3 questions for GC women

[ChirpyFinch]

As the title says, three questions for the women in this chat.

1. Do you think the majority of people are gender critical, and why/why not?

2. Globally, the right wing is more vocally gender critical than the left. They are also far more likely to be regressive on a range of women’s issues like abortion and anti-gay. Why do you think they agree with GCs on this one issue but disagree on so much else (if you think they do?)

3. How many trans people do you estimate there are globally?

@ChirpyFinch lots of interesting posts and food for thought here. There must have been a point to your OP on these three very specific, though ill defined, questions beyond ‘just asking’.

1. the vast majority of people do not believe that humans can change sex. They may not label their belief as gender critical.

2. insert hitler vegetarian meme here.

3. None. Humans cannot change sex so no human has transitioned ever.

Oh. That sounds amazing! What kind of cherries do you use? Fresh or something else?

Do you think that sex and gender are different?

So* *easy to anwer:

1. Sex is a fact
2. Gender is a thought

Triffic stuff - again! 🌟

Glacé cherries every time @GargoylesofBeelzebub Waitrose if at all possible but Aldi’s are good too
or dried apricots - a good alternative

Hands down one of the funniest threads on here. It's the deadpan delivery that gets me. 😂

A cake recipe (immediately following one of the off topic posts on the fishing expedition) really sets me off. 😆😂

If we’re exchanging recipes, can I ask for suggestions for drinks with gin. Never tried it until now (well, once when a teen 🤢)

But I recently discovered flavoured ones - morello cherry is divine as is a lovely orange one I found at a local market. No idea how to mix/serve them other than adding tonic and ice, but seen very fancy ones in pubs/cocktail bars.

Any recipes/serving suggestions while I embrace Mother’s Ruin?

Hi everyone.

We want to address some recent activity on this thread to clarify our rules and general expectations.

First and foremost, Mumsnet is committed to being a space where a wide range of views on sex and gender can be discussed openly, provided they adhere to our guidelines. We understand these are sensitive and polarising topics, but it’s important that everyone feels comfortable sharing their perspectives, even when they may differ from the majority opinion.

Unfortunately, we have seen some attempts to derail this thread by posting irrelevant content, which disrupts the OP's questions and derails the conversation. Please remember, if you don’t want to engage with a particular thread, you’re free to hide it or simply not participate.

Chasing off users who hold different opinions, or creating an environment where only one viewpoint is welcome, undermines those efforts. We're not an echo chamber and we don't want to become one either; Mumsnet users hold a variety of beliefs, and we want to keep it that way. If we drive away divergent voices, we risk turning this site into a place where only one perspective is heard – and that’s not what we’re here for.

Being one of the few places to host these discussions has come at a significant cost in terms of advertising revenue and moderation resources, in return we need all users to stick to the rules and engage respectfully. As always, any views expressed within our guidelines are welcome here. But if users continue to disrupt discussions or refuse to engage in good faith, their accounts will be closed.

Thanks
MNHQ

@BeckyAMumsnet surely when questions are not asked in good faith and reponses clearly have an agenda, this is a bit moot? Have been on lots of threads (eg, Barbara, the allotment thief trilogy) where banter and recipe exchanges have supported the conversation and engaged all participants, including the OP. In this case, the apparent disingenuousness of certain replies has set the tone and we’ve responded in kind?

Wow!

I couldn't face scrolling back through my phone to see what had been deleted. So it really was just cake posts?

my favourite ever Mumsnet thread went something along the lines of

’I’m a submissive in a full time BDSM relationship, ask me anything’

first reply: would you rather have chopsticks for fingers or roller skates for feet?

some posts do beg for an off topic reply, and those replies materially add to the character of MN. Most people are too sensible to get the hump and make a fuss to the moderators about them. And then you get other people….

Hi @CautiousLurker if you think a poster isn't here in good faith then the process would be to report them to MNHQ and let us decide based on the information we have.

We have much experience of posters being accused of not being here in good faith simply because they have a different point of view. As we said - we are not and nor do we want to be an echo chamber.

There's a difference between banter and deliberate derailment - we can tell the difference.

@BeckyAMumsnet how does this response fit with an OP who apparently has no view apart from a determination to get a predetermined answer to what look like bad faith questions - particularly with reference to what we know about Aston, and derailment as a defence against their prejudiced scraping?

Crosspost - my question was was to your first post.

totes hilar

the OP did get plenty of engagement too, it’s not like nobody played along. Blimey, if the odd gluten free recipe makes people feel bullied, MN in general may not be a place they’ll ever feel comfortable. I once got crucified on a thread about uk holidays. It was brutal. I think extra posters signed up to tell me what a bad person I am.

