Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Has anyone divorced their spouse for not understanding gender critical views?

152 replies

PinkTreeFrog · 25/12/2025 15:25

It is a major point of difference, along with others that I will omit in this thread for clarity. Generally, values aligned at marriage but became distinct over the past decade.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
PermanentTemporary · 31/12/2025 23:24

I’m gender critical. I’ve got to be honest, I would find it incredibly hard to be with anyone who voted for Trump. There’s a reason the issue is more polarised in the US than here. The fact that Trump is a stratospherically corrupt, malevolent, dictator-loving, manipulable narcissistic twat who is currently being farmed out to nap more and play with his ballroom so that Miller and Vance can get on with Project 2025 really should override any other single issue; to make it easier, he’s not gender critical at all, he loves gender- women and girls are the ones you buy for sex and grab by the cunt, and boast about how often you got them pregnant.

AspiringChatBot · 01/01/2026 00:16

I've not experienced it personally, but I’ve seen situations like this discussed here - perhaps not divorce specifically, but I remember someone whose partner couldn’t tolerate her activism in support of women’s spaces and services and gave her an ultimatum, and a few women shocked to discover that the male partners they’d thought largely shared their understanding of how women are systematically disadvantaged on the basis of sex and why that’s bad were suddenly eager to sacrifice hard-won feminist gains when the demands were phrased in a way that seemed superficially “progressive”.

I read your posts (not the replies, so apologies for any repetition) on the other thread and it sounds like you’ve been separated for a while and are already planning to file for divorce. So not really looking for relationship advice, but mainly similar experiences to compare, and possibly gain perspective on where/how things went wrong?

You mentioned your husband’s “deep” involvement in Red/Green Coalition activism. (For non-US’ers: this isn’t your trad and logical European-style workers/socialists + greens/environmentalists coalition, but rather a specific tactical agreement between Islamic fundamentalists and “the left” to advance common interests, which mainly takes the form of opposing “imperialism” and “western cultural dominance”- see, for example, Iran 1979.) Perhaps your partner genuinely believes that taking a tactical loss for women now will yield a greater chance at equality later. Perhaps he doesn’t fully understand the need for women’s rights specifically (even as a band-aid until true utopia equality is achieved and maintained) and feels comfortable sacrificing them as it doesn’t impact him directly. Perhaps he feels that Islam will inevitably modernize and become more egalitarian. Perhaps he neither knows nor cares because HE’S not a Muslim or an Islamist, just using his short-term allies tactically.

Regardless, he hasn’t succeeded in convincing you or even helping you understand his POV. You feel he’s fundamentally wrong and doing active damage - and because it strikes at core beliefs for you, and disproportionately negatively impacts the group you and your daughter are part of, you can’t just “agree to disagree” or agree not to discuss the topic and carry on as normal. But if what you say about your shared past beliefs is correct, he may feel the same way about you. You and your husband are in a sense doing the same thing in different ways, moving on from the Democrats, “progressives”, and left-of-(US)-center movements that have disappointed you - he via the Red/Green Coalition, you through MAGA. In my opinion you’re both working against your own interests, and certainly against your daughter’s, but neither of you can see a better way. RE your prior, shared world view: you've each chosen to sacrifice or save different parts. It makes sense if you find each other equally unreasonable and don’t understand how the other got to their current position.

PPs have said that love and family ties supersede politics. While I agree that there’s nothing lost by declining to debate politics with extended family, a spouse is a bit different. Realistic or not, it’s common to want and expect your life partner to care deeply about your well-being, and to prioritise it over most other things. And raising a child together highlights all kinds of ethical and philosophical differences so that it may become impossible (or perceived as too costly) to compromise or stay silent. In this case, I think divorce is a reasonable solution, especially as you’ve tried separation. I’d also, in your position, be doing active work to plan for co-parenting; it sounds like you and your husband are or will be sharing very different world views with your daughter, and you both owe it to her to try to minimize the confusion and mixed messages. If you’ve tried and failed to find a lasting compromise, I’d consider some kind of shared therapy or mediation.

Igmum · 01/01/2026 08:30

RedTagAlan · 26/12/2025 05:12

For sure LGBTQ rights have become real, but the people have always been here. We just don't ostracize folk now, or we are not supposed to. Same with civil rights overall.

Remember its well within living memory since Loving V Virgina (1967), desegregation, even voting rights. Same sex marriage is only 10 years old.

What has changed if that these rights people have fought for have been weaponized by the right. They want women back at the kitchen sink, for Black folk not to be able to vote, and for gay folk to be shoved back in the closet.

The repubs invented the culture war. Really, because they have nothing else to offer.

LGB rights have long been an important issue and many here have fought for it.

T ‘rights’ mean men depriving women of rights, voice and legal status. It means gay, autistic and troubled children being sterilised. No surprise that it’s the only protected group which loses support as more people find out about what T ‘rights’ involve. On this issue the Democrats handed the Republicans a gun to shoot them with and the Republicans obliged. A stupid political move, ideologically driven.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 10:41

Igmum · 01/01/2026 08:30

LGB rights have long been an important issue and many here have fought for it.

