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.

Soz. 😁

Yes, I’d like to know the answer to this, too.

And so would I.

Have i made this a pile on?

You might have. But if I agree with you it would become a deluge.

I think if you are prone to such hyperbole to describe the challenge to a point you post feels like ‘picking over a carcass’ (another illusion for ‘frenzy’ too it seems), then I suspect any challenge from a position of disagreement is going to distress you.

Should we assume that you need a ‘gentle’ approach? Maybe start your own message board or group chat so that nobody challenges your opinion.

And yes, I have been robustly challenged on MN before. Who hasn’t? Did it feel uncomfortable to have to explain my view in more depth and answer questions? No. I don’t find it in any way like my carcass being picked over.

I actually find having to explain my point of view about issues where female single sex provisions are involved to be a positive experience because if I have made an error, people point it out, clarifying further means I have a clearer perspective by the end, and if I have to find evidence to support my point - ok, no worries, or if I have to explain the logic, also fine. I have never posted on this board and not expected to be challenged or to explain further. I also realised early on, that if I couldn’t support my point of view well, that it is probably not one that works to support female people to the degree they need.

Of course, this is the internet and you can be as hyperbolic all you want .

I guess the come back to that is ‘so what do you expect people to do? agree with you or ignore you ?’ It comes across that any other engagement makes you exhausted and distressed. But it is no one’s responsibility to not challenge your point of view posted on a publicly accessible forum that allows and encourages different view points. It is no one’s responsibility to take tickets for the line to respond before it is deemed too much for you personally or to post in the way you, personally, need to keep you feeling comfortable and not exhausted. And of course, report abusive posts.

But no. Your use of hyperbole didn’t do anything except point out that you have specific needs that you expect posters on the internet to meet.

And in regards to discussion the harms and needs of female people and children, if a point raised doesn’t survive feeling like a “scalpel is being applied to every phrase and word”, it will not be workable to protect female people or children. After all, that is exactly what happens in discussions with those people who support the prioritisation of male people with transgender identities.

And in the courts when interpreting legislation.

Thank you for the analysis. I’d just like a discussion, not a cage fight.

This is a reference to any time I’ve attempted to enter a discussion and my posts have been instantly seized upon, questions asked from all angles, complaints if questions aren’t answered (isn’t really possible to get to them all as there’s SO MANY), accusations raised - and it’s all too hard. This has been under other usernames - I’ve been here for 10 years. I’ve seen it happen to plenty of others too.

Quite.

People on other MN threads don’t even read to see whether the cheque has been cancelled or not before they post the same thing as a million other people who have similarly failed to keep up or RTFT. So holding FWR posters to the standard where we expected to monitor the number and tone of posts in reply to individual posters who say something silly before replying ourselves is a little U, TBH.

So you've been questioned on your position by more than one poster? And you think that's particularly unusual behaviour on a forum?

There are no other posts under this username apart from this thread so we cannot ever check this accusation.

I don't suppose there is any way you can link to an example?

The controlling element, too, concerns me.

I have noticed that no one calling for moderation of voices has produced any evidence where the public have become convinced vs the ‘extremist’ approach.

It was only months ago that many of us felt relief at Naomi Cunningham’s language usage being supported. By some of those who were denigrating others as ‘ultras’ only weeks before. It is a familiar story. Each event shifts the acceptable.

Also, there is still the significant asymmetry between what people label as ‘extremist’ behaviour for women to those of the extreme end of transgender activism. Here we see wrong think, the wrong language and the reluctance of complying with ideological demands as being ‘extreme’.

Even fucking swearing is included in so many of these accusations as being ‘extreme’.

Being compared to protests involving violence, intimidation, bodily fluids (even being poured over themselves) and moobs on display. Death, rape, violent threats. Nonsense police reports. The list goes on and the subject being campaigned for is also extreme - the enforcement of a philosophical belief, the medical harm to people including vulnerable people, and the destabilisation of science, medicine and language.

The comparison is also asymmetrical. Yet, here we are being told we need to provide what amounts to a therapeutic service for people who wish to engage. The change apparently must be made by those women who are considered to need behavioural modification to meet someone’s personalised standards.

I am looking forward to the introduction of the personalised right of interaction function. Where when we see a post, we can bid for who can and cannot interact with the post and the new MN function controls this. It might not be a value derived bidding system, it might just be first in. And the number of posts allowed is personalised in the settings for each poster. Including a swearing filter.

So basically be nice and don't all speak at once, I cant cope with all the high pitched squealing.

Never heard that one before!

The number of questioning/critical replies shalt be three. No more. No less. Four shalt not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

Fully agree.

If 'extreme' has the same meaning as being 'totally committed' then yes.

There can be no half measures. Sex is real and it has consequences for all of us. What people do in their private life is their business - until the moment it negatively impacts upon the established rights and protections of others or infringes the law.

No child is born in the wrong body, and puberty blockers halt a natural process that is essential for the maturation of human beings. It is irresponsible to lead a child to believe they can be something they are not. No long term good can come out of it.

I think the 'extreme' bit is refusing to pretend someone is a sex they are not, and not exposing your body to a man to demonstrate your submissive pretending for him and willingness to serve.

If that's now 'extreme', then at this point there's no sanity left anywhere in the country, any levels or standards any normal person would recognise are gone, and there's really no point left in worrying about it.

This is what happens to women who use the wrong words and the wrong tone and say the wrong things. Courtesy of our overlords and their facilitators:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/23/council-gym-trans-row/

archive link: https://archive.ph/wLUBN

I think for many the extreme bit is the refusal to accept that some men are not like other men and are more like women. Because if you genuinely believe that (and they do) it naturally follows to them, that the best place for these people is in with the women.
This is a very difficult position to change. Because any examples of it going wrong when men are in with women, are percieved as simply being 'the wrong men' let in and as irrelevant to the 'non mens' behaviour as that of a woman would be.
I think fewer and fewer people believe men ARE women but the idea that some men should be treated as such because they're not 'real' men either is harder to shift.

Haven't read all the thread.

Has anyone explained what 'moderate' policies would be?

No. I would like this explained too.

From my experience of people like the OPs friend, it would be to pretend all TIM are women socially to be polite, but only to allow 'genuine ones' into women's spaces. This is seen as compromise and moderate.
The fact that the criteria to be 'genuine' would require people to undergo extreme surgeries, would necessitate an extremely intrusive checking process to implement, and would establish a hierarchy within the trans community based on a person's willingness and capacity to subject thenselves to extreme procedures doesn't appear to have occurred.