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.

So how would someone describe then the actions of several posters at a time asking questions, taking apart a post like a carcass, making assumptions about a poster’s sex/gender or even identity? It’s difficult to do that in the neutral terms that won’t lead to further attacks. It really is better to describe it just how it is and how it feels.

You don’t have an issue with the word ‘scolding’, and that is a word with emotional value in terms of feminism.

So are you saying the general public are all fine with mixed sex spaces and it’s just us on here upset about it? Really?

As the posts would not be co-ordinated in any way, I would describe posts that were analysing and evaluating a previous post as posts querying and interacting with self published content on a public and open access discussion board.

This is not a group chat or a heavily moderated group platform. If someone posts on this forum with the expectation that other posters will count how many other posters have already reacted to then decide that their opinion should not be posted in case of upset because a set number of posters have already posted, they may need an enclosed and fully moderated platform to post in. Similarly if they also expect to be treated gently and not be challenged in any way.

Isn’t the point of posting on a discussion board to contribute to the overall knowledge and understanding of those participating? The way some people learn is to analyse and evaluate others ideas and opinions.

If they want to control how their posts are interacted with, perhaps they should look for an echo chamber.

If they don’t want their posts to be interacted with, why have they posted on this type of discussion board?

”taking apart a post like a carcass”
Thanks for another example of that emotive and judgemental negative language.

Word/tone policing is clearly acceptable. You are literally asking me to phrase it in a nicer, kinder, more ladylike way. It would be better if I said nothing at all, like a true woman. A tad hypocritical, no?

I have no idea how you take that from my post. Good example of a rather extreme takeaway though.

I presume Nameless is referring to this comment of yours at at 22.17 upthread?

"In the context of the OP's question, then yes, this board is clearly on one side of the discussion, and it's NOT representative of the general public. Does that matter? Not really. Is it worth thinking about, maybe".

That is exactly what I was referring to.

And I still don't understand where you get that the general public are all fine and this board are the only ones who care. There's been jump made there. A good example of twisting a comment to suit a narrative though.

This thread is a good example of a pile on from what was a rather general, in my opinion innocuous, comment. For those who have messaged and reacted - thank you! I don't blame you for standing on the sidelines. No wonder people don't put their head above the parapet.

The hypocrisy is you are attempting to control the posting on this board and you are doing it by dehumanising groups of posters in your complaint about the board.

That is what people are pointing out.

Yes that’s not true.

@OnAShooglyPeg reading this section of the thread feels like I'm going back in time to my own first experience of what felt like a pile-on to me. It really upset me at the time (but it wasn't as upsetting as the second time, as described above). I remember at one point that I said something like "some people will be put off by abrupt and direct comments, some people will be put off by what they perceive as word salads". I think that may have been the point at which I was labelled as having "barrister voice" and was asked if I was just here for an intellectual exercise at the expense of some posters on here who are genuinely vulnerable. I was explicitly asked what my agenda was.

On that first occasion, I PMd a regular poster who I had seen making robust points at times and other more poignant and "wordy" points at others. I asked for her advice on how to navigate this. It was something like "ah, don't worry. Most of us have had our arses handed to us at some time here". It was exactly what I needed to hear. I came back and responded to the "barrister voice" point. I realised that my "agenda" wasn't necessarily clear to anyone but me. So I explicitly laid it out. It felt pretty good doing it to be fair and it's guided me ever since both IRL and on here. FWIW my agenda is (as it was then):

1. learn everything I can about gender identity to directly support my daughter and protect her from its conflation with autism-related puberty distress
2. do what I can to support other girls in a similar situation, which will also indirectly help my daughter (because I'm challenging the "system" that's pulling her towards harm)
3. do the same for autistic boys where possible
4. support women's rights at a general level, as this indirectly props up 1-3 as well as myself

I then realised that my own agenda wasn't fully aligned with this board's original purpose. TBF I probably didn't understand the full implications of that until after the second experience.

