Do you think the term "Gender Critical" is why some people won't engage?

[Brefugee]

What i mean is, "gender critical" must put the backs up of people who are on the fence or are already some level of TRA? Because it sounds "critical" and that has negative connotations.

Do you think that if we'd adopted the term "sex realist" it might have worked a bit more in our favour? Especially with people who don't spend any time at all in this "discussion"?

I was thinking about it while perusing this article

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/media/article/bbc-trans-ideology-childrens-programmes-chq292hfz

http://archive.today/iDMMq
(archive link)

Maybe the minions at the BBC would feel more able to engage in a proper discussion about all this if they didn't hear "gender critical" but "sex realist"?

I apologise for swearing.

I described myself as a gender critical feminist in 2015, when I met my now-husband, and we'd have raging arguments about it because he believes gender and sex go hand-in-glove, whereas I did - and do - believe that gender is bullshit, all there is, is sex, and sex is immutable.

I do not describe myself as a gender critical feminist now because honestly, I do find the movement (swear word redacted) exhausting and I don't see that there needs to be such a conflict between women's rights and trans rights, but this isn't acceptable, and I don't have a problem with trans women sharing some spaces (I've been peeing alongside them for years with no issues) and apparently that isn't acceptable either. It's a strong belief system with strongly held and widely shared values, and as I don't agree with all of them, I am not made to feel welcome.

AND I'm being bombarded with media voices that are ridiculous.

But fair enough. I'm out.

No, only those that result in the disproportionate retention of wealth, power and privilege in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. Which to be fair, does include a lot of the established ways of doing things.

One example - I got a whole load of Modern Family clips for weeks and weeks. I had seen episodes of it years ago, and formed an opinion then. So I didnt feel the need to watch the clips that turned up on Facebook.

Other example - news stories I'd heard about in person from a friend involved with politics, so I didnt feel the need to watch various Insta clips of someone giving their opinion on it.

Another example- links to Guardian articles I'd read the day before on my work computer. I didnt feel the need to click on it to read it again.

Another example - headline saying "left-brained people do" something-or-other. I know enough about the brain to take the risk that it wasn't going to tell me anything useful or truthful I didnt know.

Another example - things to consider if you want to get solar panels. I didnt feel the need to read that seeing as I live in a flat.

I hope that illuminates things a bit? I'm genuinely not that interested in things that appear on my SM feeds unbidden - it would have to be something that looked genuinely interesting and not clickbaity for me to use my limited free time clicking on them.

It looks as if Reform are likely to do very well in the next election, yet the thing thats putting people off talking about it is that GC is associated with Reform type politics?

and as I don't agree with all of them, I am not made to feel welcome.

Don't fall for the very fallacy you've pointed out - that the loudest voices are the majority opinion. There's room for everyone here. We can all take a view on who is presenting a coherent and consistent position.

I've been here for longer than most and have seen the changes recently as the world woke up. I've never claimed to agree with everyone on here - indeed, I've argued against some of the regulars no end. But I'm still clear on my position - I just don't fully set it out very often. And if I tried to rebut everything I disagree with I'd be here forever.... but I've still found some value and like minds here.

I'd far rather explore where I genuinely disagreed with someone who is GC than have the same old "but what do you mean by "woman" " discussions with the GI visitors!

For me, it's that I find politics threads too vast and often depressing (as I realise my powerlessness in the world). Nothing to do with people linking it to the belief sex is real.

So if you don’t mind sharing spaces with some males, why do you think other males should be kept out? Would you be ok with sharing with any male? If not, why not? Is it only those with a trans identity you’d be fine sharing spaces with or is it any male?

Interesting question.
My view is that most people who are backing Reform are attracted by their policies on immigration and promises that getting rid of immigrants would mean more money available for the NHS, more access to housing and less crime in their neighbourhoods.
I've never heard a person who supports Reform (and I know many) to voice a view on GI. I assume that like most of the population they don't believe people can change sex, and possibly if asked would say that trans issues should go in the bin with the rest of the 'leftie wokery', but I doubt there'll be much activity around it as long as they're convinced the biggest threat comes from migrants.
There are many beliefs that fall under the umbrella of the right with different factions having their own priorities.

I’ll pragmatically share spaces by need. Not all men need to use women’s loos. For their safety, I believe trans women do. So no, I wouldn’t share women’s loos with all men. Just trans women.

This is based on a risk assessment to me - am I likely to be attacked by a trans woman? - vs a risk assessment for them: are they likely to be attacked in the men’s loo? Statistically, they are more vulnerable than me. I’m happy to share the space.

Where my vulnerabilities are greater - changing rooms, women’s refuge, prisons - I’m not happy to share space.

When I’ve expressed these views before, I’m met with:

• “You don’t speak for all women, I’m not happy to share space.”
• What about Muslim women?
• Assertions that trans women attack women in loos based on anecdote not data.
• What’s stopping men dressing up as women to access loos?

