Cancel Culture or Free Speech

Feminist- an advocate of women’s (AHF) rights on the basis of equality of the sexes.

There are many who consider themselves feminists but feel they need a qualifying adjective such as intersectional or even intersexual before the word feminist.

This usually means they don’t advocate women’s rights on the basis of equality of the sexes, but often advocate anything which goes against female rights if it benefits males.

These are better known as misogynistic feminists.

Which is probably a way of saying I can't argue with what you say so I'm going to take offence at the way you say it.
Er, no .

I am perfectly capable of arguing with what you say, and as I’ve already said, I don’t take things personally - I just find snide comments unnecessary. They add nothing to the discussion and cause ill feeling. A simple ‘I don’t agree with you because. . .’ is one thing, but a ‘Some people seem incapable of understanding. . .’ is another, isn’t it?

Doodledog👏👏

VioletSky

That daily fail article reads like father and adult child are estranged

They weren't. The boy was in residential care, as far as I know or have read. Still, the courts will sort it out.

Even if they are estranged, what does that have to do with it. EP's don't stop loving and worrying about their children.

This thread seems to have deteriorated.

Glorianny

Galaxy

I will be honest and say there is nothing more that demonstrates middle class privilege than thinking it's ok for men to be in womens spaces. The presence of men frequently impacts the most vulnerable women those in prisons, women with disabilities etc.

That isn't the view of intersectional feminists, who would disagree not only about what you have said but the premise behind it. Firstly that it is women who decide who should be in these spaces (it isn't, it is men) . Most intersectional feminists would tell you that the women in prison are there because of a system which oppresses women and treats them differently. That that oppression differs because upper class white women are able to use the system and stay out of prison whereas poor black women will be imprisoned.

And the law protects single sex spaces, so transwomen will not be in them

And actually a lot of working class women are happy to share with transwomen, but it's OK apparently for a group of privileged middle class women to tell them they shouldn't be.

Oh, so those of us that don't choose to share spaces with biological men are all middle class and privileged?

What a ridiculous generalisation....🙄

I was bought up, poor, in the East End of London.

I always worked in public services.

I live in a Housing Association property, in a nice area now, but it's what it is.

My husband died 6 weeks ago. Made harder by trying to deal with firms, seemingly more concerned about me using their bloody pronouns, on letters etc, than doing the job they are paid to do..😡

What part of all that, exactly, makes me "privileged" and "middle class"? 🤔🤔

I'm pure working class - and I will always believe that there are 3 types of humans

1) Those born with a natural penis - males.

2) Those born without a natural penis - females.

3) Those who wish to try and be what they are not, biologically.

They can rock on, doing as they like, but I don't want them encroaching on my rights.

It's that simple...🙄🙄🙄

Glorianny said :
"If you are referring to women's refuges there is evidence that some women do not object to transwomen being included in them."

You say 'some women' don't object so clearly you understand that some women do object.
Why should those women, when using the service, have to be constantly alert for males pretending to be women?

If a refuge includes male people in its staff or/and clients, it isn't a single-sex women's refuge and should make that clear.

Grantanow

This thread seems to have deteriorated.

Well it's certainly moved away from the question raised in the Original Post!

Mollygo

^Feminist- an advocate of women’s (AHF) rights on the basis of equality of the sexes.^

There are many who consider themselves feminists but feel they need a qualifying adjective such as intersectional or even intersexual before the word feminist.

This usually means they don’t advocate women’s rights on the basis of equality of the sexes, but often advocate anything which goes against female rights if it benefits males.

These are better known as misogynistic feminists.

Golly you do try hard to make people who disagree with you into people who favour men don't you.
For the record Intersectional feminists recognise the differences that exist between women. The movement grew out of complaints by black women that feminism did nothing for them (and its record on dealing with black women was appalling). The term was coined by a black woman and is supported by the UN.
I could say that by rejecting intersectional feminism you are exhibiting racism, but I won't. I suspect your comments come more from ignorance, and an unwillingness to admit privilege, than actual racist feelings
But calling these women misogynistic isn't acceptable
www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/6/explainer-intersectional-feminism-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters#:~:text=Kimberl%C3%A9%20Crenshaw%2C%20an%20American%20law,

My sincere condolences DiamondLily. 💐

Intersectional feminism addressing different experiences of women is, of course, sensible and shouldn't even need a special name, imo.

Including male people in that, and saying they are women, is not sensible.

Addressing misogyny which affects women, and also affects male people who are perceived as women, doesn't mean those male people actually are women.
It also doesn't mean that a specific male person is perceived as a woman by everyone.

