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.

Can you give an example of where people have gone 'too far'?

No, none of those. Ultimately, you can say what you want and how you want to, within the boundaries set by this site's moderation policies, and I fundamentally support that. But doing so may not always be conducive to a fruitful discussion and may end up entrenching them against you.

The starting point of this whole discussion was that MN is not representative of the general public. How you present and discuss matters to a friend, relative or work colleague may need to be different to how it can be discussed here in order to bring that person along in their own thought. That's life. It doesn't take away from how TRAs have treated, and continue to treat, those who speak out against them.

In the case of the OP, when it devolves into "you are an extremist", well, it was never really going to be a fruitful discussion. It's like calling someone a racist when starting to talk about immigration or an infidel when talking about religion. You aren't starting from a place where opposing opinions can be expressed and considered openly.

My original point was more to do with the lack of critical engagement and the jump on the rage-wagon. So, the example of the Peggie correction Rickroll - rather than read what was a joke, it was assumed to be genuine and then multiple others jumped on. Similarly things have happened in other tribunal threads.

I understand that people get caught up in the moment, but occasionally, it can read like a frenzy.

So, the example of the Peggie correction Rickroll

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Or what its relevance is to this thread.

Right. I was on that thread, and I know I briefly rsaw a post that purported to be a new correction, and commented briefly 'how many more of these will there be'. And then clicked and read the body of the post and saw it was a joke. And commented something like 'ffs' with a laughing emoji.

You're seriously calling this a 'frenzy'?

so. Tone policing.
got it

“You often see it lately with activists getting upset when it is pointed out that women who want mixed sex spaces are happy to undress with random men. It's too stark. It's too blunt. That's reality not nicely and comfortably fogged, and dusted with fairy dust and naice beliefs. It’s a very unpalatable truth and they will try to argue desperately that no, that's notwhat they mean.... but they do.”

Yes. This is all part of it.

This is part of the ‘it isn’t that I disagree with what you say, but how you say it’ approach. (Yeah, well what the fuck! If a grown adult cannot read or hear something and think through the bluntness on a concept they agree on, it is more of an issue with the listener’s needs than the deliverer of the message.

This is part of ‘there has to be a better way, a moderate approach, you just won’t accommodate it / it hasn’t been found yet’ approach too.

I find the dishonesty around those approaches to be hypocritical. If someone cannot agree with a concept after it has been stripped of emotionally manipulative language padding, then they are more focused on being acceptable than focusing on safeguarding robustness.

I'm not a counsellor, I'm not here to provide a GC engagement service for people who want to play on a women's rights forum, and women are entitled at this point to be really bloody pissed off. The provocation is extreme and daily. Note that men are peeing all over the place and threatening to rape and kill, and women are being told off for not putting things patiently enough.

No, I honestly don't care what 'impression' I make when I'm annoyed, I'm not looking for converts, that isn't my job. I'm just here trying to hang on to the last lingering vestiges of women's rights, and losing all patience with women going 'but can't you do it more nicely and in your lady voice?'

A Frenzy of a Baying Mob on a Rage Bus.

The irony of someone who has called women on here a 'braying mob' scolding us for not being polite enough is noted.

I also question the continued expectation of posters having to fulfill someone’s set parameters for posting, including when multiple posters post with similar opinions or reactions about a post having to self monitor and analyse whether they should or shouldn’t post or if their post is the post that ends up being consigned as the post that started a ‘pile on’.

I see this often. Sometimes five different and individual posters will post a similar reaction and this is considered a pile on. Sometimes just one post that is blunt and can be considered to be less wrapped in emotional padding is someone else’s ’pile on’.

Other times it is someone who expects a ‘gentle’ response like a heavily moderated Facebook group. Such as saying, well, you are entitled to your opinion but I think you might be wrong but I am sure you mean well and after all you are completely encouraged to have an opinion and that we should all listen and accept your opinion is valid and correct.