Anyway, regardless, here we all are. It's not an echo chamber. I've learned tons about waaaaaaaaay more things than gender dysphoria e.g. the political system and unpicking my own ignorance that women's rights were "sorted". I also briefly thought about changing my user name to BarristerVoice 😂 but decided against it in the end as I like this one.

This reply is the issue with MN and much of social media - wherever your opinion sits. The I'm right, you're wrong. There is room to listen to each other's opinions, agree to disagree, without shutting down and name-calling.

Sure. Happy to listen.

Go for it.

Please for the love of all that is holy explain why she is right then.

If you could go back to that thread and let us know where the behaviour you are referring to starts and ends [maybe use the date time stamps] we can better understand your issue.

The point is, that your innocuous comment accused posters on here of pretty vile behaviour and one of the examples you gave, just appears to be a mild misunderstanding so maybe you could clarify?

I also have another question about the ‘moderate’ voices being the best approach. It certainly is one approach, of course.

However, the public is being alerted to the issues by direct and clear language that is so often dismissed as ‘extreme’. I have watched this for a few years now and I don’t see the public being convinced by the ‘moderate’ approach.

If someone has an example of an approach that is considered ‘moderate’ rather than extreme that has convinced a large group of people and policy, I would love to see the example. I am not talking about a one on one individualised approach, but a speaking to the public approach that is clear and has won positive policy change.

Several posters at a time asking questions is how talkboards - and Internet discussion more generally - work. It's how most group discussions work.

If you don't want people to respond, hire a skywriting plane, or create a blog with no comment function. If you want a strict one-at-a-time response, join the Oxford Union or become a panellist on Question Time.

Multiple people responding to your point is not 'a pile on', it's conversation.

There's no name calling in the post you quote.

And sometimes people just are wrong. It might be helpful to correct them in detail or explain why, but there comes a point when it's simply not worth it - the conversation is exhausted, the post wasn't in good faith, or it's so wrong that it's impossible to explain why without writing an entire book.

We don't always need to agree to disagree. There are times when we shouldn't.

I’m glad you found the “carcass” part emotive as it was entirely meant that way. That’s how it feels. It doesn’t feel helpful or educational or ‘robust’. It feels as if a scalpel is being applied to every phrase and word and the harshest intention and interpretation insinuated. It’s exhausting. Why does it have do be this way? Being robust seems to be something FWR is proud about.

You know the difference.

this board is clearly on one side of the discussion, and it's NOT representative of the general public.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that, given that the last YouGov survey taken in December 2024 (the fourth in a series begun in 2018) shows that the general public is becoming increasingly sceptical towards trans rights.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next YouGov survey which will be post FWS.

PP is pointing out that you are using language in a deliberate way to paint a negative picture of the people behind the opinions. So when you use the language of animals devouring prey, you are depicting those with ideas you disagree with as aggressive predators, and yourself (your post) as victim/prey. When you say 'braying mob', as said earlier you are painting a word picture of a crowd of unthinking donkeys. (The correct expression, 'baying mob' (no R) paints a picture of a crowd out for blood. Again, the aggressors and the victim.)
Pointing this out and highlighting that this is an attack on the people behind the opinions rather than the opinions themselves, is nothing like requiring women to use 'ladylike' language. As people of both sexes use language to manipulate opinion on the character of others.

If people make accusations about a whole board of posters, insinuating that they are devouring prey rather than defending themselves and asking for evidence, how exactly do you expect them to ask for evidence or question the memory other than ask for evidence and question the memory?

And in this instance, this rage bus pile on braying mob was absolutely non existent and was over in 4 posts. So yes, people will want to put the record straight. Just because they put the record straight in strong words is not the same as ripping the carcass off a dead animal.

This is part of the problem, you are allowed to say emotive stuff but woe betide anyone else doing it.

It is complete double standards.

No. We are telling you that you are tone policing us and claiming otherwise.

We may be a lot of things but we don't have double standards

@5128gap Often, though, the opinions are not phrased in a neutral, factual manner. They can be aggressive and abusive. I cannot accept this picture of FWR regulars as those that do not attack others. They do. They have a reputation for it. When questioned on it, they turn on the questioner, as now.