Are we extremist and fanatical?

[RogueFemale]

We, as in gender critical/sex realist women.

I saw an old schoolfriend today, to exchange Christmas gifts over tea and biscuits. She's highly educated and intelligent, v. firmly feminist (in the sense of anti-patriarchy, and wanting women to use Ms not Miss or Mrs). Has travelled widely, knows a lot about other cultures etc.

Politics came up and I mentioned Phillipson blocking the ECHR guidance, and how I wasn't happy about it.

Turns out she thinks my gender critical views are extremist and fanatical. Actual words. I knew already she was inclined to the 'be kind' end of the spectrum, and that we disagreed, but this was new - that I'm an extremist.

That I was being unkind and TiM had a right to exist (I said of course they do, but...). That I should keep my views to myself, if I didn't want to be regarded as a nasty person, essentially.

I said, 'you don't understand'. She was having none of it, said she understands very well, and how there's been gender fluidity since time began. (And these poor TiM have nowhere to pee if they can't go in the ladies, as they'll get abused if they go in the mens).

But she really doesn't understand what is happening now.

I tried to tell her about autogynophilia, about how TiM have been attacking women who protest, the pattern these men have of abuse convictions, same as all men, etc. I said I could send her stuff to prove my points, she said, please don't.

Just a bit depressed to be told by an old friend that I'm a fanatical extremist weirdo, really.

I don’t want to expand on that as ultimately that is sharing my personal experiences or situation which I once did on this forum and it was truly horrible. I came here for guidance on how to navigate something in my life. I would not seek out and post on this forum again, but I came here to respond on the OP.

I'm intrigued: more moderate on which matters? In what manner? I can't see where GC beliefs can give an inch, but I'm certainly willing to be shown better.

And I didn’t ask or say you can change sex. I know you cannot.

Most of us start out being moderate, but in the end, you either believe men are women and should be treated the same as other women or you don’t.

You can, perhaps, argue the old point about it being a medical issue and that there are sad, traumatized men who are medically advised to try to become more “woman-like” and that we need to put their needs first, but in the end, if you let any men in, you end up with impossible questions about which men qualify and where to draw the line. It comes back to the fact that there is only one rational line, which is sex.

So if you came trying to argue for a “moderate position” you were probably told that yes, we’ve already thought of all that and eventually worked out, there is no logical moderate position. If anything, we came close to that position before transactivists started to argue their current extreme position. They broke it. We just said no and now the goodwill they had is broadly gone.

Humans are mammals.
All mammals are male or female, determined at conception
and immutable.

Any opposing view is a religion.
Not sharing anothers religion does not make one an extremist or a fanatic.

My brother came out as trans.

Its a deeply complex subject. But ultimately no matter how much you care for a loved one, it doesn't help to lie or to pretend that reality isn't relevant because it's always going to cause conflict - ultimately always at the expense of women - because of the power dynamics in this situation.

I wish it was different genuinely.

A lot of people don't want to hear this. It's hard at first. It doesn't get easier either. But you do realise it's ultimately the truth no matter where you stand.

Even the most hardened trans activists realise this when it comes to the crunch. There's massive tells in their language and their treatment of others that give away that they understand sex.

You can't legally have protection as trans without acknowledging sex either, because it's the only way to define yourself too - it's a referral point from sex.

This is the point and the problem. Being trans relates on sex.

The 'moderate' approach seems to be the third spaces argument, often posited as if we've never heard it before.

But it's been decried as transphobic and othering by trans activists and dismissed out of hand.

Therefore the only 'moderate' approach which trans activists and their allies find acceptable is to what extent women can be bullied into agreeing to the erosion of single sex services and spaces without complaint.

Speaking about women starting out moderate, I was amused by this post:

https://x.com/OnChairs/status/2002139530711998753?s=20

In turns of moderation - how do you define this in law?

How do you simultaneously be kind and allow the nice trans people to do X but also prevent anyone with nefarious agendas from taking advantage of your good will?

The problem is you can't distinguish between the two.

So you have an option of either safeguarding and restricting by sex in legal terms or you allow everyone to do that thing which puts women at risk.

