Staying on topic- threads in general

Where would I start with editing that if we only had an edit button? ? I hope you can make sense of it.

Ah, I see, sorry, Galaxy, I thought your comment was directed at me?

I am feeling a bit fragile about all of this, as I know a lot of people on GN don’t like ‘the usual suspects’ banging on about things, and I am very aware that I am one of them on this issue. My posts will be repetitive, but there is only so much to be said, really, yet the implication is always that if people don’t buy into the TWAW narrative they are transphobic is simply untrue, and shouldn’t go unchallenged, however often it is repeated.

The ‘I just want us to live one another and live in perfect harmony’ posts are, of course, disingenuous at best, but I assume everyone will see that. The patronising ‘for the hard of thinking’ digs, and the picking holes in my posts to waste time just wash over me too, as they are so blatant.

My concern is that the ‘debate’ about erasing women is dressed up as being about giving rights to transpeople, which is, of course, a laudable aim, so people who have not come across the tactics of Stonewall won’t realise how pernicious they are, or what the implications of erasing women from the language are likely to be.

I don’t often look on MN, but think I’ll go and check it out again. Thanks?

No of course not doodledog. Sorry I wasnt sure if that question was directed to me. What I am saying is that MN and GN are really the only place it's even possible to talk about these issues so although decisions irritate me at times I appreciate their bravery. I think we would still be in a situation of 'no debate' if it wasnt for MN.

The Feminism discussions forums on MN are very lively, from all perspectives, and are moderated quite lightly imo. Possibly because of the demographic of the posters (although they're by no means all young mums), they seem to be far more concerned about the losses and compromises women are being expected to make, both in their ordinary everyday lives, and the ramifications for future generations. I'm a bit that there isn't the same level of a sense of disquiet here too .

Are you saying that we shouldn’t discuss trans issues? I know that it’s boring for some people, and understand if they want to scroll by, but for others this is a major issue that will have massive ramifications for our daughters and granddaughters down the line.

I don’t think I have ever started a thread (overtly or obliquely) about trans issues - it certainly isn’t my favourite subject - but I feel obliged to challenge propaganda and inaccuracies where I see them.

But if your forums became known as gender critical forums, (and MN is) then your moderation would alter I would pretty much bet my house on it.

I have also moderated and adminned a discussion board and the ‘rule’ was that it was fine for threads to ‘drift’ - in fact that is often inevitable. It would be very heavy/handed to monitor every post for deviation, and posts would soon run out of steam, and posters resentful. It would also encourage the I haven’t read the thread but I will repeat what has been said a hundred times already’ brigade

We did step in where there was deliberate disruption though, so people talking amongst themselves about Teletubbies or daffodils to derail a thread that they found boring would be separated from the main one and given a thread of its own. The new thread always died, as the purpose was clearly to dictate the agenda, rather than a genuine interest in Tinkywinky and co?.

As Caleo says (and as she did), there is nothing to stop people returning to the original post if they have something new to add.

Thank you for reintroducing the original topic Caleo.
Another site I'm on, which does sometimes lock threads, has a rule that they should stay on-topic and posters will be reminded of this if they stray too far from the topic.
I think it would be reasonable for GN to do it, though, if things have got heated and it looks like there won't be a return to the original subject.
It seems they prefer to take the high handed approach of complete deletion.
Probably GNHQ thinks threads that deteriorate into squabbling are bad for its image (and the image of all us sweet old grans)!

I help to moderate group discussions elsewhere and would never lock a discussion because posters had diverged. Posters can revive the original topic if they want to do so. Posters can also reply to a post by requesting a connection be made to the original topic.

Galaxy

So we can all stop saying lives like a woman or presents like a woman as this is obviously meaningless. Because that is a description of gender norms.

Yes. Which was my point above, and is what many of us have been saying all along. Norms are not innate - they are socially constructed. The idea that someone has to redefine themselves if they want to align with socially constructed norms is bonkers. I know it wouldn't happen overnight, but it would make far more sense to stop seeing those norms as gendered. And even more sense to stop seeing them as based on sex.

Again, language is important here. The majority of people see themselves as having a gender that matches their sex, so I am female, which (in my case) means both biologically and socially. When we use the same word to mean both things it is easy to forget that the concepts are different. Then, of course, sex is tied in with sexuality, which muddies the linguistic waters even more, particularly where transvestism comes into play.

So a woman is a biological female who generally is comfortable conforming to female-gendered norms. I would argue that few people are really binary when it comes to those, particularly in Western societies where people are not tied by religious obligations, but there are no words to describe, say, women who play football, work as mechanics and wear boiler suits, or men who embroider, work in childcare and wear make-up (maybe not the best examples, but all I can come up with off the top of my head).

I'm not saying that there should be, incidentally - old words like 'tomboy' or 'cissie' were unhelpful and tended to be used to shame people. Maybe, though, unpicking the linguistic difficulties would be useful. Separate out sex (which we are born with) from gender (which we learn, but can reject) and sexuality, which is a whole other discussion, but is important to this one, regardless. If we did that, we could have a woman who is 'masculine' in her gender choices, but is sexually attracted to men, or a man who is feminine in his gender choices but prefers sex with women, or any combination of sex, gender and sexuality with no surprise or comment, much less a need for people to 'transition'.

This, of course, is exactly what people do anyway, but the insistence that people who conform to gender norms have to be the sex that usually fits those norms is confining, and has left a gap for TRAs to slip through, and make this a tribal issue. It has turned people against one another, and forced people to accept that women don't really exist (try asking a TRA for a definition of a woman if you don't believe me), or that they are basically a sub-set of men.

