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.

Ask here what she feels is extremist and fanatical

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.

Yes, I think this is it. I have a friend (male) who thinks TWAW and that actual women should just 'pretend a little bit' where it doesn't matter (toilets etc)

I think if 'extreme' is being understood to be the opposite to 'moderate', I think its fair to say both sides are of necessity extreme.
Because the moderate positions are only attractive to transmedicalists, TIM who believe they pass, and women who haven't really thought it through. So any compromise will continue to be contested by both sides.
Unfortunately this is a binary debate, either men should be treated as if they were women, or not. There really isn't a moderate position on that because it can only ever be one or the other. The exceptions and the 'sometimeses' people see as middle ground, are simply not viable.

As that position is completely untenable, what it means is that women will end up having to tolerate all men in their spaces and to put up and shut up.

Maybe 'moderate' just means 'I haven't bothered to think about the practical implications, and I lack the legal understanding to know whether my suggestion is possible or would be welcomed by anyone'.

A bit like me trying to solve the problem of peace in the Middle East - except that the issues shouldn't be as difficult to understand.

It would involve men getting a lot and women giving a lot, I'll start there.

But yes, the whole 'some men, but just the nice ones' is absolutely impossible and nonsense.

a) the SCJ explains all this in depth in very small words (apparently they really should have tried pictures and interpretive dance, even BP's office haven't read or understood it based on their actions in court last week)

b) We tried that. It was called the GRA. It did not work. Men broke it, hard and repeatedly and jumped up and down on the pieces. There is a body count of women harmed, excluded, assaulted, left without services, largely because men in this activism have absolutely no capacity for reciprocity or consideration of anyone beyond themselves, and cannot tolerate women being allowed their needs met too, never mind equally. It was this experiment that LED TO the SCJ. There are consequences for those men and those activists, they blew it.

This nonsense about 'well lets re run it all again but somehow it'll be different this time' - and expecting women to say yep, ok, fgs, where have these people been for the last decade?

The real question - why all this frantic scurrying and panic for men's feelings and needs and absolutely no consideration or reciprocal care at all for women on a binary sexed basis? I know, I know - mention women having needs and the men throw themselves on the floor and scream.

Yes, I think this is it. I have a friend (male) who thinks TWAW and that actual women should just 'pretend a little bit' where it doesn't matter (toilets etc)]

This relies on being unaware of the fact that, at least where services are concerned, if it 'doesn't matter' and there is no reason for the space to be single sex, then sex discrimination becomes unlawful and the facility should be mixed sex.

The reason the facility is single sex is because it does matter.

Maybe people confuse 'has understood the law' with 'extremist', and to be fair, if even a tribunal judge lacked the patience to get to grips with the law, (and invented a very convoluted solution that would please no one), why should other people be more knowledgeable?

That’s hilarious. No, I’m not doing that. You can do that yourself though by thinking of a poster you don’t like or a thread that has recently gone south, and read it again. You’ll find what you’re looking for there.

Part of it.

I'm afraid a large part is that women who fail to quietly accommodate men's preferences are seen and characterised as 'extreme'.

We do go on, we nag, we hector, we lecture, we harangue, chit chat, and gossip. (Women should be silent)

If we won't submit we are strident, shrieking, spewing, angry, nasty, bitter, jealous. (Women should be agreeable)

If we are persistent we are fanatics, mental, nuts, loonies, liabilities, unstable, hormonal, hysterical, etc.(Women should do as they're told)

Don't forget we are also old, bitter, ugly, in need of a good shag, prudes, pearl clutchers and Karens. (Women should work to maintain their fuckability, because that is our role and value)

Its really quite astonishing how much aggressive characterising goes into efforts to control women.

Silent and invisible is the violence of men's desires enacted on women, womens bodies, and women's lives.

To demonstrate their status men must subjugate, control, and curate women, and display these pretty, smiling tokens as evidence of their male power.

So you are saying every thread that has 'gone south' is a 'deluge of abuse' but you are unable to find an example yourself of this?

Excellent post. Completely true and expressed so powerfully. No wonder they try to control our use of 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.

Gosh. It’s not that onerous. Behavioural modification?

To demonstrate their status men must subjugate, control, and curate women, and display these pretty, smiling tokens as evidence of their male power.

Some people also find it genuinely threatening when women step out of the role of the martyr mother. It threatens their understanding of the natural order.

I’m suggesting you could find examples quite easily yourself as you well know. How about a good Tandora thread, perhaps? Start there, maybe.

(Before you ask, I am not Tandora.)

Yes. This.

What would you call it when women are asked to 'reframe their trauma' so that a man can use their rape crisis service even though it causes them severe distress to the point the service is now inaccessible to them? (The women's service. No alternatives available: she can find a way to cope for him and his needs above her own, or just not have help with her rape, her choice.)

Or lesbian women being told to 'learn to cope' with providing straight sex to men who wish to self define as lesbians?

These are real examples, obviously. Yes, women are being required to change their behaviours, needs and feelings, to revolve around the prioritised need of the man. Behavioural modification is perfectly accurate. In the case of the lesbian women, I'd add conversion therapy too.

What is the man being asked to change? Or give? Or do for those women in reciprocation? What is with this one way labour? For some women it's not only hard labour but impossible for them. What do we do with those women?

There was a thread yesterday in Style and Beauty on outdoor wear when shopping.

I don't think it was any less polarised or more polite than threads on this board.

I haven't been on a baby sleep or breast feeding thread for a very long time, but I remember them as being very contentious. Also the dog owner board.

The feminism board, even before 2015 and the proposal of Self ID, was regarded as a bit of Lions den, because people have strong opinions. Also the Brexit boards.

There is a reason that Mumsnet is described as 'a nest of vipers'.

You are possibly more likely to get your head bitten off on this board because people are so used to it being targeted by trolls, and some people really do know about this subject in exhaustive detail.

However, I still don't know what the 'moderate' approach is supposed to be.

Its not clear what argument you are making, tbh.

My god, I thought the Supreme Court judgement would see the end of all this.

But it's business as usual - the TiM is playing the victim, the council side with the TiM and claim they can't tell the difference between men and women... What do we have to do to get them to follow the law? Take all the fuckers to court?

What would you like to be different on the board? Because some of the things you've mentioned are not really possible to overcome. Such as multiple posters responding to a person who has said something they want to question or disagree with. I accept that this may feel like being bombarded, and that you're a minority voice, but don't see a practical way around that if you express a view a lot of people disagree with.
How would you like people to behave?

What is a 'good Tandora thread'?

Helleofabore mentioned ‘behaviour modification’ because the women on FWR might be required to tone down their approach in posting, particularly to newcomers, although no-one has actually asked them to do that.

You’re being disingenuous. This is the type of thing I’m talking about.

I am one of those people that don't keep notes on good threads or bad threads. But what the [redacted] are you talking about?

If you have a 'Good Tandora Thread' then post an example. What is 'Good' about a Tandora thread? Do you mean one that the poster Tandora started? Or one that 'went south'? And what do YOU mean when YOU say 'went south'? Bad for them, good for them? What? Do we need to go through all of Tandora's posts to identify which ones YOU might think are Good? I genuinely have no idea what your point is.

It Is a difficult question. Less ad-hom abuse would be a start, and the stopping of accusations of being male, a TRA, a MRA, a stupid leftist etc. etc. would help a great deal. Most posters seem to assume newcomers are posting in bad faith and approach them with this bias. This would be the hardest to change.