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

I was referring to the post I got deleted for which was saying how I found Ro's posts, and that could be a reason why got suspended, you're not allowed to say though, it must be a conspiracy theory instead and targets, and monitors.
So I said, okey dokey, I'll just cheerlead instead and join the other theories that are 100% inline with group think.
You're the one talking about lists, not me.

Welcome to the "good feminist" board, these feminists have been approved by the patriarchy for their tireless work stanning for porn, prostitution and the right for men to say they're actual women with lady brains. Don't go near the "bad feminist" board where naughty non Lib fems stubbornly refused to allow men to define their feminism and were punished accordingly with the gulag, here be dragons.

To say that there hasn't been a list, when its been linked to, is massive gaslighting

I didn't say anything about a list, anywhere, so not sure why you're implying I did, never mind implying gaslighting.
So don't put words in my mouth, please muchly.

RedToothBrush

👏 👏

'
'One of my main beefs with the Feminist Board when I first started on MN was how it was word salad and inaccessible shite and a bunch of people telling you to go read whatever.'

Yes! I did not enjoy that phase.

It has been through various ways it felt, as it were.

When it was first set up was when my personal legends were around. Dittany, Sakura, Lenin, others whose usernames I can't quite remember. The flavour back then was different as well.

If we're talking about banning then I still miss Dittany! The others kind of melted away, or maybe are still around under different names (like me).

I think that there's only a certain amount of time you can go round and round having the same conversations. And eventually many move on. I'm obviously a bit of s creature of habit

The intellectual years I was not a fan of at all. I'm glad that's not going on any more.

Then this came. It was raised on feminism from time to time starting maybe 5 years ago. And now it's taken over the whole board.

And that's just how it is. Many posters now are single issue. They come for that conversation. Not feminists. Women worried about what's happening. Many have said reading the board has opened their eyes to women's issues though. Stuff they weren't aware of. The different abortion rights around the world. The activism by women on loads of topics around the world. The gains and the pushbacks. Which orgs and charities seem to be doing good work/ are grassroots, if they say they want to help. Things like the vaginal mesh scandal, topics around pregnancy and childbirth etc. Just loads of stuff is still in there even now.

So I think that's good. I think it would be a shame to reduce the browsing and reading and hearing opinions on other women's rights topics.

So that's another reason I wouldn't want to see it hived off.

And another thought @JustineMumsnet. It's often accused of being an echo chamber. Which is funny because it's open to everyone and you can't block anyone etc. If there was a separate section there would be a danger of ending up that way. And for more considered posters staying on the main board, who are often the ones to say hold on a minute that's not right, I don't agree etc etc. So that would be a really good reason not to do it. I go for the feminism but post a lot everywhere. 2 topics I'd probably go to one, as I do with chat at the moment. I mean not saying I'm great or anything just trying to say that you might end up with an unintended consequence here.

I am really grateful to Mumsnet for providing a platform for women to discuss all issue relating to women's rights in one place. However I don't look at the other feminist boards. I just scroll down Feminist chat. Tbh one board is fine. But sex and gender is really fundamental to understanding women's oppression and women's rights today.

If its a conspiracy theory, can someone explain why I've seen them? And have been concerned about it when I've been listed?

Whether its about scaring the shit out of posters via intimidation or about a genuine organised campaign is kind of irrelevant. To say that there hasn't been a list, when its been linked to, is massive gaslighting. The purpose is still the same - to shut down discussion and to try to silence posters that certain people dislike.

I think this was highlighted and shown to MNHQ too.

Why? Whats going on?

What is it about women speaking and being concerned about a subject that leads to a desire to stop them talking? Especially when what they are talking about is sex - which HAS to exist for a trans identity to exist. You can't be trans if you don't acknowledge sex, because your identity is based on an observation of your sex that you 'trans' from. Sex exists in law. Gender transition (and not a gender identity) is a protected characteristic - but ironically, being non-binary isn't. Because sex matters to women, men and trans people (whether they wish to pretend differently to the very foundation of their own identity).

Its a strange state of affairs. The very essence of being trans relies on sex, yet women can't talk about sex - we must only speak about gender apparently. Why is it that if you are trans you can have an identity based on sex (but dressed up as gender) but women can't have an identity based on sex (but must conform to gender stereotypes / discrimination or risk being labelled in derogatory terms or called 'man' or 'manlike' or trans in denial etc).