In terms of human rights you look at harms - you quantify this and you look at who is a victim. You have a duty to protect all groups. The only way you can do this is to separate by sex and then have a third option for anyone who gets upset by sex - which is optional and addition to that.

That IS the moderate option. The trouble this is being taken as an opportunity to take down sex based protections or to ignore them. This is failing women or abusing women.

This has to be recognised. You can't pretend differently or you are part of a scandal - being kind therefore doesn't cut it, because your kindness harms.

There has to be workable law. 'More moderate' types want to forget this as it's inconvenient. They don't want a solution in practical terms. They only want to think about one in ethical terms.

Which doesn't work in the real world either.

We have to be detached from the emotive stuff and talk about what works and what doesn't work.

In my case it’s a woman transitioning to be a man. I came here for guidance as I was worried about someone vulnerable being sucked into the trans community partly, but all everyone did was picking on my language and terminology as it wasn’t the correct one apparently. Just condescending and not very supportive, but I realise I can post on other forums.

I think I'd try the gender stereotyping argument - do people (men) really think they must be women because they want to wear heels and a dress? And why? And why aren't we as a society doing more to counter gender stereotyping?

Also ask if they think it's right for teenage girls to have their breasts lopped off.

And do they think it's ok for women to lose sports medals etc because stronger male boded people compete with them.

My son has never bought into any of this guff thank goodness but has had to be careful because of the Gen Z propensity to agree with the be kind lot. But he has carefully mentioned womens sport and generally got agreement to that point at least - and this was before the FWS decision and the start of a change in attitudes.

As for having nowhere to pee - there are plenty of unisex loos (and bushes).

The same applies though on so many levels.

It DOES matter.

Women who transition to men do so because they want to be invisible to the male gaze. Except they still will be identifable as women.

Pretending they aren't puts them MORE at risk of harm in various ways.

You are putting them more at risk, but don't want to take responsibility for your role in that.

Isn’t there an LGBT section on Mumsnet? This is the feminism and women’s rights bit, so support for dealing with that situation isn’t really the remit of this part of the board.

If you came to argue that women are wrong and you were arguing for us to support the position of your friend or relative, then you would be met with robust argument.

For what it’s worth, I arrived around 2017 or 18 with my moderate views and very quickly had them taken apart, because there were vulnerable women I hadn’t even considered in my calculations about how it could (or couldn’t) work if we allowed some men into some spaces.

Stay and discuss if you want, but staying to accuse us of being unhelpful while refusing to explain openly what you were arguing for isn’t going to further your cause, unless that cause is to disrupt discussion on other topics. Now that IS quite common!

What does moderate mean to you, though? Can you do a sketch?

Oh this^^. It is very confusing when you understand what is going on.

I don't know, and I'm not putting an argument either way on that front. I think this site is positive (hence why I'm here!), but there are also times when it makes for uncomfortable reading.

Agreed. And there were two occasions I can think of where I felt like I was on the receiving end of what could easily match the description of "a braying mob". Both were related to what was perceived as me tone-policing other posters. No matter how many times, and how many different ways, I tried to explain that I value different styles of "voices" (some direct and "brusque", some "measured"), this was interpreted as me suggesting everyone needed to be more measured.

Before my daughter asked for puberty blockers, I was so live and let live (informed by the Guardian and the BBC etc) that my natural start point was TWAW. Like the OP's friend, I assume. By the time I discovered MN, I had already decided that TWANW but I still didn't know what my thoughts were on the subject as a whole. At that time I still believed that everyone had a gender identity so it made sense to me that some people could have one that differed from their body. I still fully accept that some people genuinely believe they have a gender identity, that some of those people genuinely believe that theirs is different from their sex and that this could genuinely feel distressing.