I don't really care what intersectional feminists think, other than in an abstract, theoretical sense. I don't 'identify' into a particular group based on other people's rules and values - I know I am a woman, and for the purposes of this particular discussion, that is what matters. Men, transmen, transwomen, anyone else is, of course, welcome to contribute their viewpoints too, but nobody should have their posts judged by how far they conform to someone else's perspective on feminism, or religion, or political persuasion on a thread about free speech. If anyone wants to have a theoretical discussion of the merits of one school of feminism over another, they could always start a thread.

What is far more important is how we, as posters, think about the issue we are discussing, not how far anyone's views fit with a theoretical world view. In my opinion.

Glorianny’s sneaky answer

^ I could say that by rejecting intersectional feminism you are exhibiting racism, but I won't. I suspect your comments come more from ignorance, and an unwillingness to admit privilege, than actual racist feelings^

She could say . . . Actually she has said it, and her accusations fit well with the comments by IF who support males.

I could say that by rejecting intersectional feminism you are exhibiting racism, but I won't.

Classic passive aggression.

I suspect your comments come more from ignorance, and an unwillingness to admit privilege, than actual racist feelings

More passive aggression, coupled with a superior sneer about Molly's intelligence and self-awareness.

As a blind man on a galloping horse can see, personal insults and hounding of posters is not coming from the so-called 'gender critical' on these threads. Glorianny, do you think that nobody can see these nasty comments for what they are? They add nothing to the debate, and put people off joining in, but they keep coming.

I thought this was an interesting and informative thread. It started off that way but now it has become a nasty slanging match so I certainly won’t be contributing.

I notice that you haven't bothered to comment on the link to the women who are intersectional feminists.
Women Mollygo has called misogynistic.
They are of course not white women.
They are not misogynistic.
They have suffered more abuse and more discrimination than I (or I suspect any of us) can imagine.
They accept transgender women as women who have suffered abuse.

In suggesting Mollygo came at this because she had little knowledge of their position and so did not recognise her privilege I was trying to be kind.
Because if she is coming at this subject knowing about those women, rejecting their lived experiences and asserting that they are misogynistic, she is being racist.
And you may think it is irrelevant, but I see it as part of the wider spectrum. That those who accept discrimination in one area will also project it into others.
I'm quite willing to accept that some women believe transwomen are not women (although I will always argue they are)
I'm not willing to accept women who label other women as misogynistic, particularly not when those women are black, ethnic, or indigenous women.
The post from the woman who first proposed intersectional feminism says it all

A great example of saying something offensive without actually saying it; we get quite a lot of that on these threads don't we. Yesterday it was bananas.

Feminism was predominantly organised and defined by middle class educated women so concentrated mainly on issues that affected them. As the movement grew in strength and recognition, the focus expanded and incorporated the issues of all women regardless of their class, education and race.

Do those constantly declaring that they're IF believe the label they pin on themselves gives them a moral high ground? Gives them the right to come out with the constant slurs and passive aggressive comments to their fellow feminists? Do they really believe that only IF's have a care for all women regardless of their class, level of education and race? If so, how do they balance that with some of the comments made to those who don't call themselves IF's?

It appears so judging from some of the comments we see on these threads and flies in the face of what feminism is all about.
Attempts to demote any feminist who doesn't feel the need to identify as intersectional as second class, not really concerned about all women, just the white, middle class and educated women, the so called privileged.

I'm a feminist. I'm GC because I believe that sex is biological and immutable. People cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender identity. I am not critical of the trans community per se, only those who impinge on the hard fought for rights of biological females, and none of the labelled GC I see posting on these threads are critical/non inclusive either.

They add nothing to the debate, and put people off joining in, but they keep coming. Ironic isn't it Doodledog when one takes into account the original subject of this thread.

Smileless2012

A great example of saying something offensive without actually saying it; we get quite a lot of that on these threads don't we. Yesterday it was bananas.

Feminism was predominantly organised and defined by middle class educated women so concentrated mainly on issues that affected them. As the movement grew in strength and recognition, the focus expanded and incorporated the issues of all women regardless of their class, education and race.

Do those constantly declaring that they're IF believe the label they pin on themselves gives them a moral high ground? Gives them the right to come out with the constant slurs and passive aggressive comments to their fellow feminists? Do they really believe that only IF's have a care for all women regardless of their class, level of education and race? If so, how do they balance that with some of the comments made to those who don't call themselves IF's?

It appears so judging from some of the comments we see on these threads and flies in the face of what feminism is all about.
Attempts to demote any feminist who doesn't feel the need to identify as intersectional as second class, not really concerned about all women, just the white, middle class and educated women, the so called privileged.

I'm a feminist. I'm GC because I believe that sex is biological and immutable. People cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender identity. I am not critical of the trans community per se, only those who impinge on the hard fought for rights of biological females, and none of the labelled GC I see posting on these threads are critical/non inclusive either.