When women no longer exist we can more easily be discriminated against, and our sex-based rights will cease to exist too. No safe spaces, no rights to equal pay (as who will know whether biological men are paid more, if they identify as women?), no funding for women's health for the same reasons, no women's hospital wards or prisons. Our daughters or grand-daughters will be expected to shower next to female-identifying men with no right to complain, and so on. It's tedious to have to keep saying these things, but it's too important to ignore.

Sorry if this post is too long for those who prefer soundbites. It is a complex issue, and can't be summed up in a four line post.

There are positives of a gender spectrum and being able to express who we are and how we identify.

Norms can go because they are confining, simply

Which exist

So we can all stop saying lives like a woman or presents like a woman as this is obviously meaningless. Because that is a description of gender norms.

Multiple FacePalms ???

'Sex' = biological sex (female or male)

'Gender' = archaic sexist stereotypes

For anyone who is interested.

www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

Gender is simply a spectrum.

Gender norms are harmful and damage people's ability to be their authentic selves because of the expectations placed apon them by others. Expectations by other leads to expectations placed on themselves to conform which leads to unhappiness and poor self image.

People are confused by gender because society (with some differences depending on culture) tells us that "male" and "female" are the only choices. In order to be categorized as the right one we must present in a certain way with appearance and manner. When most of society places importance on that, its not really any surprise that transgender people feel the same. In fact they may feel they must appear and perform their role even more so to be accepted as the gender they feel.

Actually:

"cis" means over this side
"trans" means that side
"non binary" means neither.
"bi gender" means both
"gender fluid" means moving back and forwards between the two.

It's not surprising that this happens when most people see gender as "male" and "female" as strongly as we see up and down or left and right, that trans people have fallen into that trap too.

If gender is a spectrum then we can all exist comfortably on it. We can all be our authentic selves and not judged for not conforming to gender stereotypes.

Because actually not conforming is dangerous. People are confused by those who do not conform to their idea of gender and they bully them for it. In some cases they may even attack them for it.

So all these little changes that we are making to take gender out of the equation are actually helpful for everyone to live authentically, not just trans people.

He should be able to stay at home with the children without judgement

She should be able to not have children or go out to work while they stay at home with dad without judgement.

She should be able to not wear high heels or makeup without judgement.

He should be able to wear high heels or makeup without judgement.

They should be able to do or not do any of those things while still identifying where they feel they should be placed on the spectrum.

The spectrum still exists even if we do away with gender specific labels entirely in policies or shop signs etc which is where people should have the choice to self identify.

All. Of. Us.

Living authentically.

It's a good thing.

OK for the sake of those who have prob;lems with complicated ideas here's the explanation.
Using preferred pronouns helps abandon gender norms because the use particularly of "they" means that you can no longer judge someone as man or woman but just as a person. The perceptions of what is seen as men's or women's behaviour may change as well as people begin to question preconceptions.

However linking that to transpeople is a wrong, because also involved are non-binary people who are not trans.

Transpeople do not transition as was alleged earlier (and if you want to you can find it I CBA) because of gender norms and to link them to that is just wrong. If you can't understand the complexity of that well I'm sorry I can't help you. I tried by posting pictures and got accused of not understanding historic fashions. I can't decide if this is an inability to understand complex issues or just a desperation to prove I am wrong, or perhaps both. Gender norms exist. Transpeople exist. Gender norms change. Transpeople remain trans and have throughout history regardless of the accepted gender norms of the time.

I know but all the cognitive dissonance is making me dizzy so I've just decided for everyone

trisher
. . . . it isn't actually the erasure of women the pronoun change is ushering in it's the abandonment of gender norms.
.
.
.
[Lots of other stuff]
.
.
.
trisher
So exactly what have transpeople to do with changing gender norms?

Come on trisher surely you can see you were being a little contradictory there?

What tenacity Doodledog!
I'm glad the cake intervention was in time to stop something terrible from happening.

Yay trans people, we love and accept them

I don't accept them as being the sex they say they are, if that isn't their genuine biological sex.

If you do accept that they are a sex other than their genuine biological one, we don't agree.

(I'm sure you knew that, really)

I'm definitely not but I fully accept I come across as an arrogant arse in type at times...

Im just very formal in type for some reason.

Cottage pie being made for tomorrow. Hope my dad likes it. I do love a curry.

Well I certainly love and accept them, which apparently makes me misogynistic and anti-feminist. So if everyone loves and accepts them are we all that?
Don't bother to answer that it isn't asked seriously..

Curry VioletSky

I don't see you as a big scary monster, VS ❤️

I've given my opinions on all that many times doodledog.

None of us are in charge of policy changes etc.

My answers have been deemed not good enough and some quite offensive things have been said, not at me but at the air around me that I am not allowed to be offended by... Yet when I explain what discrimination is, I am a big scary monster.

All efforts or ideas for compromise have been shut down.

It's become a back and forth effort t one-upmanship that is just exhausting and very very boring.

At what point do we all get off the merry-go-round and talk about the things that really matter, like whats for dinner?

VioletSky

Then what on earth are we arguing about.

Yay trans people, we love and accept them

Now what's for dinner?

VS, that's what many of us have been saying all along, but it hasn't been taken on board.

What we don't accept is double standards when it comes to language that erases women and forwards transpeople, and the erosion of the safe spaces that women have fought for so hard since before any of us were born.

Ironically, my post above was to show that it doesn't matter how often things are repeated they are ignored and the same questions are asked over and over again, long after they have been answered.