The second occasion felt far worse. There was one poster who seemingly decided that calling out my supposed tone-policing wasn't quite enough. In parallel, I was having IRL conversations about my daughter in education and healthcare settings and I had already worked out that I was inevitably going to bump into someone nefarious at some point. By this point in time I had a reasonable enough understanding of autogynophilia to recognise (from a safeguarding myself perspective) that this would likely be the nefarious side I'd eventually discover somewhere along the line. I remember saying to a friend that I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if a man I spoke to reasonably regularly at that time (in relation to supporting my daughter) was wearing a pair of lacy undies during those meetings. There was always an odd vibe to the conversations and a frustratingly slow amount of progress. I didn't post about any of that at the time but I did say that I would hypothetically talk to Caitlin Jenner, Debbie Hayton or other TW if conversations about children's safety took me that way. I've never met either of them and nor do I expect to, but FWIW, I still would. The poster in question called me naive, despite obviously having only limited information about what was going on in parallel in my life. What happened next felt like an attack from flying monkeys. I appreciate that the women that were posting had a huge respect for this particular poster (as ironically did I) but it was honestly the most awful experience I've ever had on this board. I was really upset because people who I'd interacted with positively before were part of this "mob".

I didn't come back for about a month but I realised I needed to in the end because it was the only place I felt I could learn what I needed to know, and ask the questions that I needed to ask, to keep my daughter safe. I tried sticking to Twitter but you can't have anywhere near the conversations there as you can here.

I've reasoned since that the "mob" weren't really having a go at me but were engaging with and disagreeing with my points. I have also reasoned since that I don't actually care what the original instigator of that experience thinks of me. It certainly thickened my skin and also allowed me to feel more objective about things when my points don't land as I intended them. It's helpful getting that feedback and I no longer think of it as a "mob" attack. Instead, that I need to think more carefully if I ever use those points IRL because sadly for me, my daughter remains at risk of being coerced by Be Kinders to confuse her autistic experience of puberty with gender identity, and taught that her mum's "views" on gender identity are dangerous, in all sorts of different places. Not least the school. Having a mob attack happen IRL would have direct and potentially awful consequences for me and my daughter. But the main difference there is that the mob attack would be from the TRA side of things - and that really would be a whole lot worse than anything I could ever imagine seeing on this board.

Your posts do seem to be relying on a few specific incidences when people were rude. I know this can be really upsetting, but don't find it convincing as a characterisation of the whole forum. There will always be outliers anywhere - particularly in a context in which anyone can post, and feelings run high.

Someone suggested upthread that it's just not relevant to eg. to compare FWR to Reddit, Facebook, Twix etc., and doing so distracts from any issues here. But judgement of this kind is relative - where does FWR lie in the wider context?

I know that in my time here, I've come across a number of threads I found uncomfortable, and posts I've found unpleasant. What I find telling, though, is how different it is in general to pretty much any other forum I've read or skimmed. I dip into Reddit and Twitter on this, and it's usually very few posts indeed before there's a swear or an insult or some objectively dehumanising rhetoric / hyperbole. There's certainly less critical reflection and engagement there. The difference is stark.

I also think the context in which some people get snippy or, occasionally, nasty, is relevant. I've been on a number of threads where I've initially felt a bit sorry for some apparently brave visitor arguing the minority viewpoint, and tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. But at least as often as not, the more cynical posters than me who'd been dismissing them as not arguing in good faith were actually proved right, as that same poster has lapsed into a next-level kind of misogyny or creepiness. Other posters had either been more attuned than me to various "tells", or more readily defensive. And I can understand that, to be honest. I mean, this forum exists to defend women's spaces from male interlopers who may sometimes have ulterior motives. It's telling that we get such people visiting this online space, too! In this context, I sometimes find it quite impressive that posters do continue to engage so patiently despite that risk.

In fact, seeing that dynamic is a large part of what convinced me I'm on the dreaded #RSOH (ugh!) here - just comparing the overall tone and content of the GC posts with the overall tone and content of the TRA posts. I know context is relevant here, too - the latter are in a minority and may feel more under attack etc. etc. etc. But I don't think this is enough to negate the pattern entirely. And odds are that the former will be more thoughtful and reflective, and if not always courteous, then at least not usually abusive. And that the latter are, on balance, more likely to resort to personal attacks and unproven generalisation much more quickly.

