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

Any trolls will certainly follow us over to the new FWR.

Cobblers
Sorry but that got a genuine lol

It's basically being used as an inane, trendy buzzword by people who don't believe in sex based oppression.

think feminism can be intersectional while also being gender critical so I’m not keen on that divide. Perhaps there is a thread already discussing this though? I don’t want to derail this one.

Same here. I also think that "intersectional" feminism which doesn't recognise being born female as an axis of oppression separate from gender identity is nothing of the sort.

what a shame

there are some really great threads on FWR that are nothing to do with genderism. this just ensures that fewer people will see them.

Maybe we need just a feminism chat & egalitarianism chat.

🤷🏻‍♀️

^I don't think it's a case of '' not liking the feminism board ''
As it clearly says its more that liberal views get drowned out and made to feel unable to post (ie, when they do get pushed off with man, handmaiden, whatever)
I think it'd be nice if there was room for those voices.^

Cobblers @Quaggars

MN is like any other public forum, as in users don’t decide who says what nor are the obligated to have to read or even acknowledge what others opinions are. Facebook or Twitter I believe number of likes works for those who are needy

People feel like they can’t post is down to themselves no one else, posting in FWR is no different to anywhere else on site except the topic, just as those that a free to jump in offering support etc to others, the poster is not obligated to give running update on progress.

Stuff having to handhold every delicate flower.

Mumsnet was always no frills or fan fare direct approach and netmums if you covered in glitter softly stuff with X and u ok hun.

Words have been taken to mean different things these days like liberal just another ‘inclusive’ and liberal views as in shut up women

I think feminism can be intersectional while also being gender critical so I’m not keen on that divide. Perhaps there is a thread already discussing this though? I don’t want to derail this one.

It's not remotely surprising that second wave/ women's liberationists consider liberal feminism (sex work is liberating etc), to not be real feminism.

I'm a little confused. If I want to talk about a general feminist topic, like say pornography, do I put that in feminism chat? Because it's not specifically about gender ideology?

And does it mean that you can't then mention gender ideology on that thread?

Yes, that's an excellent question @JustineMumsnet

Actually ignore my previous suggestion, I don’t think separating the boards is a good idea at all, it will simply create echo chambers.

This morning’s count as per the twitter monitor bot was that 27/50 threads were ‘trans related’. However, we see the many exaggerations all the time. Someone told us 95% the other day and never acknowledged they had hugely exaggerated.

Almost like they had some other agenda….

There is definitely a sense that Feminism Chat is only a place to discuss gender critical feminism.

I can't tell if they are pretending other topics aren't discussed or whether they count everything as GC feminism. Maternity care for women of colour, rape while asleep, stalking - I assume 'there is a sense' that these are purely GC topics then? Which goes to show how problematic separating topics is.

I think the point is gender ideology doesn’t go in feminism chat. So even if you disagree with GC feminists you don’t get a separate topic where everyone agrees on it.

It’s more topics outside gender ideology .

Will be interesting to see how it works in reality.

If feminism chat is very slow maybe we can have it back.

I can't see the point. If people wish to debate about sex / gender topics and find their minority view is drowned out on Feminism Chat, how will be they be more heard on a dedicated board? If they currently post on topics such as new statues (non sex / gender) for example, do they feel intimidated?

"It's not about splitting things according to beliefs - it's about splitting things according to topics - so folks who really have views on feminism but don't want to join in the womens v trans rights debate (either because they don't share a GC view or because they just don't like the the topic) can avoid them."

The best idea for a name I've seen was @Tinselangel's
'The Gulag' please.

Can I ask Quaggar, as someone who supports this (I think), would having a separate gender/sex discussion section work for you or would a separate "more liberal feminism" section work better? IE do you think things should be separated by topic, or broadly by belief - to use your words GC and Liberal?

Personally, I could easily go for intersectional feminism and gender critical feminism.

This is me, personally, and I can't vouch for anyone else.

But it describes my approach. And, again in my opinion, it also describes the approach of those who are not gender critical.

If the decision has been made, which I sense it has, then can I at least make a plea that the title of the new board for sex and gender chat isn’t “sex and gender”?

I post on this topic because I care about women’s rights. I don’t mind if people disagree with me, in fact, I want them to, because that’s how debate works, how we figure things out, and how we reach consensus. But blandly saying the topic is “sex and gender” isn’t great, because it takes the feminist/women’s rights angle out of it altogether. And it’s foundational.

Please let’s keep the feminism in FWR. Can we have “feminism: no holds barred” and “intersectional feminism”, or similar?

Look forward to seeing what it is people want to talk about.

I quite like 'Feminism Chat' and '"Feminism" Chat'

Ha ha I like it, subtle

Yeah, therein lies the problem on here

There's only one way to feminism, if you don't always agree it's ha ha "feminism" in quotation marks.

I'd like to echo Vanishun's excellent point about this apparently being driven by correspondance behind the scenes.

If there had been a heated public debate about this change I would understand it better but, in every thread I've seen about it, whether on Feminism Chat or on Site Stuff, the overwhelmingly majority view has been against a split.

It feels unsettling and most undemocratic that posters who will not place their views in the public domain have been given the final say in this decision.

What "clearly says that"?

Here for starters
(where Justine quotes correspondence they received)

There is definitely a sense that Feminism Chat is only a place to discuss gender critical feminism. Any posts which question GCism get flooded with hundreds of hostile responses. Which might be more fair if MN was an explicitly GC site, but it portrays itself as a space for all feminism.’

Clue being in the all feminism bit - as in those with views outside of GC ones.
For example more liberal views.