Why is Mumsnet so GC?

[ireallycantthinkofaname]

Maybe an odd question but I've never come across another space, online or otherwise, where being GC is the norm. IRL I only ever discuss GC views openly with one family member, whose stance on it is similar to my own, though, so I'm not saying it's unwelcome.... Just curious how/why it's come about. Any thoughts or theories?

Agree and possibly our cultural context too- the fact that our media stars (David Bowie, Boy George, Annie Lennox etc) as well as our fashion was more gender non-confirming back in the 70s and 80s- I’m not sure that was necessarily going on to the same degree in the US at that time. Gender bending was cool and groovy without anyone having to pretend they were the opposite sex. We’ve completely regressed from that now, but us older TERF islanders remember a time when the UK felt quite progressive and free in terms of ‘gender’.

I have been on Mumsnet since 2006 ish but only started reading the FWR boards about 4 years ago. It is an amazing space. I work in construction industry and pretty much all the people I meet in day to day life are GC. Most won't say anything out loud - esp the men. I know a few older trans people who are all GC but they don't do online forums. I know people on the 'be kind' camp but many have changed their minds as the demands become more extreme. Nobody I know cares what people wear but they care if you say it makes you something you are not. If you have children at school, especially teens, you realise that the gender identity issue is everywhere amongst young people and being hard pushed online. They seem to be slowly rejecting it - thank goodness

👆also massively agree with above. Gender bending has always been common in Uk even when a kid. On tv and in music. One of my kids has always been very GNC but do I think that makes them the opposite sex? No I don't!

I would say that radical feminism takes a traditional Marxist structural analysis where men are considered the oppressor class, and women the oppressed class, and posits this is on the basis of the material fact of their female bodies. In the most strict or classical versions, it calls this set of material disadvantages for women, or advantages for male bodied people, "the patriarchy." That's a set of materially identifiable causes.

Intersectional feminism is to radical feminism as neo-Marxism is to classical Marxism. In neo-Marxism it is no longer class that is the important category - and class understood as a description as a material relation rather than some kind of social construct. Instead it's immaterial, culturally constructed identity groupings, like race or "queerness" or whatever else you can come up with.

Similarly in intersectional feminism, instead of the physicality of the female body compared to the male body being the cause of the oppression of women, it is the identity/social construct of gender.

I do think there is a linking idea between these, because you will find many many people who are not intersectional or neo-Marxists, and may indeed see themselves as radical feminists, who have adopted an immaterial and almost spiritualized concept of "the patriarchy". It's become a kind of cause in itself rather than a description of a set of material causes. (It's a bit like the concept of the Invisible Hand in capitalism or the Treasury of Merit - concepts meant to describe a chain of causation are used as causative.)

You can see a similar change in the way the word racism is used that also is a mediator between what used to be called the civil rights discourse and modern "antiracist" discourse.

I think it's a very easy thing to do when you adopt these kinds of designations for disparate material causes, or brain tends to begin to think of them as a thing. I increasingly think this is a link between these kinds of traditional Marxist material analysis and the neo-versions which use that concept to create further, often completely imaginary, intellectual structures.

I also would say, and maybe some would disagree but I will stand by it, that the UK has a very strong root in a kind of small c conservatism. The same reasons there was never a revolution as France or the US, or that there has long been a tendency to a kind of soft practical empiricism, the influence of a legal system based on a common law approach, the tendency to euro-skepticism. Even some of the leftist movements have tended to be very grass-roots. Localism has always had a strong hold, more than anarchism.

Countries like Canada and NZ have been very affected by the different style of constitution and legal thinking which gives more power to documents, and tend to give the judiciary power over Parliamentary structures. It's more like a European kind of top down system.

I agree with all your main points, but the history geek in me feels compelled to point out that the English Civil War was a far more radical overthrow of the established order than the American revolution. Light on feminism though 😉

Most people in the world are gc imo. Lots of places on the internet are just dominated by the extremely woke.

Yes! Absolutely. They have more freedoms than MN too in that they keep up a running Trans Cringe thread that shines a lot of sunlight on some of the worst male offensive behavior.

But the best part of it, I believe, is they examine a lot from a Black woman's perspective and they are fine with robust debate. Like MN, Lipstick Alley has many other topics from current events, music, style, politics, finance, hair, celebrity interest, etc. which shows that women are full humans who can take an interest in GC issues as well as what is a good 30 minute dinner recipe.

Yep

Great thread and good to be reminded that the majority of the population are gc and know that sex can't be changed.

That's an interesting point. I wonder if that was an diversion from the usual course of events?

Well, the English Revolution executed a King, established an alternative head of state (Lord Protector), enabled the flourishing of radical religious sects and flirted with ideas of extending the suffrage, albeit not to women. So it was something of a diversion from the norm!