They add nothing to the debate, and put people off joining in, but they keep coming. Ironic isn't it Doodledog when one takes into account the original subject of this thread.

What am I "not saying"
If you don't understand why black women wanted intersectional feminism then you are probably not racist.
If you do understand but you question their point of view then you are probably not racist.
But if you understand and label those intersectional feminist black women misogynistic, as Mollygo has done then you are racist.

You are quite entitled to your views and they have been stated many times on these threads
But I and other intersectional feminists are also entitled to ours and without being called (as Mollygo has) misogynistic.

And Mollygo is entitled to her views without the implication that she is racist Glorianny.

There is nothing in her post yesterday @ 23.14 that pertains to race. You have introduced that yourself and if anyone considers your IF views as misogynistic, they are entitled to say so based on what they post.

You've posted a picture of a black IF after Molly posted referring to some IF's views "These are better known as misogynistic feminists" in order to misrepresent her view as racist.

nanna8

I thought this was an interesting and informative thread. It started off that way but now it has become a nasty slanging match so I certainly won’t be contributing.

I'm sorry for my role in that, nanna8, and understand your point of view, but every now and then I feel I have to expose the tactics of those who don't want to debate but to insult. Often it washes over my head, but when the 'people are hounding those who believe that TWAW' narrative starts I want to defend myself. Mud sticks, and the more often people are accused of shutting others down, 'hounding', and even bullying, the more people will think that that is true.

It is only by refusing to let insults pass that they can be exposed for what they are, and how often they happen on these threads.

Well said, Smileless. Racism is often used as a dead cat in these discussions, as is homophobia. We've even been parodied on this thread for our refusal to be drawn into spurious comparisons with them.

Smileless2012

A great example of saying something offensive without actually saying it; we get quite a lot of that on these threads don't we. Yesterday it was bananas.

Feminism was predominantly organised and defined by middle class educated women so concentrated mainly on issues that affected them. As the movement grew in strength and recognition, the focus expanded and incorporated the issues of all women regardless of their class, education and race.

Do those constantly declaring that they're IF believe the label they pin on themselves gives them a moral high ground? Gives them the right to come out with the constant slurs and passive aggressive comments to their fellow feminists? Do they really believe that only IF's have a care for all women regardless of their class, level of education and race? If so, how do they balance that with some of the comments made to those who don't call themselves IF's?

It appears so judging from some of the comments we see on these threads and flies in the face of what feminism is all about.
Attempts to demote any feminist who doesn't feel the need to identify as intersectional as second class, not really concerned about all women, just the white, middle class and educated women, the so called privileged.

I'm a feminist. I'm GC because I believe that sex is biological and immutable. People cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender identity. I am not critical of the trans community per se, only those who impinge on the hard fought for rights of biological females, and none of the labelled GC I see posting on these threads are critical/non inclusive either.

They add nothing to the debate, and put people off joining in, but they keep coming. Ironic isn't it Doodledog when one takes into account the original subject of this thread.

Good comments.

I'm a feminist. I'm GC because I believe that sex is biological and immutable. People cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender identity. I am not critical of the trans community per se, only those who impinge on the hard fought for rights of biological females, and none of the labelled GC I see posting on these threads are critical/non inclusive either.

Who designed this particular label, 'Gender-Critical'? To me it implies that someone is critical of anyone who identifies as a different gender - or, indeed, doesn't identify with either - in other words, critical of the whole concept of gender identity.

That doesn't appear to be you, and I don't feel it applies to me - because I am not intrinsically critical of the trans gender community. Like you, I do not accept that people can change their sex, only their gender identity. That is only one aspect of trans genderism, so why are we continuously labelled as GC?

I don't accept the label - though I'm sure it will continue to be applied.

Smileless2012

And Mollygo is entitled to her views without the implication that she is racist Glorianny.

There is nothing in her post yesterday @ 23.14 that pertains to race. You have introduced that yourself and if anyone considers your IF views as misogynistic, they are entitled to say so based on what they post.

You've posted a picture of a black IF after Molly posted referring to some IF's views "These are better known as misogynistic feminists" in order to misrepresent her view as racist.

The term Intersectional feminist was proposed by the black woman I posted a picture of Smileless2021 Her name is Kimberlé Crenshaw, and she proposed the term in 1989.
The link I gave also gave details of other black and indigenous women intersectional feminists.
When I said that Mollygo might not understand the roots of IF and therefore not be racist I was accused of being patronising.
But if you do understand it and still label those women misogynistic you are being racist.

I’m looking for instances where GC has not been wrongly used on GN to imply that posters don’t accept the right to be transgender.

I may be some time.