Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Are we a cult?

1000 replies

CyclingSam · 11/08/2026 11:01

I keep reading that sex realists, of which I am one, are a cult. Perhaps a genderist could be so kind as to explain what a cult is, and why we qualify. Sometimes one of us calls them a cult too. Who has a better case, hmmm?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
selffellatingouroborosofhate · 13/08/2026 21:25

Stonehenger · 13/08/2026 13:31

I genuinely don’t think describing myself as a cis woman is much different from describing myself as heterosexual.

I wouldn’t say ‘BUT IM JUST NORMAL?? Why should I have a word??’ Because that would be wildly homophobic.

It’s HELPFUL to be able to describe specific experiences.

  • A lesbian woman is a woman.
  • A straight woman is a woman.
  • A bisexual woman is a woman.

Differentiating between those three makes sense.

What you call a "trans woman" is a man. Calling him any kind of woman makes no sense. He is differentiated from women by being a man.

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 21:30

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 13/08/2026 21:25

  • A lesbian woman is a woman.
  • A straight woman is a woman.
  • A bisexual woman is a woman.

Differentiating between those three makes sense.

What you call a "trans woman" is a man. Calling him any kind of woman makes no sense. He is differentiated from women by being a man.

Exactly.

It's not difficult.

There are many different types of women, with many different needs within that.

However a man can never be a category of women.

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 21:31

BruachAbhann · 13/08/2026 21:23

Ah, this thread has been interesting. It's a very hot day here, Prosecco has been drunk and I appreciate the wit and clarity and brilliance of my fellow cult members. :-) I never foresaw the day I would be accused of being in a cult for knowing the difference between men and women but there you go.

Mental isn't it?

Imagine if someone had told you that 20 years ago? You would have laughed them out of town.

BackToLurk · 13/08/2026 21:42

NotAtMyAge · 13/08/2026 21:12

Julia Serano coined the term and would be a good place to start.

Of course he did. 🙄

Retrofitting misogyny. This man is a woman therefore the thing he is experiencing must be misogyny.

Shedmistress · 13/08/2026 21:44

If these 'be kinders' were really kind, they would help us escape this cult by explaining why they think Mr Wallace is a lady. Or Mr Willoughby. Or any other of the blokes who say 3 words and 'ta da'...

10 years in and nada. Never once has one of them put in writing why they think this.

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 21:44

BackToLurk · 13/08/2026 21:42

Retrofitting misogyny. This man is a woman therefore the thing he is experiencing must be misogyny.

It's like everything about the TRA nonsense.

You start with one lie (men can become women). Then you have to layer more and more lies to make it make any sense.

Boiledbeetle · 13/08/2026 21:46

Shedmistress · 13/08/2026 21:44

If these 'be kinders' were really kind, they would help us escape this cult by explaining why they think Mr Wallace is a lady. Or Mr Willoughby. Or any other of the blokes who say 3 words and 'ta da'...

10 years in and nada. Never once has one of them put in writing why they think this.

But just think how much terfy pottery you've made during those ten years of waiting.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 13/08/2026 21:48

Stonehenger · 13/08/2026 13:05

You could use cis woman in the cases where it’s important to distinguish between a cis woman and a trans woman (eg medical settings). The rest of the time, I think woman is fine for us all. You are welcome to disagree, but there IS a usable option.

Or you could use "adult human female" for the adult human females, and "adult human male" for the ones who are not females.

But "woman" and "man" are shorter and fit on all the forms better.

AimsAndObjectives · 13/08/2026 21:56

Newgolddream123 · 13/08/2026 20:31

I’m not sure you understood my message, I was responding to someone who had corrected me and said I shouldn’t use “ trans women “ as a word but should use transwomen or TIM - the space I was talking about was a punctuation space. #notacult means that we will all have different views and “red lines” that may apply to this situation.I posted the yougov survey links upthread a while ago around poll findings .The consensus around what the word woman means has been around for millennia and certainly none(?) of us who became adults in the 20th century would have ever dreamed that people would try to redefine the term to allow men into women’s only spaces. The consensus I mean is where do we go forwards now as a society from this point, seeing as most (?) people would accept there will continue to be trans people albeit hopefully fewer gender confused children being pushed into transitioning and fewer adults trying to push their entitlements to single sex spaces etc.

Edited

Sorry if I misunderstood anything. Happy to let our posts stand as 2 unrelated statements 💚💜

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 21:56

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 13/08/2026 21:48

Or you could use "adult human female" for the adult human females, and "adult human male" for the ones who are not females.

But "woman" and "man" are shorter and fit on all the forms better.

