Staying on topic- threads in general

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.

Which exist

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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

We can and I agree with every word......( except I suspect you meant love not live in the 3rd paragraph)

And now I want an edit button to say the first live not the second one!

If we go back to gender norms and how they are a societal issue would anyone like to explain how transpeople who feel they have the wrong body could in any way communicate their real personality and feel happy and comfortable except by conforming with those norms and (much as you might dislike the word) presenting as the gender they feel they are?
Is it in fact completely wrong to blame them for the fact that such norms may be becoming more entrenched. Wouldn't people be better looking and fighting the industries which really benefit from this, that is the entertainment and porn industries. If gender norms are more entrenched then trans people are the victims not the perpetrators.

. It would help if I wasnt so lazy and included the name of the person I was talking to. If people think threads are repetitive well theres always the option of not reading them. I am not interested in say the Good morning thread but I understand other people are and wouldnt dream of popping on to tell them to talk about something else . I am I will admit quite defensive of MN because I think being public about allowing gender critical debate can carry a great personal cost.

Sorry Trisher that emoji wasnt aimed at you, just at Rosie's editing problems.

I guess I just don't feel erased. I don't think transpeople are trying to do anything to women. I suspect any backlash movement that seeks to claim its rights will be eroded if others are supported. It's been the outcry everytime any human rights progress has been made. It's never happened.
In the past we have been warned
Poor people being given rights would destroy society
Women achieving equality would destroy the family
Black people achieving equality would swamp the country
Gay people being given rights would destroy the family
These never happened.

trisher what rights do transpeople not have? What rights do they want?

Rosie51

trisher what rights do transpeople not have? What rights do they want?

An excellent question. I am looking forward to seeing the answer.

I wonder that too, Rosie51 what rights, that they do not have at the moment, would make them feel better? Maybe there is some compromise that could be reached there.

What rights do they want? That don't reduce, minimise or eradicate the rights that other groups have fought long and hard for.... for example: the rights for women to have a relationship with any one they wish, without fear of being stigmatised as anti trans.

Waits with bated breath.

Well the one you have all vociferously opposed for a start off the right to self ID to remove transition from the complicated, expensive and convoluted procedure it presently is and make it a simple non-medical legal procedure that is affordable for everyone.
Self ID was noisily promoted by the media as people waking up and deciding one day to change gender. That was never the process most transpeople wanted.