Becky, I would like to disagree with the suggestion that digressive discussion and side-topics 'derail the conversation' Conversations are not trains, they don't run on rails, and can't be derailed from them. They can stray into side areas and return to the main topic - it is very clear that that is what has happened here all day.

What can be derailed is an AI analysis based on data scraping. Or even half-baked student 'research' based on badly worded proposals.

If the OP is genuinely interested in people's views they will find plenty to consider. If on the other hand they want to cut and paste our discussion without our permission, and to use that as a proof of 'research' or the basis for an essay, then they can just work around the cake and cookbooks.

I fear that's what anyone who complains about side topics is really concerned with. I feel very strongly that Mumsnet should be on the side of the humans here, not the side of the machines, or their exploitative controllers, or deliberately disruptive posers of 'have you stopped beating you wife yet?' questions.

I don’t think it’s data scraping behind the reporting, I think it’s people who like to control others

1. That's two questions. 1a. Most people don't know what gender critical means and don't care what gender people are, but when push comes to shove they know what sex people are. 1b. Why? Because reality.
2. Not here in the UK. Left-wing women here spotted something the rest of the leftie world missed. Or spotted it sooner. Or felt more able to say so.
3. Never counted. How many are there in your neck of the woods?

I don't have any good gluten-free cake recipes (though I do love an almond macaroon!) but somewhere I've got a very nice recipe for a vegan ginger cake.

We have much experience of posters being accused of not being here in good faith simply because they have a different point of view. As we said - we are not and nor do we want to be an echo chamber.

It's not a poster simply having a different point of view that is an indicator of bad faith, it's a poster starting a thread with questions that have been discussed her many times before in a way that clearly shows they have not spent any time searching the topic already, and then either not engaging with responses to their questions, or only engaging with responses that fit their narrative and ignoring those that do not. That is simply not how a person with genuine questions or a genuine different perspective to present behaves.

Personally I'm happy to point out to such posters the flaws in their position again and again, not because I believe they are listening but because it's a good way to refine the presentation of my own arguments, and because I think it's helpful to keep the core arguments (the real ones, not the myths) fresh on the top pages not sunk in old posts. But I also understand why others are frustrated at having to pretend someone clearly in bad faith is just another genuine poster.

Sadly, pretending a goady or bad faith approach is genuine to avoid giving the instigator an excuse to belittle, dismiss or punish us is something women are very used to, and not just online or on this topic.

In response to the OP, gender critical people (and by the by, referring to such people as 'GC's' is quite rude in the same way as referring to 'the trans' would be quite rude), are those who know that sex is immutable in humans, who are a dimorphic species, that stereotypically assigned gender roles are bullshite and that males insisting that by performing those self same stereotypically assigned gender roles they are then somehow tranformed in a female is hugely insulting and regressive.

Some left/right wing memes for your pleasure.

(And at the risk of being deleted, as someone who is newly gluten free, the receipes were actually quite helpful. I believe there's a Bunbury thread to gather these. I daren't say the name).

Was someone reporting or mods taking those decisions themselves? It is quite odd to delete cake recipes. On the surface you see multiple deleted posts and think blimey was unpleasantness was said. Quite Orwellian to think recipes are worthy of deletion and not permitted.

And definitely a warning from Becky including the not so subtle reminder that we’re lucky to be allowed FWR and that Justine loses ££ in allowing us this space.

On the other hand, there have been several hundred replies with honest and genuine thoughts offered. Unlike the OP who apparently has scraped had enough data exchanges to not bother coming back. Or, if not data scraping behind the reporting then who’s doing the controlling?

It’s a tricky one because I, for one, don’t want to report either the OP or the thread as being in bad faith. I’d rather their posts and the responses to stand for others to make their own conclusions. Oh well. I do very much appreciate the existence of FWR, just seems a bit unfair.

Well, on the basis that everyone who offered a recipe here also took time to answer the OP’s question (including mine which provided a very clear exposition of what I understand GC to mean), I dont feel there is a real derail. Plus, my own definition of GC idoes, in fact, involve the recent discovery of Gin Cocktails, so am still in the market for any suggestions on those.

A person engaging in good faith will explain their thoughts and opinions. They want a conversation

I saw no evidence of that from the OP of this thread. Heaven knows what they were here for, but it wasn’t to exchange thoughts and information.

I do struggle to see the issue with responding to such an attitude with some recipes. The OP could have joined in

as I noted above, it does feel like posters on this board are held to a different standard than those on others