I just don't understand why we would group 'women' with 'men who like to present as women' together in the first place.

What's the connection? I can't see what these two groups have in common with each other.

They feel totally unaligned to me.

We definitely don't need one word that encompasses them.

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 22:05

Chickadeeinme · 13/08/2026 20:13

I used to work for Penguin books and I once had a chat with the editor who turned down Harry Potter. When I asked why she shrugged and said she saw it as no more than a twist on the old-fashioned boarding school stories. I think @FlirtsWithRhinoshas the lineage dead right.

What a fuck up 😱

Chickadeeinme · 13/08/2026 22:10

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 22:05

What a fuck up 😱

She’d shopped it around a lot of publishers before it landed in Bloomsbury’s slush pile. An editor took it home and one of his children got hold of the first three chapters and demanded to know what happened next. I think one of the issues was that she had already planned out the arc of the series and most big publishers didn’t want to take the risk of that big a contract on a previously unknown writer. Bloomsbury were not in that great a shape until HP came along but have been in markedly better shape since.

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 22:18

Chickadeeinme · 13/08/2026 22:10

She’d shopped it around a lot of publishers before it landed in Bloomsbury’s slush pile. An editor took it home and one of his children got hold of the first three chapters and demanded to know what happened next. I think one of the issues was that she had already planned out the arc of the series and most big publishers didn’t want to take the risk of that big a contract on a previously unknown writer. Bloomsbury were not in that great a shape until HP came along but have been in markedly better shape since.

I know the lore.

And I know that hindsight is a very powerful thing.

But it must massively sting to have turned it down. Epic fail.

And it doesn't say a whole lot about the ability of children's publishers to tune into children's tastes.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 13/08/2026 22:32

Shortshriftandlethal · 13/08/2026 20:13

No, what people here are very attached to is the dignity and integrity of female people; having lived our lives first as girls and then as women; as mothers; sisters; wives; girlfriends. We are profoundly insulted, and also angered that this recent trend in post modern identity as turned into an authoritarian creed that brooks no dissent; sees itself as supremely righteous, and then casts slurs against the character of all those that won't pledge allegiance

Males are not female, and to call this recognition of reality. 'hate' reveals the indoctrinated and cultish nature of trans ideology - in which anyone who does not conform to the creed is seen as evil and/or hateful. This is typical of all evangelical churches, and of fundamentalist groups of any stripe.

The hall mark of a cult is expecting its adherents to believe in outlandish and unreasoned things - and when they question the tenets of that faith - they are then cast out and cut off. This particular trend has already peaked and had its day...as younger generations move on to new types and formulations of 'identity.'

Edited

That's rather unfair to evangelical churches, which are not the same thing as fundamentalist (though I think it's fair to say that fundamentalism is the extreme wing of evangelicalism). I think there's something similar going on with gender identity ideology; we see the most extreme expressions, and it's tempting to tar everyone who has been persuaded to 'be kind' with the same brush.

CohensDiamondTeeth · 13/08/2026 22:43

Chickadeeinme · 13/08/2026 22:10

She’d shopped it around a lot of publishers before it landed in Bloomsbury’s slush pile. An editor took it home and one of his children got hold of the first three chapters and demanded to know what happened next. I think one of the issues was that she had already planned out the arc of the series and most big publishers didn’t want to take the risk of that big a contract on a previously unknown writer. Bloomsbury were not in that great a shape until HP came along but have been in markedly better shape since.

I didn't know this. The editor's child finding it and wanting to read more of the story is a rather lovely way for a children's book to get published.

I'm clearly a terrible cultist to not be fully up on JKR history 😆

NotAtMyAge · 13/08/2026 22:55

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 22:18

I know the lore.

And I know that hindsight is a very powerful thing.

But it must massively sting to have turned it down. Epic fail.

And it doesn't say a whole lot about the ability of children's publishers to tune into children's tastes.

I was a public librarian for 24 years until June 1997 and soon after I left the children's librarian showed me a copy of the first Harry Potter book which had just arrived in stock and was completely unknown at that point. She'd taken it home to read before putting it on the shelf and said she thought it would be a big success. When in doubt, ask the people who deal with children and their reading day in, day out.

UtopiaPlanitia · 14/08/2026 00:10

MarieDeGournay · 12/08/2026 16:02

Thank you for clarifying that, Dontmakemethinkofanotherbloodyusername.

You refer to 'brigading' as a characteristic of echo-chamber groups.

By that token, this board isn't, because I don't believe even our most ardent critic could come up with any evidence of brigading.

