Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?

Would it not be better to have a Feminism Chat board and a Feminism Debate board? Then threads which are uncontroversial can go on the former, and posters on the latter are assumed to be up for argument and critical thinking.

No. There are threads which the sorts of people who hid FWR wouldn't want on the chat board but which definitely shouldn't be on a 'debate' board - in particular, support threads such as the transwidows threads.
Better to have the two boards we have now, but have the word 'debate' removed - some of the threads are debate, many aren't and shouldn't be.

@MNHQ I'm late to the party here but as this thread is about the rules could I ask a question? I just completed the survey on schools and noticed that when you collect our category data at the end there are options re Trans men and trans women.

Please could you explain why these options are listed with a space between the two words?

Transmen are not a sub-category of men and Transwomen are not a sub-category of women.

Thank you.

Sorry, the rules pinned in S&G.

I've also had a reply confirming that 'The Rules' pinned at the top of this board apply across the site.

Just popping in to say I've now had a reply from MNHQ. As it was a private communication with no word of any forthcoming public comment on this from HQ I'll just keep it brief.

Please report if you are bullied or attacked by other posters. If we don't report it HQ may not see it.

Two points to note -

1. Moderators can post under their own usernames as well as their MNHQ username. I recall one accidentally posting using their MNHQ account instead of their personal account who then popped up to apologise because a moderator account shouldn’t have been connected to an opinion or advice on an aibu thread (or something similar).

1. Emma Healey, the intern behind the leak of gender critical users’ IP addresses, did say that she still had friends at Mumsnet who held views similar to her own.

Yes, true, Clos. Thanks.

HQ have sent me a response about an unrelated post that I reported several hours after my other reports.
On the others? Crickets. Hopefully Bore has received a response.

I'm taking a break for a while to see if these issues settle down as users adapt to the split boards.

Posted too soon. None of the posts I reported have been removed, as far as I can see. I've seen regulars deleted for far less!

I didn't report any comments, Clos, I don't usually do so unless I think a poster is vulnerable and at risk - I can handle people being rude to me. It's just disappointing that MN seems to have tacitly supported those people who want to chase, mock and insult other posters.

It strikes me that the people who didn't want this split are rolling their eyes at the foreseeable ambiguity and aggro, and the people who did want it actually wanted something entirely different

Hmm, what could this possibly resemble....

Feminexit? Or just Sexit?

Sorry, I mean, the sections were feminist chat, feminist activism, feminist theory and feminist book clubs - is that right?

Did anyone use those other sections? I always meant to but never got round to it.

Although I did think we should have been allowed to post petitions in feminist activism, as what's the point of it otherwise? (Yes, you can discuss activism, but no we didn't mean actually that kind of activism).

But last time I suggested it a load of posters piled on saying "no you can't have petitions there as then we'd have to have them everywhere and I don't want a bunch of petitions in the pets board" or wherever. But I don't see an activist branch of the pet board, so it made perfect sense to me to make an exception for a board that's actually about activism.

Never mind, it's gone now, isn't it.

I had reported some posts on that thread, and also reported Arabella's post here to draw HQ's attention to the aggression and attempts at segregation before I saw Bore's post upthread.
No reply as yet from MNHQ, I'll be interested to read any update that Bore has received.

But everyone just ended up in the chat section anyway.

The "problem" of feminists being outspoken and supposedly scaring away the other posters isn't new.

I think it's a shame that Justine sees the number of people who've hidden the feminist section as an indication that something needed to change. I think it's an indication that the hide function was working well and keeping people happy!

This problem won't go away unless MNHQ are bold enough to say, OK, we accept some people are never going to like what the feminists are saying. Fine, use the hide function and leave them the hell alone.

Thanks, Sophocles.

Argh. Relaxation.

It strikes me that the people who didn't want this split are rolling their eyes at the foreseeable ambiguity and aggro, and the people who did want it actually wanted something entirely different, namely the right not to be debated - and are feeling cheated that proponents of other views are still allowed to question them, robustly.

Would it not be better to have a Feminism Chat board and a Feminism Debate board? Then threads which are uncontroversial can go on the former, and posters on the latter are assumed to be up for argument and critical thinking. That would leave a nice "inclusive" space for threads about eg women's art, the Bluestocking, ideas for activism, anything which is not intended to garner differing points of view ("what shall we do about misogyny?" rather than "is xxxx misogynistic?") and so on. Basically anything you'd talk about in the pub without worrying about upsetting anyone. And then anything theoretical or likely to strike at the heart of fundamental differences of approach within feminism would go on the other, and transferring threads would not be "Naughty Corner"ing but a realistic and predictable response if a thread got argumentative. And then, since posters would know that "Debate" meant "Debate", we could engage in robust, frank and lucid argument with a possible relation of the rules (within the bounds of civility, naturally) around terminology - but only on that board.

And no one can deny the posts that are clearly stating that those posters think the split boards are segregated and feminists who don’t share their inclusive views are not welcome to post on the chat board.

MN has not helped at all by ping ponging threads around.

The derailment of that thread was a real shame as it started off as an interesting chat about what subjects could be further explored. I was particularly interested in the conversations around the intersectionality between racism and feminism.

When I read a comment from one poster who said gleefully 'piss off back to your own board GC posters, this is our space', is when the issue became obvious. There's meant to be two areas of discussion, not two areas where neither group/certain posters is allowed into. I roll my eyes at some posters who only seem to post on threads about women's rights/trans rights issues in order to be deliberately contrary but they have a right to be here - it's a public discussion board. At least a conversation can be had. The FWR board was constantly being accused of being an echo chamber and I can't see how hounding posters onto the 'right' board helps.

Nonsense, Quaggarrs. The only reason you think it was started from “A GC perspective” or “a GC poster” is because it was started by Arabella, who is a well known voice on the feminist boards- and an unfailingly polite one, at that. The question was phrased as neutrally as can be, and as the thread developed, she was in receipt of some horrible comments, in the course of which it became clear that a number of posters on the feminist chat board have absolutely taken this board split to mean that GC posters are not generally welcome, even when posting on topic.

That the thread was moved seems to suggest that it’s as much a set of posters who are as unwelcome as it is a set of views, and the effect is to enable and embolden posters who only want to snipe, attack and name call over those who genuinely want a debate.

Those attacks on you were quite uncalled for, arabella, I’m sorry

Are the boards divided by poster rather than topic now or something? I must have missed the memo.

No, they're not, cross posted with my past comment where I've clarified a bit more what I meant

I'll report this post so that MNHQ can see it and hopefully respond on the thread.

started by a GC poster

I really take exception to that

Why, you are a poster with GC views, aren't you unless I'm mistaken?
Do I take umbrage when people call me non GC?
No
Plus feel free to post where you like, all I was trying to say (possibly clumsily) is that if it starts off from a GC perspective, and gets a lot of other GC voices too and some of the other voices not being listened to, I can see why it got moved.