T ‘rights’ mean men depriving women of rights, voice and legal status. It means gay, autistic and troubled children being sterilised. No surprise that it’s the only protected group which loses support as more people find out about what T ‘rights’ involve. On this issue the Democrats handed the Republicans a gun to shoot them with and the Republicans obliged. A stupid political move, ideologically driven.

Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.

Got ya.

FallenSloppyDead2 · 01/01/2026 11:02

localnotail · 31/12/2025 21:04

this is for you and also for @ThatBlackCat

That is a nasty picture to see on a feminism site

KitWyn · 01/01/2026 11:36

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 10:41

Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.

Got ya.

Women's Rights and Trans Rights ARE in direct conflict with regards to women-only spaces.

This is not uncommon. Gay/Women's Rights and Freedom of Religion are also, often, in direct conflict. For example, women and gay men cannot become Catholic priests, bishops or the Pope. In this case, religious 'Rights' were priotised over those of women and gay people.

One trans woman in a women's prison, or women's changing room, or women's refuge, or women's Olympic 100m final, makes it mixed sex. The large majority of women do not want men (even if they identify as women) in these spaces. Include men means excluding these women. Why should men's rights be prioritised over the rights of women's and girls to well-being, fairness and safety in their own spaces?

Trans women aren't being excluded because they are trans, they're being excluded because their sex is male. Trans women were born male, and will always be male. Sex cannot be changed.

Trans women are men. The recent Supreme Court ruling is very clear that women's spaces MUST exclude all trans women. If a public space is advertised as, or has a sign saying 'Women' or 'Female', then the Equality Act 2010 requires this to mean only people whose sex is female.

This Judgement is a very good thing. I would divorce someone who prioritises men's rights to perform their sexual fetish in public, over the rights of women and girls to feel and be safe and comfortable in the public sphere.

Igmum · 01/01/2026 11:36

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 10:41

Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.

Got ya.

No. It’s that T already have rights. They, their identity and their expression are fully protected in this country by the Equality Act 2010. Anyone mistakenly assumed to be T is also protected under the same Act and it doesn’t matter where on the transition journey you are. Those rights hold, as they do for the 8 other legally protected groups. That isn’t an issue for the majority, including the majority of people here.

What is an issue is when T activists attempt to prevent others exercising their rights. We’ve seen the violence, intimidation and threats against anyone who disagrees. The Supreme Court was clear that lesbians and gay men are also protected - two leaders of Stonewall, which started life as an LGB charity - called people who preferred to have sex with same sex partners sexual racists. Give trans activists their way and you don’t have gay rights. Similarly, give trans activists their way and you don’t have women’s rights. Women cannot be accurately labelled or counted, cannot meet in same sex groups. Add to that the fact that no one - protected or not - can disagree with the assertion that TWAW and it is clear that the standard balance of rights we rely on in a democracy can only work if we acknowledge that T people have the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less.

It is the difference between a religious group having freedom to worship in the way they choose and that religious group insisting that the whole country be forced to worship in the way they dictate. One is normal practice in a democracy, the other needs to be checked.

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 13:10

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 10:41

Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.

Got ya.

I suppose that like every other TRA who's been asked that question, you won't be able to tell us what rights trans people don't have that everyone else has?

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 13:23

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 13:10

I suppose that like every other TRA who's been asked that question, you won't be able to tell us what rights trans people don't have that everyone else has?

Yes.
We'll wait.....

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 13:54

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 13:10

I suppose that like every other TRA who's been asked that question, you won't be able to tell us what rights trans people don't have that everyone else has?

I am not LGBTQ, so I have no idea.

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 14:16

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 13:54

I am not LGBTQ, so I have no idea.

But you saw fit to leave a sarcastic comment about it anyway.

gryffindor1979 · 01/01/2026 14:20

Igmum · 01/01/2026 11:36

No. It’s that T already have rights. They, their identity and their expression are fully protected in this country by the Equality Act 2010. Anyone mistakenly assumed to be T is also protected under the same Act and it doesn’t matter where on the transition journey you are. Those rights hold, as they do for the 8 other legally protected groups. That isn’t an issue for the majority, including the majority of people here.

What is an issue is when T activists attempt to prevent others exercising their rights. We’ve seen the violence, intimidation and threats against anyone who disagrees. The Supreme Court was clear that lesbians and gay men are also protected - two leaders of Stonewall, which started life as an LGB charity - called people who preferred to have sex with same sex partners sexual racists. Give trans activists their way and you don’t have gay rights. Similarly, give trans activists their way and you don’t have women’s rights. Women cannot be accurately labelled or counted, cannot meet in same sex groups. Add to that the fact that no one - protected or not - can disagree with the assertion that TWAW and it is clear that the standard balance of rights we rely on in a democracy can only work if we acknowledge that T people have the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less.

It is the difference between a religious group having freedom to worship in the way they choose and that religious group insisting that the whole country be forced to worship in the way they dictate. One is normal practice in a democracy, the other needs to be checked.

👏 thank you! I’ve had enough of this BULLSHIT ! 2026 needs to be the year of reality.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 14:28

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 14:16

But you saw fit to leave a sarcastic comment about it anyway.