It'd be like herding mice at a crossroads to get this lot to do something coordinated!😄

😂

That's an old culchie expression I haven't heard in years: when I was a weeun, I mind older people saying, 'Thon could mind mice at a crossroads', of a particularly smart or cunning person.

The opposite was, 'Thon's four sheets flappin in the wind', with 'wind' pronounced to rhyme with 'mind'.

RedToothBrush · 14/08/2026 00:20

yesyoureinacult · 13/08/2026 19:20

Cult-like behaviour!
Arguing that every single reputable mainstream organisation is ‘captured’. That includes all major medical orgs, unions, women’s groups, charities, the UN etc. No evidence is given for this except that they have the temerity to disagree with the people on this board.

Idolisation of someone seen as a ‘leader’. Well plenty of evidence for this with regards to JK Rowling on this thread and it extends to demonising anyone critical of her children’s books. One might think that some people have never read further than Harry Potter.

‘Information’ that is only from youtube videos, anti-trans orgs, twitter, or supposedly word of mouth. Many links to far right sites and videos because nothing counts as far right as long as it is against trans people.

Losing friends and family. Many people come on here saying their friends/family disagree with them. Overwhelmingly they are told that they are either ‘captured’, ‘scared’ or ‘stupid’. Advice is usually to get new friends who agree i.e. the people on this board.

‘We are about women’s rights’ - except there is no-one too homophobic, transphobic, racist or sexist as long as they are against trans people. Any criticism becomes a ‘purity spiral’ so that ideas you have, have moved (perhaps without you noticing) to all sorts of bigotry. Women who disagree with you are ‘handmaidens’, ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’, ‘scared’ or ‘captured’.

If anyone does come with an argument they are repeatedly insulted, told they have no argument, told they are men, told they are trolls or there are numerous posts about tea cakes - until people either agree or go away. They are also presented with false assertions about what they have said, so that the original point made is obscured. It happens so often it is surely purposeful.

There is an obvious shift towards opposing bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. Despite constantly saying that people on here are ‘life-long lefties’ there is no actual evidence of that. Cue much satisfaction from ‘the wise women of mumsnet’, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Support for violent men as long as they are against trans people. The Royce White case is one of many where people ignore domestic violence perpetrators if they are ‘on the same side’. And talking of the WNBA, if anyone is actually interested in women’s sports in the US then you should read the real threat, which is coming from the Heritage Foundation as an attack on title IX. MAGA is laughing their socks off at the opportunity this manufactured culture war is giving them. https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/title-ixs-failed-experiment-why-accommodating-sex-differences-beats-engineered-parity

Everyone secretly agrees with you but no-one will say so because they’re ‘scared’. Trans people are both all powerful and a tiny minority who no-one cares about. The cognitive dissonance this must create is - well …

Governments all support trans people to the detriment of women apparently, ignoring that the most powerful government in the world attacks both trans and women’s rights. Trans people are ‘fetishists’, ‘perverts’, ‘AGP’ or ‘mentally ill’ - unless it’s trans men who are ‘vulnerable’, ‘young’ ‘really lesbians’ etc etc etc. Trans children don’t exist, or need saving - until they hit 18 when they suddenly become ‘porn-addled’.

‘Humans understanding biology is not a cult’ - except you don’t understand biology or the fact that the majority of scientists (yes yes I know they’re all captured) think that human biology is complex, interesting, and there is much to learn. Reducing everyone to XX or XY is a simplistic model that leads to seeing women as mere baby carriers. Perhaps that is what the majority of posters on this board want - if so perhaps they should be honest about it.

The attitude to intersex people on this board is pretty disgusting - and I’m sure someone will now say ‘everyone is male or female’ - so ask yourself the question ‘who decides that’ and why, when genitalia, chromosomes and hormones may not match in the way you think they should. Why can’t intersex people live their lives as who they are rather than fitting neatly into a box that society has made.

There is no room in any of these descriptions for nuance, humanity or the fact that trans people, like the rest of us, are muddling through our lives. This is supposed to be a ‘discussion’ board, but the reality is it’s a board for a few hundred people who constantly congratulate themselves on knowing the ‘truth’ and think their gotcha questions are a sign of debate. There is also glee at misgendering as if, somehow, this is fighting for women’s rights.

This whole thread is an example of how, when confronted with some evidence that lots of women don’t agree with GCs and many people think that the board demonstrates cult-like behaviour - the ‘regulars’ come on swiftly to shut the conversation down with lurid tales of trans people.

