Women's rights general conversations - Thread 6

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 5.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

That's well said, @MouseMinge , Every good healing wish to you.

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn which stats are you referring to?

No specific data set, just a common problem with data collection methods when I had to look for similar info a while back.

@angelico53 What an interesting (if somewhat fraught) project! I wonder if it's worth starting a new thread or PMing some of the FWR regulars who are known for having a lot of info?

I shall be the bitch on horseback.

Although I imagine horse-riding would be the very worst thing for my sciatica.

"I shall be the bitch on horseback"

The Four Terfmums of the Apocalypse?

Can I be Pestilence? Pretty please? I was a goth back in the day, I'm sure I can still find a pestilential style outfit in the back of the wardrobe.

Who's going to be Terf War?

I'm volunteering. Got the sword and the shield with the Viper insignia.

I can't eat much at the moment due to health not diet so I'll happily sign up for Terf famine.

I can do Terf Death, except Tuesday's. 💀

I'm a bit chary of the wider mumsnet, @Kucinghitam , so I'll try to go with what I've got for now. :)

I've been on a forum related to my work for about ten years. It's quite male-dominated and blokey, one of those forums where the men call each other 'mate' all the time, but there are a few women there. Initially I used my real name, but today I changed it to something that doesn't identify me as female and all of a sudden I'm getting engagement from other users. It's nice to be noticed for once, but it's also shocking that almost no one engaged with me for ten years previously.

Yeah, I learned a long time ago to not out myself as a woman on discussion forums. I don’t try and pretend I’m a man, but most forum users assume everyone else in there is just like them. So if the majority are middle aged white men, you’ll easily pass for one of those too if you’re just there to discuss the actual topic.

Agree, I should have changed it something else years ago and I don't know why that didn't happen. I think the forum is mainly 30+ men and everyone does just discuss the topic. I'm just surprised at how different the place feels now people don't realise I'm a woman.

I've always gone for neutral names on forums, and (where relevant) photos of something that isn't me. Which means I don't have a direct comparator, but looking at how people interact with other accounts I think it does make a difference.

Women on Twitter who used a photograph of themselves got loads of unwanted DMs from men. My profile pic was of my springer spaniel, and I never had a single sleazy overture. I mean, she is far, far more beautiful than me, and nothing, nada, zilch!

I've not had a single DM in over 10 years on Twitter. Animal profile pic.

QEfuckinD!

Initially I used my real name, but today I changed it to something that doesn't identify me as female and all of a sudden I'm getting engagement from other users. It's nice to be noticed for once, but it's also shocking that almost no one engaged with me for ten years previously.

I shouldn't be shocked but I am.

Video by Matt Walsh on X (I know, I know...) about a court decision by the 6th circuit court of appeals in the US banning "trans-affirming healthcare for minors". x.com/mattwalshshow/status/1707821437615067234?s=61&t=5wM6rrCIVAeqWs6wZl1YCQ

Victoria Smith nails it once again:

https://thecritic.co.uk/self-id-and-unprincipled-exceptions/

I've just been called 'dude' on that forum! 😅

I had a distressing encounter with a young man last night about gender ideology. We were playing (an acoustic foursome, americana and stuff) at a friend's 60th party to a very mixed bunch, including lots of her son's friends in their early 20s. One chap was really engaging and came and talked to a couple of us in the kitchen for some time.

After a while - we had been talking about echo chambers - I asked him what his echo chamber (by which I meant his pals, really) was telling him about gender. I think by then he might have been slightly pissed, actually, but he spoke about the difference betwen sex and gender but mostly about how people should be able to live the gender they wanted to. A woman interjected with the "what about women and childrens safety, and women's sports" question and his answer, rambling a bit, was that transwomen are women. It was at this point that it went pear-shaped.

Of course, I said that they were not. He's a big chap and I suddenly found him right in my space, toe to toe, and had to look up to see his face, which was about a foot higher than mine! I don't know what he was saying at this point because one of the women there was telling him to back off. But I was then able to say that transwomen were men and that that was the heart of the debate - I also said that this is a debate we need to have, no matter the Stonewall slogan. It all got a bit aggressive again, right in my face, and he said something like "I'm just not going to talk to you at all if that's what you think". That sounds mild as I read it back; it wasn't mild at all, though.

I tried a bit more without success. The thing that interested me was the point at which the thinking and the discussion shuts down. It's at that point where a faith-based position is exposed. It's a damned shame because until then it was a sharp discussion, true, but not aggressive. And then it wasn't and I was painfully conscious of my age, build and height, and his.

Great piece. This sums it up:

Perhaps my favourite example can be found in US Rowing’s Gender Identity Policy, which states that women’s events are “exclusively for athletes who identify as a woman at the start of the rowing season and/or those who are assigned as female at birth”, whilst men’s events are “exclusively for athletes who identify as a men at the start of the rowing season and/or those who are assigned as male at birth”. In practice, this gives male people opportunities in both categories, with only female rowers potentially losing out.

What about mixed categories, though? There is always the risk that under self-ID, a team of mixed male and female rowers could lose to a team of mixed-gender, all-male rowers. Wouldn’t that be unfair to the males in the first team? Hence we find that “boat entries in this category must consist of 50 per cent athletes of any gender and 50 per cent athletes assigned as female at birth”. Biological sex matters after all, but only in instances where male people might otherwise suffer. Now you see male sporting advantage, now you don’t.

These might seem niche examples, but what shocks me is how blatant they are. In many ways, the fact that they are trivial makes the hypocrisy even worse. A rape victim who wants a female-only support group will be told she is selfish for thinking sex matters, but a male person who wants to keep his peerage or not lose out in a rowing competition? Well, he will be told, of course it matters! Let’s not be silly about this! The people who create these policies know exactly who the men are, regardless of what they call them. They’re the people whose needs matter.