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

I see what you're saying @CardinalLolzy

inever I think sometimes the more dramatic posts and posters are more prominent. I certainly don't agree with lots of posts from people who essentially have the same views as me, but by the time i try and write an even-handed reasonable post using appropriate language or collating the relevant data, there are 20 "immediate reaction" posts, not unlike the rest of mumsnet / the internet in general. (Not saying I'm always reasonable and everyone else isn't! just we all have different ways of digesting and interpreting/ responding to stuff)

Don't many people hide feminism threads because they're just not interested? Not sure its logical to assume they're all genderists.

I suppose we’ll have more of that type of post too now. Shame

• we're all human and because we're GC doesn't mean...

[The edit button would be nice though, MNHQ].

I agree with everything Justine has written and I must say I've found a lot of the posts here and on other threads discussing this quite off-putting, to say the least. Mainly because they're coming from supposed clever, intelligent, critical thinkers. It's almost like faux hysteria - I must say. Like I wrote in another thread, because we're all human and because GC doesn't mean we're all reasonable all the time.

Which board will the next trans widows thread have to go on? @JustineMumsnet

I feel really upset by this too, but the only people who win from a mass exodus are the TRAs.

we completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users.

The '3 strikes and you are banned' policy either applies to all posters, or you are discriminating.

There is at least one poster that is gets 3 strikes within the time frame and is still allowed to post. People who challenge this have found their account suddenly suspended.

It's a little disingenuous to claim that 'the idea that there are mods at MNHQ who are busily subverting the cause of feminism is straying into tin foil hat territory' when it has actually happened - www.theguardian.com/media/2018/apr/19/mumsnet-reports-itself-data-regulator-transgender-rights-row-ip-addresses-posted-twitter. Even if things have been put into place to reduce the likelihood of this happening now, you can understand people's fears given the history surely? I've seen many users state that they won't use PM's due to concerns about data being breached again.

we intend to streamline the topics in the FWR category from five down to two: one ‘Sex/Gender debate’ topic, and one Feminism Chat topic.

Is this definitely happening then @JustineMumsnet? If so, I'm off to delete my account and won't be back (even as a guest).

Thanks again for responding, I know it was a mistake and wasn't too upset (and the mods were very apologetic once I'd worked out what had happened!) but just wondered if the same could happen again inadvertently?

they simply don’t engage with the Feminism topic at all (thousands of Mumsnet users have hidden it altogether).

Might I suggest that the people who dislike/are so uninterested in Feminism to the extent they've hidden it - so can't even see the threads and scroll past- might not be the most appropriate people to have the overall say in how the Feminism board is run?

Sorry, cross-posted.

Hi Justine, I appreciate that I'm just one of the users here, and this is your site (and you're the one facing the flack all around), so I totally appreciate that I can't understand what it's all like from your point of view. I'm sorry you've faced such tough times. I'm also autistic and sometimes my tone comes across wrong which I really apologise for.

But I find it very surprising that you'd ignore the extensive user feedback on the FWR boards on this that dividing topics up like that is not a welcome idea. I don't understand why emails behind the scenes are driving this. I can't help wondering what you're setting yourself up for here as it's going to be a moderation nightmare and I can't see it pleasing anyone?

It's not about splitting things according to beliefs - it's about splitting things according to topics

My impression was that it wasn't topics that were the issue so much as people with the "wrong" beliefs posting on topics. IE:

It won’t be news to anyone here that there are feminists who are intersectional/fourth wave/transinclusive/liberal (however you wish to classify them) who say the passion and preponderance of the gender-critical viewpoint in the current Feminism Chat area means they simply don’t engage with the Feminism topic at all (thousands of Mumsnet users have hidden it altogether). To quote one email we received this morning, ‘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.’

I think the topic of sex based rights will always float to the surface, no matter what you call the board, because the users here are worried about their sex based rights. It’s never been about trans. It’s about women. by Sophoclesthefox (living up to the reputation of her namesake).

Bravo to Stopthisnow. That is such a clear, considered post, thank you.

MNHQ, can you explain the thinking behind this? I cannot, for the life of me, think of how that proposal was come up with, in the light of how the issue has moved on. Usually, I can see why someone might make a proposal I disagree with, but not in this case. I am flummoxed! Are you low on gin there? Will this help

If some one posts a trans issue in feminism chat can only non GC reply?

If that’s not the case I don’t see how it will change responses.

It’ll help people find threads, although it’s a shame feminism has been divorced from sex and gender as it’s integral. But small point as both in FWR.

Thanks for such a detailed and considered statement Justine (genuinely!)

I understand your reasoning behind splitting FWR in the way you suggest, however I don't think the split will work as suggested.

My personal observations suggest that there are two broad groups that post in feminism.

Very broadly one group believes TWAM, that sex work is abusive, that porn is harmful, and that Only Fans is not empowering. That sex is the basis of women's oppression. This is the majority group.

The other group believes the opposite to the first group and yes, is in a minority.

If you split FWR you need to split it to cover the broad groups as above, perhaps as a radfem board and a libfem board. I think simply creating a sex/gender board will still leave the libfems nowhere to go to discuss their other minority views.

Finally, you didn't address the issue of what will happen to all the existing posts in Feminism chat, can you reassure us that all this work will not be lost?

nobody has their account suspended unless the user has repeatedly broken our rules.
My experience disagrees with this, unless changes have been made in the past two years or so. I had an account deleted with no warning or email, because I posted about bedwetting and someone reported me as a troll. Has this now changed?