And then we go down a rabbit hole of swapping charts and optimising toilet design, and it is exhausting. There is definitely a vibe of ‘you’re all in, or you’re a TRA in disguise’ and it’s not something I want to engage in.

For those that don’t agree with Reform’s policies or their style of politics, yes. Even if they won a general election outright, they still wouldn’t represent the majority view of the country in terms of numbers. Just seats.

The Leave campaign won with the majority of votes, but didn’t represent most of the country in absolute numbers.

The current Labour government doesn’t. The previous Conservative governments didn’t.

There’s no disconnect between a party that’s set to do well, and many people not sharing their beliefs.

The Leave campaign won with the majority of votes, but didn’t represent most of the country in absolute numbers.

What are you talking about? It was a referendum. The majority of people did vote for leave.

The orginal question was about barriers to engagement.

Im sure some left wing people arent speaking out in favour of GC because they percieve it as right wing, even if they are secretly GC themselves. I think those people are a lost cause.

Some people are planning or thinking about voting right of centre. They wont be put off speaking about issues because they percieved to be right wing. If they arent speaking about the issue, its for other reasons.

There are other people who arent planning to vote right, but arent so wedded to woke/progressive/left politics as to care about these left wing credentials.

I dont believe the percieved 'right wing-ness' of the GC view is a barrier for the majority. In fact, i think this right wing perception is only held by a sub section of the left wing.

The thing is that anyone here can (and do) claim to be anyone they want. Your lack of activity on Mumsnet prior to 2025 and therefore of a history of engaging seriously and with intellectual integrity underline that.

Of course that doesn't mean you can't comment or that your opinions have no value, but it does, on its face, discount the argument that: "because I don't have a problem with X no other women should have a problem with it and what's more shouldn't have a right to object". Especially when the argument supports the well worn trope of - transwomen just want a place to pee.

I dont believe the percieved 'right wing-ness' of the GC view is a barrier for the majority. In fact, i think this right wing perception is only held by a sub section of the left wing.

It's a barrier for women in general because of the Right's association of being resistant to supporting women's issues & rights. Reproductive rights, the metoo movement/sexual harassment , Employment equality/opportunities, child care, dom & sexual violence are all issues the Right have actively stood in the way of not to mention the huge growing trend of male resentment of women the Right has championed.

People are entitled to disagree with you. If you find that frustrating or “exhausting” that’s really a you problem. You seem to have your own biases, let’s be honest. Algorithms are a thing, yes. How is that women’s fault?

I disagree with you on your ideas about women’s spaces. I’m not sure why that merits such a level of hyperbole. I’m happy to disagree good naturedly in a grown up, reasonable way, it seems you aren’t.

Yes, what a bizarre statement.

But makes with a trans identity don’t need to use womens soaces. If they feel unsafe in male facilities, that’s on men. They need to get on that. It’s not women’s problem. I mean, gay men, effeminate men, old men and young boys meh be unsafe in male facilities, should they use women’s as well? What makes males with a trabs identity different from any other males that you don’t mind sharing with them, but you don’t want to share with males without a trabs identity. Both groups are male.

Protesting on the streets is the preserve of people who've never outgrown student politics and who are still naive enough to think that MPs pay attention to the placards held by the usual rent-a-mob this week

I protested with my wallet, chipping into about a dozen legal cases alongside thousands of women nationwide. As the Forstater, Phoenix, Bailey, and FWS cases have all demonstrated, funding "lawfare" is effective, unlike street protests.

But the left also have a history of not supporting women’s rights. It was the left wing unions who tried to block the equal pay act. Today they are desperately trying to block women’s rights to singlesex spaces. At least the right didn’t do it under a cloak of “it’s in your best interests”. They were honest they did not support women.

@BlossomingSlowly what a very appropriate username.

Come on, get up to speed.

It's precisely because protests are more associated with student activism that they serve as a barometer of broad public interest if participation is at scale by the general public as we have seen more recently with Iraq war, Climate change, Metoo, BLM, Palestine & Immigration. The idea that millions of people globally taking to the streets is only just a remnant of student activism & not genuine concern or responsibility says more about personal bias than reality.

Protesters correctly know protest is an attention seeking vehicle just like voting where huge numbers speak volumes to the media & politicians where their jobs rely on being in the know of what issues voters feel strongly about.

And who says they don't protest with their wallets as well?

The premise that trade unions blocked the Equal Pay Act is inaccurate; in fact, trade unions played a key role in the struggle for equal pay, initially pushing for the legislation and later using it to fight for gender equality after it was passed. However, some internal tensions existed, with some male union members initially resisting the legislation, fearing it would affect their own pay differentials.

sure bro. Sure it was. I assume you’re getting your info from ChatGPT? Bless you mate. I’ll give you one point for participation. Well done.

Show us your evidence otherwise.