Thread derailment

[Temporaryusernamefortoday]

Wondering if I am the only one that’s noticed more and more thread derailments. I’m not talking about TRA taking a TWAW stance but an individual being deliberately obtuse or missing the point of an individuals posts to create an argument about a tangential element. It just seems rather insidious and designed to prevent proper conversation.

This is not a TAT but a thread about a phenomenon.

Agree.

Yes that's your opinion and I'm not here to discuss that because I think it is irrelevant to the wider fact that feminism has many subgroups who only share the loose principle of equality for women.

Some subgroups would argue that GC feminism isn't feminism. I'm sure we have all heard that argument. And I'd say the same thing back. Something doesn't have to align with YOUR feminist views to be feminist. Women aren't a monolith, whoever women are, you are never going to achieve equality for all of us with one political movement. There will always be things specific to our womanhood but intersecting with our other labels and identities that mean we will have varied and sometimes opposing subgroups.

Those subgroups are wrong. They are the fake feminists. Equality for women is never going to be achieved by centring men.

At least some people thought it was to lift or prioritise GC views and one poster was even surprised by the board's description.

People have objected to that description before. It’s misleading, I think.

I don't think anyone is a fake feminist. They are just feminists with opposing viewpoints on the direction feminism should take.

Why?

We’re just going to have to agree to differ on that one. Not everyone who says they are a thing, is that thing. But maybe that also comes back to the greater scepticism FWR as a community has for “trans rights”.

Because like it or not, the meaning of “intersectional” has been traduced.

On a broad scale, people feel that unless you have specific views on each point, you can't be an intersectional feminist. This is a relevant issue in the Feminist subgroups I am passionate about. We are also not a monolith so views on some issues vary greatly with some wanting to exclude others from the wider group for having opposing views on more specific issues.

I can guess for a GC feminist, it must feel like intersectional feminist has become code for "so I think TWAW". When others find out that it doesn't mean that, more an acknowledgement of the diversity of women in every OTHER way, then people want to exclude you.

This woman has an opposing view on the direction feminism should take. Is her claim to be a feminist legitimate @Squishedpassenger- I’m asking again as I’m genuinely interested.

That’s what I thought it meant and what it meant originally. But I think it’s completely captured as a description now by the “men are the most oppressed women” crew.

There is certainly a legitimate feminist movement that believe in conjugal roles, largely due to the biological differences between the sexes. Men are stronger than women, women do get pregnant and breastfeed etc.

What makes them feminists rather than MRAs is that they do have a clear path towards identifying and tackling areas of inequality that specifically affect women. Mostly by increasing the legal responsibility of men for women they partner with.

Whether I agree with their feminism is another matter entirely. Fwiw, I do not, because it is homophobic - where it does allow for same sex relationships, it seems to categorise each party as "the woman/man" dismissing the fact that same sex relationships often don't follow these heteronormative narratives.

Interesting, thanks for responding.

The core feminist belief is that women deserve the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as men.

It is very odd for a self-identified 'feminist' to prioritise the whiny impractical wants of a small number of men over the safety & well-being needs of a much larger number of women. Even mathematically it is illogical and self-defeating.

It's not hate speech to say TWAW. But it is very silly and obviously wrong. Humans are part of the mammalian class of animals. We, like dogs, lions and whales, cannot change our biological sex, even if some individuals really really wish they could.

Taking feminism in a direction of falsehood while centring bepenised adults is weird and self-defeating. It's like claiming kicking the football into your own net is an equally valid game strategy. No it isn't.

Well, this is just a demonstration of what I mean. It's neither here nor there whether I agree with you. The overarching point is that feminists have varied opinions on different matters.

But one glaring thing I can see is that you don't seem to acknowledge that some females are trans. So maybe some people feel that acknowledging TWAW also means that you acknowledge that TMAM. That latter part might even be more important to them.

Why would you think that people who don’t believe males are women would think any differently about women who claim to be men? I’ve seen this quite a lot of times, it’s bizarre. We simply have a reality-based and protected legal belief that biological sex matters, particularly for women and girls, who are generally the disadvantaged sex. Of the only two that exist.

Great analogy!

Well because the poster specified men who are trans and omitted women who are trans.

Most of the flashpoints for women’s rights are caused by the men’s demands, not all, but the majority.

But rest assured that I think women’s claims to be men are equally wrong. They just don’t affect women’s rights as much. Unsurprisingly, the main area where they do is around so called “inclusive” language but I think that benefits the men as much as the women anyway, it’s in their interest to separate being female from being referred to as a woman or a girl.

This board is so inaccessible when considering average knowledge and reading comprehension levels.

I've scrolled through the thread but to me it's obvious that some posters find themselves out of their depth and don't know how to back out graciously.

It's not always deliberate.

No fake feminists? What if a group of religious women form the Obedient Wives Club and espouse their feminist views that true liberation for women comes from submission to The Lord up Above, and his natural reagents on earth, men? This club exists by the way. They call themselves muslim feminists. They are very "sex-positive" btw. I feel you would approve.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedient_Wives_Club

Oh I see that I am late to the argument and @Squished Passenger accepts the diversity of such "feminism".

Thread about derailing descends into derail - film at 11!

What seems clear from this thread is that unsurprisingly, different people have different ideas about what constitutes a 'derail' .

There has to be some coherence to a thread or its not even a conversation, it would be a bunch of people shouting unconnected statements into the ether, which wouldn't be very interesting or user friendly.

I don't get the insistence around whether FWR is/ isn't GC. It is what it is, regardless of name. GC views are allowed, and because it's one of the only online spaces where this is true, it attracts GC posters or those who want to discuss sex and gender and not have to start from first principles of who is a woman. There are a million other places for people to have those discussions from a non GC perspective, but no views are banned, although defence of your pov is expected.

No one is being 'moderated out' as was suggested upthread 🙄

If you don't like it, other chat sites (or even boards on mums net) are available. Most of them are a lot more given to censorship.

Moaning that people posting here seem to gravitate to a particular viewpoint is like going on the doghouse board and moaning that dogs aren't the only pets, why can't we discuss cats, etc etc.