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.

Always worth checking the ad homs. Reveal a paucity of argument, every damn time.

No she’s wrong on this, don’t let her travel and education make you feel that way.

Proves we are a 'hysterical' 'braying mob'.

Bad People, basically.

That's not the point you made though is it? You said

'There was some sort of assumption made that a man (either barrister or judge) had said/done something, but it was actually a woman. Rather than checking, posters jumped to join in with the outrage. Similarly, there were a few joke 'correction' letters mocked up following the Peggie judgement. One of them was the written version of a Rickroll. Rather than read the letter, some assumed it was genuine and jumped on it'

This is so far from the 'frenzy state, more than hysteria. Sometimes it can be a bit of a braying mob' that we get from the TRAs which include death and rape threats, doxxing, bomb threats, violence, screaming, loud music that drowns out everything in its wake.

Some women made a mistake on a live trial. And made some jokes.

And I say again 'so?'. So what if they did? No threats, no violence, no screaming. Honestly if this is the worst they do, well, gosh golly and shucks.

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.

My point was more about people like my MIL, Sandie Peggie, etc. People who would probably consider themselves to be "gender critical", but not be aware of the term or the wider issues until something breaks into the news like Isla Bryson or Sandie Peggie. And even then, I'm not sure how well those were covered outside of Scotland.

You're treating this board like it's a homogeneous thing which has a central control mechanism. It actually consists of lots of individuals with very different attitudes and life experiences who may or may not speak politely.
I'm sure some people are put off by the robust debate. Not everyone is going to like it here. They might be more comfortable reading some books on the subject. As others have commented, a lot of us found out what was going on from these boards because it wasn't being covered by the BBC and The Guardian so while some people have been put off, others clearly haven't.

There have been men who prefer to pass as women and vice versa since classical times. That's what I meant.

Sorry, I either missed this or completely ignored it, either is possible.

Tattle has a long-running gender thread that is very much gender critical.
There are loads of private gender critical groups on Facebook too. Twitter also seems to run very gender critical these days (I think all the TRAs migrated to Threads) but not so much on the feminist side of it.

I would argue that "uncomfortable reading" is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. If the reading is uncomfortable because it points to holes in one's reasoning, then it's actually a good thing IMO. People should be made aware of where their reasoning doesn't hold, so that they can choose whether to question themselves or whether to remain blissfully ignorant.

Calling people thick and telling people to give their little head a wobble is not a robust debate. This is what I got called and I consider myself GC so I didn’t burst onto the thread with massively challenging views either. A lot of the put downs thrown around at and about other women are put downs I associate more with being used by men about women. Hence I find this forum not a feminist one, it very much a misogynistic one unfortunately. Not all posters of course, but this is the general vibe on here.

Ah, okay, so you are falling into the whataboutery trap. That because those on the 'other side' (for want of a better term) are much worse, there's no need for any reflection on 'our' side? I'm not part of the 'in-group' here, I'm not a particularly regular poster, and I sometimes read threads and see what can only be described as uncritical mob mentality occurring and it makes me uncomfortable and I'm calling it out.

When did I call anyone a "bad person"? It's this sort of knee-jerk reactionary responses that put people off engaging.

I think posters on here and posters in TRA spaces are equally capable and prone to becoming braying mobs when exposed to anyone who doesn't agree with them (I'm thinking of threads about people like Owen Jones on here, and threads about people like JK Rowling in TRA spaces). That doesn't make those people bad people by any stretch of the imagination; it means that sensible debate and thoughtful discussion gets lost in among people trying to make the funniest / edgiest comment.

I think this happens more in TRA spaces; I don't think that absolves GC spaces of the responsibility to manage it and I don't think it should descend into "well they do it worse so why can't we", I think people should strive to do better and that it cheapens debate all around.

The point about hysteria has already been well made and I've apologised for not considering my word choice better and redacted it. You can choose to keep quoting it but it's no longer relevant in this thread.

You've summed it up way better than I was able to; I agree completely.

'Feminists' are not one thing though. I'm sorry someone was rude to you but that is what happens on internet forums. I'd take the extremely well informed parts of most discussions and ignore the rude people but if you really don't like the tone of things then there's not much you can do apart from not take part.

I think there's a frustrating irony in the word "fanatical".