For those who will now pop up and say I’m a troll or I’ve posted and run. Yes I’ve posted and run - so don’t bother with your gotcha questions designed to put people off. The majority on this board are not worth engaging with because they’re not interested in fighting for women’s rights but maybe - maybe - there are some who are not too far gone.

stand on a chair and shouts

FULL HOUSE!

Impressive.

inkymoose · 14/08/2026 00:21

Stonehenger · 13/08/2026 13:05

You could use cis woman in the cases where it’s important to distinguish between a cis woman and a trans woman (eg medical settings). The rest of the time, I think woman is fine for us all. You are welcome to disagree, but there IS a usable option.

Absolutely NOT.

Don't use the word "cis" at all, for any flimsy pretext reason.

inkymoose · 14/08/2026 00:38

Stonehenger · 13/08/2026 13:31

I genuinely don’t think describing myself as a cis woman is much different from describing myself as heterosexual.

I wouldn’t say ‘BUT IM JUST NORMAL?? Why should I have a word??’ Because that would be wildly homophobic.

It’s HELPFUL to be able to describe specific experiences.

That's not "describing specific experiences". You have not described anything.

CohensDiamondTeeth · 14/08/2026 00:54

inkymoose · 14/08/2026 00:38

That's not "describing specific experiences". You have not described anything.

Yes that's a good point!

And re-reading that post I noticed that this is an example of another TRA tactic in action.

That poster made the false comparison of women retaining their words (and therefore rights), with being homophobic.

It's forced teaming gay rights and trans "rights".
"If you are pro-gay rights you must also be pro-trans rights - that is to say, the right to erase women's rights with a few words, and the right to rename women as a sub-set of their own sex. If you don't agree to all of that as a complete bundle of beliefs, you must be a homophobe and a transphobic bigot!"

RedToothBrush · 14/08/2026 01:02

CohensDiamondTeeth · 14/08/2026 00:54

Yes that's a good point!

And re-reading that post I noticed that this is an example of another TRA tactic in action.

That poster made the false comparison of women retaining their words (and therefore rights), with being homophobic.

It's forced teaming gay rights and trans "rights".
"If you are pro-gay rights you must also be pro-trans rights - that is to say, the right to erase women's rights with a few words, and the right to rename women as a sub-set of their own sex. If you don't agree to all of that as a complete bundle of beliefs, you must be a homophobe and a transphobic bigot!"

Reminder:

The SC ruled that if sex didn't mean biological sex rather than philosophical sex, you couldn't protect homosexuals, women or transpeople themselves because all three need a reference to sex in law to underpin their rights legally.

They said to not recognise this would be homophobic and particularly impact on lesbians.

So when you read the above post it shows ignorance of how the law works and why this particular ruling was made.

inkymoose · 14/08/2026 01:41

Stonehenger · 13/08/2026 17:01

No, that’s not my position. It would depend if the comment was trans misogyny or about something else wouldn’t it? The same as not everything said to a women is misogynistic (but some of the things said by women to women on here are!)

Sorry, was there actually something you wanted to discuss?

Trans misogyny? There are many assumptions being made here by using such a ludicrously inaccurate term.

Do you know what misogyny is? It's a noun meaning "hatred of women". "miso-" is a word that combines form, originating in the Greek word "miseein" meaning "to hate". "gyny" is a noun that combines form, originating from New Latin -gynus and Greek -gunos, from gune, woman.

Using the term "misogyny" is about male hatred, by men, of women. It is wrong to imagine that a woman can hate another woman in the sense of misogyny. Women can dislike other women or even hate other women (usually specific women, not all women), but that's not misogyny. There are other descriptive words, and other reasons, for women to hate, fear or dislike other women. Women who hate men are misandrists. The "-gyny" or "-andry" refers to a sex class. Female or male.

inkymoose · 14/08/2026 01:53

Waitwhat23 · 13/08/2026 17:20

Julia Serano who is quoted in the image below?

😬

How does Andrea Long Chu get in there twice, with two different haircuts?

WordSaladsRUs if you ask me. All of those, er, people quoted. Meaningless pseudo-intellectual claptrap, every word.

inkymoose · 14/08/2026 02:03

TheKeatingFive · 13/08/2026 17:47

One thing that has always been unclear to me ...

What is it that all women are supposed to have in common with so called 'transwomen' but not any other men?

What are the characteristics that unite us that means it make sense to group us together?

Becayse I can't think of a single one.

Which means that the group of 'women plus transwomen' lacks any coherency or legitimacy as a group.

Its like creating a group that consists of 'women plus pineapples'. Baffling and pointless.

mmmm

Pineapples

pineapple GIF
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.