That sounds like 'not Marxism' not 'neo-Marxism'.

terryleather,
Queer trans ideology is misogyny... Quite.

MN is GC because it is likely representative of the population at large. Considering the sum of my lived experience as a woman, and that of most of my peers, I struggle to see how anyone can overlook the reality of sex.

Likewise, in my professional role, working in a diverse community, being anything but GC makes absolutely no sense. Similarly, on the estate where I live, in the midst of considerable social deprivation, gender ideology smacks of disingenuous, fanciful indulgence.

Because MN hasn't throttled what the actual public think about the stupidity of gender idealogy.

Twitter is now a lot more GC than TRA.

Once normal people actually hear about this bullshit they recognise it as bullshit. which is why the TRAs worked so hard on "no debate", because they can't win any debates.

The whole thing relies on a denial of reality that your average punter can knock over with a sneeze.

"The whole thing relies on a denial of reality that your average punter can knock over with a sneeze."

I would agree with this but it feels like "TWAW" is the status quo now; I would be far too scared to be openly GC irl for fear of being labelled a phobic bigot. Is it a case of this is only true in certain circles?

If Mumsnet (FWR) wasn't GC then there would be no home for sensible women.

Similarly, on the estate where I live, in the midst of considerable social deprivation, gender ideology smacks of disingenuous, fanciful indulgence.

Agreed. This is in line with Rob Henderson's definition of a luxury belief. It captures that the ideology is contrived from ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on poorer people. Only the affluent have the time and luxury of spare cognitive capacity to learn strange vocabulary because ordinary people the activities of day to day survival that consume their time, cognitive, and emotional resources.

In his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas, Gustave Flaubert alphabetised some of the cliches and platitudes common among the French bourgeoisie during the 19th century. His aim, in his own words, was “the historical glorification of everything generally approved”. Under “Bandits”, he wrote: “Always Fierce.” Under “Materialism”: “Utter the word with horror, stressing each syllable.” Under “Tights”: “Sexually exciting.” And under “Woman”: “Person of sex. One of Adam’s Ribs.”

Were Flaubert to revive his Dictionary for the UK today, he might keep the bit about materialism. But presumably the “Woman” entry would now read: “Can have a penis. If one is a Labour MP, utter this sentiment with great conviction in interviews.”

https://unherd.com/2022/05/stella-creasys-bourgeois-feminism/?=frlh

I don’t see myself as a radical feminist. I don’t really see myself as a GC anything.

I do think any ideology or belief which cannot be questioned or debated is dangerous.

I do believe that data that is accurate is very important.

I do think that safeguarding for kids is really important.

And I find it strange that one of the few places that I can openly voice the above, is on Mumsnet. And sometimes one to one with other people. But not at work or openly on any forum and never on social media.

Might just be the circles you move in OP. Most people I know are in touch with reality so don't think men can be women just by wishing it so.

Yesterday this thread was in chat or somewhere as visible, and got a lot of interest, what a surprise (not!) that it's been moved to this board, really annoys me, even after all the progress in being able to talk about this (being GC), it still gets shunted away from the main gaze

I find the label 'Terf' very sneaky and disingenuous. The vast majority of people know perfectly well that TWAM and that people can't change sex. 20 years ago literally everyone knew that. Most of those people are not radical feminists. Many of them aren't feminists at all. You have to give the TRAs a bit of credit on this one - it's a great bit of spin, convincing people that the most common, mainstream and obviously factual view is somehow radical,and only held by rabidly extreme feminists.

The issue online is that only the TWAW lie is allowed to be propagated. The vast majority is shut down/deleted, newspapers edit their comment sections so you get the idea that everybody believes the nonsense.

This is a uniquely online/media/middle class phenomenon. Any discussion in any other circle and the whole subject is laughed at pretty quickly.

Women are going to have to stop being so afraid. MN is pretty good, Ovarit is better, X has other issues, but where this actually ends is in the real world. Over the dining room table, at the school gates, on the floor of parliament, in the office, etc.

Sure there will be the deluded morons and the TRAs, and the pornsick men who will fight, but you don't have to be stupid about this. Think about your words, think about your audience. The TRAs did when they infiltrated.

Push back, but push back smart.

Isn't it simply because it's an anonymous forum?

I'm GC but I only state it here and to my own close family members. My DSis and DBiL say the same. None of us would dare to say it in public because we need to keep our jobs. DH might be a bit more outspoken because he is self employed and would be less likely to suffer consequences.

I tend to assume that most people in RL are secretly GC. Most of us do quite instinctively understand biological reality. Whether we are brave enough to admit that in public is a different question entirely. Emperor's new clothes, isn't it?!

It was?! Geezo.