feminists' are fighting for equal pay for women when that includes any man self identifying as a women”

^^

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision

I agree with all the posters saying this - "Outstanding post. I agree with every word." in various wording.

It seems to me at times there is so much wrong it is quite hard to know what to be most outraged about. For me it is all linked to women's right to set there own boundaries and to say no to men.

A incarcerated man's feeling that he is entitled to a woman cellmate if he feels that that would suit him better does not automatically trump a incarcerated woman's feeling that she is entitled to a single sex prison.

A heterosexual man's feeling that he is entitled to a choose to date homosexual women if he feels that that would suit him better does not automatically trump the fact that women have a right to define their own sexual boundaries.

Same concept and attitudes we're fighting different manifestations - But yeah Keep prisons single sex - jesus talk about rights I wasn't expecting us to have to fight for again.

Haven’t read all posts.

OP seems to make same wrong assumption that defending women rights is anti-trans.

If what OP wants is not debate as infer from the word ‘discussion’ in the title, but applauding cloned views club. Maybe it would be better to open a Cis allies-ship branch on the LGbT+ board.

For me feminism centres women, not the self ID of others.

Nor do I see trans women as a threat to cis women and girls
You have to be able to substantiate why allowing men to be treated as literally women, does not pose a threat to women and girls. You can't just assert it as a belief. It needs to be substantiated. Especially when common sense, lived experience and the entire world wide history of men's violence to women would suggest that allowing this does cause a threat.

And that is why you need to be able to debate and discuss with those who disagree. Its literally the only way that exists to distinguish bad ideas and good ideas. Its the only way to hone your own thinking to a strong, coherent and defendable position.

Male people of TQ+ identities requiring to access female only spaces and services are a threat to female people having female only spaces and services, and female people are being excluded as a result. Female people need female only spaces. That some male people do not like this is not a reason for male people to control female people's boundaries.

Some of those male people are in addition a physical risk to those female people, with a number so far being convicted of using their access to those spaces to sexually offend and injure women. You know some of the names as well as women here do. Isla Bryson. Karen White. Katie Dolotowski. Those male people have then gone on to demand access to more female people within prisons.

THAT is not defendable position unless you believe that male people are valuable in ways that female people are not.

I think the issue about fertility is that all girls and women assume they can reproduce (until they can't)

Yes, and we fear unwanted pregnancy because of that. We fear vaginal rape because of that.

Instead of feeling that him going to prison will ensure he will be unable to harm anyone for a while, a victim has to decide on which women to condemn.

This made my blood run cold. I hadn't seen it before, but it's glaringly obvious now that I've seen it written down. How benefits from putting women into this bind? Sexually-abusive males do: claim to identify as trans, carry out a rape, your victim won't report to protect female prisoners, get off scot-free.

On one thread a couple of years back, a woman disclosed she'd faced that exact quandary after a trans-identifying male raped her.

She'd finally chosen not to report it to the police, for that exact reason.

That this has already happened made me cry.

I also completely understand her reasoning. At least his future victims outside of a prison have some chance to run away, because they aren't literally locked up with him. At least his future victims outside of a prison have the liberty to get STI tests and pregnancy tests and abortions at a time of their choosing and without having to disclose a rape to the screws (or anyone else) to get these essential medical treatments.

How benefits from putting women into this bind?

That should start "Who benefits".

Despite the batshit opening post, this thread has produced some amazing, insightful women centred posts. Thank you all for turning a nasty ignorant thread into a celebration of the best of feminist, women centred thought and writing.

Yes, well said, hadn’t thought of it like that!

Christine Burns claims a lot of ownership of the incomprehensible fudge trans people believe the Equality Act 2010 provides them. They genuinely believe that they negotiated agreement that sex meant their choice and not actual sex. Even the single sex exemptions are meant to include both sexes if that's what they choose.

They believe that they created an absolute definitive law.

I don't think they were on the same page as the legislators at the time but they do, and have gone on to do what we have seen, generate a hostile environment for any woman disagreeing with them. Look at how nasty Burns and fans are on Twitter about women who don't consent to these male dominated rules.

Burns et al are of the generation that did consider themselves in charge of what women were permitted. We are now supposed to believe that the structure put in place by this sexist generation is progressive and modern.

That makes me laugh the loudest frankly. I will not be taking advice on anything from these antediluvians.

EHRC seems to be of the same opinion thankfully: that sexist generation belongs to a time gone by, time to close the door on them and say go well.

That's such a good point Hepwo.

Bullyingmales with a patronising attitude towards women (often found in the law, education, politics, the media) determined that women will comply their regressive demands.

Very interesting analysis, and yes. That paternalism is very much visible in the 'old guard' who were instrumental in manoeuvering this into place.

The question about how many women and children are acceptable collateral never gets answered.

I think Ben Bradshaw MP has a good line on this:
https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1644681029750251521

Its along the lines of 'thousands of women are the victims of male violence every year, so the danger to women won't actually increase that much'.

Kathleen Stock is right. That is one of the arguments that disgusts me most. But at least it’s honest. It’s basically, ‘ I just don’t care that much about women being killed or harmed, so it doesn’t bother me if it happens to more of them. And I’d certainly rather more of them were hurt than some men be limited in any way’

'unpleasant' GC threads

Just this one word tells you everything you need to know about the OP.

RedToothBrush· Today 14:31

I think Ben Bradshaw MP has a good line on this:

That puts me in mind of Stalin's quip:

100 people killed is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

That's alright then,looks like we've been worrying our silly little heads over nothing.

@haXXor saw this and thought of you (and I mean that in the nicest possible way)
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/08/asia/chinese-woman-chained-torture-intl-hnk/index.html (no hideous images but story is a bit grim )

"The Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province sentenced Dong Zhimin to nine years for the torture and illegal imprisonment of the woman and five others to terms ranging from eight to 13 years for her abduction, sale and imprisonment.

The woman, referred to as “Little Huamei” (Little Blossom) in court records, is thought to have been abducted and sold on several occasions, and to have given birth to eight children by her final captor.

The first time she was abducted, she was taken from her home province of Yunnan, in the southwest of China, at the beginning of 1998 and sold to a farmer in Jiangsu, an eastern coastal province, for the equivalent of $1,180.

She then disappeared in mid-1998 before being spotted in Henan province, central China, where she was sold to human traffickers for the equivalent of $700, according to court documents cited by Chinese state media.

Those traffickers then took her back to Jiangsu later that year and sold her to Dong and his father, again for $1,180. "

I find it telling that having been imprisoned by them for 25 years as well as forced to bear 8 children no one got a sentence longer than 13 years.

Linked below, this account of forced abortions and rape in North Korean prisons.

When men want children, they forcibly them through rape. When they don't want children, they force abortions. Women are hurt, every time.

To quote Hibo Wardere (who was talking about FGM, but it applies here), "they do this to us because we were born girls".

"they do this to us because we were born girls".

absolutely,

People of either sex can be imprisoned, beaten, kidnapped, and people of either sex can be raped; but only people of the female sex can be impregnated and forced to birth children whilst imprisoned.