It's ironic, but the two things that have consolidated my views more than anything else are the BBC's silencing of our arguments and the "visitors" to FWR inability to counter them.

That's why I try to keep engaging in good faith myself regardless.

But I also know there's a strong tactical argument for not being cautious and courteous and understated. I love the article below on this. (Well, I love Victoria Smith, really!)

https://glosswitch.substack.com/p/the-invisible-work-of-saying-nothing

It's difficult.

I don't like the phrase 'give your head a wobble', but it's as likely to be used on the AIBU threads as it is on the feminist board.

I think the problem is that if stating the basic premise of GC beliefs (sex is important and immutable, gender relates to social expectations and is harms women), or that trans women are men, is deemed offensive, it's very difficult to find middle ground.

There is also a broad range of women who campaign to protect single sex spaces and they don't all share the same beliefs, (as evidenced by the massive rows over the past few years), and strictly speaking they aren't all gender critical and some wouldn't self describe as feminists.

Realise I muddled up the second occasion a bit. The tone-policing and naive comments had been just prior to the upsetting incident. Same poster though. What tipped me over into feeling upset was when this poster blamed me (and my supposed naivety) for the actions of another poster. Actions I was completely unaware of 🤦‍♀️ That's what led to the pile-on experience that I felt. Anyway, it's still nowhere near as bad as I imagine a TRA-flavoured pile-on would be.

I'm not here to proselytise.

This is a discussion board. Unless its a support thread, we are here for reasoned discussion.

I'm here for honesty, evidence, and fairness.

I also think the loss (theft) of our language has made things more volatile.

There were arguments earlier in this thread that there's equal validity to the belief that women are adult human females, and the belief that women are those who identify as such. But I'd say there's one fairly devastating ethiccal takedown of this. Only one of these beliefs robs a demographic of any language with which to describe and advocate for themselves. "Trans women" still have "trans women" at their disposal. Women... are left with nothing.

And, as quickly as women are driven to use the demeaning "adult human female" etc., this is condemned as itself unacceptable. In fact, as the Peggie tribunal showed, and Smith points out above, the TRA position leaves us with no acceptable way in which to argue our view.

Can you honestly think of a more distressingly provocative way to handicap the opposition in a debate than to systematically deny their ability to even name their beliefs? To name themselves? And then to condemn all their attempts to work around this as dog-whistling bigotry?

It's the most astonishing kind of cruelty.

This, too, makes the calm composure of most of the threads here all the more remarkable. And this, too, makes it easy for me to decide which of the two interpretations of "women" is more practically necessary and ethically justifiable. (Well, this and several thousand years of oppressive history). All interpretations and opinions are not necessarily equal.

I absolutely agree. My point is that there are times when it is not reasoned discussion, and it goes too far. I appreciate that is unlikely to be the intention, but it is what it can come across as. See the post by @BonfireLady above, for an example of someone sharing their experience, and I applaud her for doing so, and for returning to engage further.

I appreciate that some of this may be that this is text-based and is can be difficult to read or interpret tone. It may also be that for some posters, every argument has long since been had and treading the same old points and same old supposed gotchas is tiring and frustrating, and that can bleed out into the discussion.

I'm so sorry this happened. I wouldn't send her links or raise it again because she has been clear it's unwelcome, and you might as well save your energy.

You're not wrong though and these are wild times. Hopefully she'll reconsider her position as light continues to be shined on the injustice.

In my view, overcoming the female socialisation that hobbles girls and women, which tells us not to ever upset the applecart, always Be Kind above all else, and learning to state the truth, despite other people's feelings, has been liberating and an unexpected positive side effect of the cataclysmic disaster that genderism has wrought.

I dont agree with all radfem positions, but that is one object lesson this board taught me. Performative soothing generally tends to keep women in their place.

I have plenty patience for people working out their own positions, challenging, and questioning. Far less patience for focus on tone, or ad homs. It's just irrelevant, and gets in the way. Plus, all that flimflam of doing the Nice Dance is frankly boring after all these years.

Absolutely. There was a reason 1984 got the power of language. If you can determine language you have won the power struggle.