The ‘you didn’t answer me gently’ is also sometimes tied up with the ‘you swore, I refuse to read your post because you swore’ type personal parameter. Those posters will sometimes accuse people who swore in a post of ‘swearing at them’ when it is perfectly fucking clear that the post has not directed swearing ‘at’ the poster.

It is all about people’s personal need to control what others do and how others react to something. But like the ‘No, I don’t expect women to get changed in front of men’ come back to pointing out the stark reality of allowing any male person over 8 years old into a change room, there will be no acknowledgement forthcoming.

TL/DR. Sometimes the over exaggerated miscalculation of reactions is hand in hand with controlling how people react regards of whether it is intended to or not.

the dynamic here is a generalised mass insulting of women, but then when we push back, complaining about 'the mob'.

'All you nasty bitches are so rude'

<all those bitches respond angrily>

'You're all ganging up on me!'

I think that enough women have just said, ‘enough is fucking enough’ with having to speak how someone else says we should.

i am often baffled by the misuse of language, as in "literal violence" "frenzy" "hate" "vitriol"

when what has happened is either normal discussion, a woman saying no or slightly robust language. Not actually any of those things.

As you said before, it is the bastardisation of language that has been a large part of the problem.

Bref, I think much of it is a dramatisation of language to over emphasise the point.

‘Frenzy’, ‘pile on’, ‘vitriol’ and ‘braying mob’ are words intended to shame. They carry significant emotional value. I have found it discordant to read posters making declarations that use this type of language yet then defend that the post is not meant to be offensive but merely educational. Maybe that is just me that finds it discordant, though.

Yep. The only way women can supposedly 'win' here is by being silent.

agree, @Helleofabore
i have always been a loud, sweary, straight speaking (when appropriate) gobshite. So i'll carry on like that.

Sometimes (many times!) a poster on here will absolutely nail it by putting into words everything you want say, and this is one of those times.

Thank you Ophelia.

I was struck by the bit in your OP about how ‘She wants other women to use Ms, not Mrs.’
If she knows so much about other cultures and how women are treated around the world, why does she give a stuff about what title a woman uses? Sounds like she subscribes to western, performative ‘safe’ feminism.

I wonder if she’s one of those feminists that likes to tell other women what to do, but she still tows the line around men and tries to be the compliant good girl? It could be that you are way out of HER Overton window and therefore you MUST be extreme.

She is possibly over educated and doesn’t understand that she is not the arbiter of how other feminists should think.

Of course. Sod that. Look at how some women have been brave enough to not do that.

Of course men would prefer women not to do that.

I have a group of old friends who I’m close to and love deeply, but there are certain topics we don’t discuss. It’s an unspoken rule, because we know we don’t all share the exact same politics, and it’s not worth falling out over.

I have other friends who are open to friendly debate, but even with them I wouldn’t raise this particular topic unless I was sure they felt the same as me.

Clearly you’re not a fanatic, but perhaps this is a valuable lesson. I find it more productive to quietly refuse to display pronouns at work, and to teach my kids about what’s true and what’s utter bullshit, than to argue with people who will never be swayed, and will judge you harshly for your (perfectly rational) views.

I learnt this the hard way a couple of years ago, when I volunteered my point of view to a friendly work contact and it was like some kind of hypnotic haze descended as she spouted classic lines from the movement that made no sense. Trying to get through to someone like that is pointless.

My last point!

And this is not directed at any pp in particular, it's just an observation on criticisms that have been made of women over the years:

The terms used are useful and instructive. They are insulting, sure, but the amount of times women's voices are characterised as 'braying' 'spewing' 'screeching' 'whinnying' 'shouting' 'screaming' 'whining' etc is instructive.

It's the noise of women's voices that is criticised, not the content or meaning of their words.

No, and it's not that.

Definitely.

And hysterical, strident, obsessed. I remember being told I had a toilet fetish and was weird and skeevy for stating why I needed a female toilet to remain single sex.

Thank you @PriOn1