Well, I aint black ,but that does not mean I am against BLM.

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 14:34

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 13:54

I am not LGBTQ, so I have no idea.

Well, I am trans, and I can tell you confidently: both in my country and in the UK, trans people don't lack any right that everyone else has. We have every right other people have; we're not missing a single one of them.

When TRAs speak of "trans rights", they mean new rights, rights that nobody else would get to have, only trans people. Don't be fooled.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 14:37

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 14:34

Well, I am trans, and I can tell you confidently: both in my country and in the UK, trans people don't lack any right that everyone else has. We have every right other people have; we're not missing a single one of them.

When TRAs speak of "trans rights", they mean new rights, rights that nobody else would get to have, only trans people. Don't be fooled.

Fair enough. I am flouncing. Getting back into my lane.

KitWyn · 01/01/2026 14:42

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 13:54

I am not LGBTQ, so I have no idea.

Genuinely interested in your answer as to why the trans woman (whose sex is male) should be given the 'right' to be in women's spaces instead of prioritising the women and girls 'right' to exclude him?

Trans women pose the same physical threat as any other man to women and girls. The very large majority of trans-identifying men still have their full male genitals. And the majority are sexually attracted to women and/or teenage girls. By excluding all males, we exclude all male genitals. If no-one has a penis, no-one can flash or rape with one. This logic is inescapable.

Just one trans woman regularly using the women's changing room at the local Pool is likely to shock/frighten hundreds of women/teenage girls over the course of a year. Some of the distressed women/teenage girls may simply say nothing, get (re)dressed quickly, leave and never come back to the Pool. Including men means excluding these women and girls.

So why prioritise these specific men's 'rights', if you're not TQ and won't directly benefit?

Do you have a TQ child? That, I agree, is extraordinarly challenging for parents, and if so, I'm sincerely very sorry. But the principle of protecting single sex spaces still holds. Why not campaign for third (single-room) spaces so trans girls and trans boys (and all the other pupils) can feel safe and comfortable?

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 14:42

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 14:37

Fair enough. I am flouncing. Getting back into my lane.

Nobody told you to "get back into your lane". You're the one using this emotional language to try to make us feel bad.

But by all means, flounce away; we're used to TRAs coming here to scold us, and then disappearing when we confront them with facts they don't like.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 14:54

KitWyn · 01/01/2026 14:42

Genuinely interested in your answer as to why the trans woman (whose sex is male) should be given the 'right' to be in women's spaces instead of prioritising the women and girls 'right' to exclude him?

Trans women pose the same physical threat as any other man to women and girls. The very large majority of trans-identifying men still have their full male genitals. And the majority are sexually attracted to women and/or teenage girls. By excluding all males, we exclude all male genitals. If no-one has a penis, no-one can flash or rape with one. This logic is inescapable.

Just one trans woman regularly using the women's changing room at the local Pool is likely to shock/frighten hundreds of women/teenage girls over the course of a year. Some of the distressed women/teenage girls may simply say nothing, get (re)dressed quickly, leave and never come back to the Pool. Including men means excluding these women and girls.

So why prioritise these specific men's 'rights', if you're not TQ and won't directly benefit?

Do you have a TQ child? That, I agree, is extraordinarly challenging for parents, and if so, I'm sincerely very sorry. But the principle of protecting single sex spaces still holds. Why not campaign for third (single-room) spaces so trans girls and trans boys (and all the other pupils) can feel safe and comfortable?

Checking what I posted. It was this:

"Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.
Got ya."

Is that not what is being said ?

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 15:00

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 14:28

Well, I aint black ,but that does not mean I am against BLM.

This comment above makes zero sense in this context.

You were pulled up for this comment: Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.
Got ya.

...after @Igmum had patiently explained how women's actual rights clash with trans 'rights'.

You were asked to clarify what trans rights are, but you can't. So you flounce.

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 15:02

Who are the 'some folk' Alan?
You're going to need to be a bit clearer in 2026.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 15:08

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 15:00

This comment above makes zero sense in this context.

You were pulled up for this comment: Ah right. So it's rights for everyone except T, who some folk don't like.
Got ya.

...after @Igmum had patiently explained how women's actual rights clash with trans 'rights'.

You were asked to clarify what trans rights are, but you can't. So you flounce.

As a lib leftie, I have been totally and utterly defeated. You win.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 15:11

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 15:02

Who are the 'some folk' Alan?
You're going to need to be a bit clearer in 2026.

I am defeated. You win. You can chalk that up on your board. I strayed out my lane and have been corrected.

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 15:12

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 15:11

I am defeated. You win. You can chalk that up on your board. I strayed out my lane and have been corrected.

Your language sadly reveals a lot about the kind of company you keep.

Greyskybluesky · 01/01/2026 15:16

Another patronising poster with no solid argument.

RedTagAlan · 01/01/2026 15:20

Seethlaw · 01/01/2026 15:12

Your language sadly reveals a lot about the kind of company you keep.

Given that I live in a country where pride events etc are effectively banned, I don't see how any company I keep is indicated by my language. As for trans, they don't exist where I am, I think.

Swipe left for the next trending thread