• filled with excessive and single-minded zeal
• "fanatical revolutionaries"

It is accurate in a sense. I sometimes feel uncomfortably conscious of how much this means to me. And while I'm no longer in any doubt about my beliefs, I do keep questioning my zeal. It's healthy to, I think. I found the recent thread on why we all care so much really helped to clarify my thoughts and reassure me.

Our interest is "excessive", in a sense. But that excessive interest is in direct proportion to the equally excessive societal shift away from sex-based rights. We're trying to counter-balance that. That's all.

"Single-minded" feels unfair, too. Because our approach to this is typically one that seeks to understand and engage with the other side - whereas, as your friend ironically demonstrates, they're usually less than willing to engage with us (reductive understanding of GC arguments, resistance to engaging with evidence etc.).

As for the "revolutionary" connotations - well, we're not the ones initiating and driving massive social change, but instead desperately trying to slow it down, requesting "time to think" and "no debate" at least, please!

So to condemn us for fanaticism that's been forced on us and we resent the need for honestly feels like a bit like victim-blaming. Terfs are fighting a defensive rearguard action. But as such, it stands out - and is easier to label and condemn than passively feeding the encroaching revolutionary army.

There isnt an 'in group' here. Many of the people argue on here about certain points and agree on others.

And you called the women on here a frenzied baying mob.

Talk about self reflection. You might want to take a dose of your own medicine.

Thank you.

• Tattle: not at all my thing.
• Private GC groups are private. I can't access them publicly, by definition.
• Twitter is even more verbally violent than MN, and as you said, not exactly feminist.

So MN is the only site I know of where random strangers can gather to seriously discuss specifically the intersection of women's rights and trans activism, which is invaluable IMO.

Extremist, though, is just 😂. I mean, OK... insofar as Galileo Galilei was extremist.

I think posters on here and posters in TRA spaces are equally capable and prone to becoming braying mobs when exposed to anyone who doesn't agree with them (I'm thinking of threads about people like Owen Jones on here, and threads about people like JK Rowling in TRA spaces).

You keep saying this but you keep ignoring the fact that anyone can come here and defend Owen Jones from his own idiocy of getting caught “misgendering” but it’s impossible to go into a TRA space and defend JKR. What you now call a “braying mob” here is posters who would repeatedly poke holes in any attempt at logic as to why Owen Jones isn’t an idiot caught out by his own ideology. What you call a “braying mob” in a TRA space is multiple downvotes before deletion by a TRA moderator, with some misogynistic abuse thrown in for good measure no doubt.

These are not two sides of the same coin, despite you trying to portray them as such.

As has been pointed out in response to one of my posts - the forum is not a homogenous hive mind. The "women on here" are not a singular group, and at no point did I say that ALL women on this forum were guilty of it. I simply pointed out a recent example of when I saw a lack of critical engagement which led to others jumping on the back of it, again, without any critical engagement.

Reddit/womensliberation is a general women's rights board which has gender critical points of view. I don't get on with the format of Reddit but it seems to cover a lot of the same stories as this board.

It's interesting that the issues some posters have with the board seem to be based on women behaving 'like men', ie being rude or abrasive or aggressive. And because that behaviour is sometimes aimed at other female posters, it's deemed not feminist.
I actually agree that the board can sometimes feel uncomfortable. But women have spent millenia being 'kind', fawning (in the context of 'fight, flight or fawn') and here we are, having gained rights so recently, being told that a non-definable sub-group of males should not only have their own patriarchal rights, but also ours.
I'm not surprised women (and of course the GC men) on this board sometimes don't bother to hide their fury about this.

Thank you! Not that I don't like MN, not at all, but I like to have as many sources as possible, you know?

If you refer to women as a mob, but you meant a few women and not a mob then maybe just refer to a few women and not call them a mob? You are the one that reduced the women on here to a singular group when you used the term 'mob'.

And there is no requirement to react with 'critical engagement' at all times. How is calling women on here a 'frenzied baying mob' 'critically engaging' with them?

Again. Some self reflection might help you here.

Thanks @Boiledbeetle , that is a useful article!

Sex being binary is fundamental to life on earth and to our understanding of reproduction and evolution. Ironically, it's such a basic tenet of biology that few scientists feel the need to even state it or explain it. Unfortunately the scientists who produce novel and controversial ideas (eg sex is a spectrum) are therefore gaining more attention than those who are simply stating the boring old facts that everyone knows.

And of course in recent years simply stating that sex is binary has opened up scientists to vicious attacks. I'm glad some brave scientists are nonetheless doing it