Its not just unfair. It makes no bleeding sense and is hypocrisy of the highest fucking order.

Hang on, I missed this upthread - Why is a man now in charge of monitoring and moderating women's speech on women's rights in the feminism section

Is this true? Because this in incredible if so. Absolutely incredible. What on earth was the rationale at MNHQ for this decision?

Have you not come across Quaggars before?
Back to the OP, anyone?
Great post, RedToothBrush.

Given that there are bad faith posters who come here periodically (and in one case I'm aware of, specially invited by Mumsnet!) to create goady threads or derail existing threads with the specific, openly stated intention to source 'transphobic' screenshots to take back to Twitter, it's rather dismissive to handwave these away as 'conspiracy theories'. There is heavy weighing given to these posters in terms of the language and phrasing they are permitted to use - cis and similar phrases are allowed as they are 'useful language for the trans community' despite many users of this board finding them deeply offensive. GC posters on the other hand receive deletions for using words and phrases which are perfectly innocuous and are tied in linguistic knots trying to express themselves without receiving a deletion. As someone mentioned previously, many new posters find themselves baffled as to what they've said that merits a deletion and are put off posting on the FWR board.

Call it 'cheerleading' all you like. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

No, was just saying it's not always a conspiracy theory although some seem to think it is (not aimed at anyone in particular, you do see it a lot on the threads though, including this one)

To get to the crux of a problem you tend to have to speak in blunt, clear, crisp language.

This can be interpreted by some as rudeness. For others its language which breaks down the argument into component parts that are accessible for all.

One of my main beefs with the Feminist Board when I first started on MN was how it was word salad and inaccessible shite and a bunch of people telling you to go read whatever.

In recent years, where the argument has really been won has been in something of a change in this - people repeating the argument patiently and in accessible ways that make it easy to understand why the desire to conflate sex and gender fundamentality is one of the greatest threats to women's rights and the foundation of all the current arguements / problems / conflict.

If you try and separate it off, it spectacularly misses the point and doesn't resolve this either way. It stops the debate about WHY this is just so crucial to understand and why it leads to issues further down the line.

If you can't come to a workable understanding/tolerance/compromise - call it what you will, you will see the issues women face fester, remind hidden from view or deliberately buried either by accident or nefarious players.

You CAN NOT - regardless of which side of the fence you are on - pretend this isn't an issue. Why? Because material reality and the fact you still have an unresolved situation in which harm occurred / needs are not being balanced.

Its almost like being King Knut sitting on the beach asking the tide not to come in. Its not a solution. Its a fudge that doesn't work.

Things only get sorted if you actually tackle things like this head on. Think of it like seeking a peace accord - like the GFA. You HAVE to get all parties sitting down at the table effectively.

This is what government should be aiming for. A proper public debate on the matter in which grievances are properly aired but taken seriously and then a settlement reached.

I do think the same is true of MN.

Avoiding the problem or constantly banning posters for stating what is sometimes the bleeding obvious / has been posted by others without consequence / is an unavoidable truth back up with case evidence (which at times might be unpalatable and doesn't align with politically correct views) isn't going to help.

Its just going to lead to resentment and more digging in of heels.

I'll be honest and say if I could change one thing about FWR it'd be that I wish people could scroll past obviously goady posts. They do it because people bite. But we can't 'manage' that with moderation rules. I hold my hands up, I do it too, and if you're new it's tempting to rebuff something obviously false.
Generally speaking I think MN are in a tough place and do well. But I can't ignore the brilliant posters who have been banned for good and I can't imagine they were being deliberately rude or transphobic. It's the unknown rules and inconsistency that seems like a deliberate tactic to be played.

God it really was long!

Thanks bell :)

I'm so tired of women being told what we can't say and where we can't say it.

the many requests we've had for a reorganisation from those who are keen to discuss, for example, inequality and stereotyping but want to avoid discussions around the trans vs women's rights debate

Inequality between whom? Would we be allowed to use the word 'woman' at all? Otherwise, what on earth is a feminism board going to discuss?

I did sign up for premium to support MN, thinking that was a bit daft, now.

Hi @JustineMumsnet

Thank you for the thoughts.

I'm one of the old crew, from before the FWR board was created.

I remember the threads at the time that I was involved in had two schools of thought

1. Not separate, women's issues cut across all sorts of issues and are important for all women. Hiving it off into a corner will lead to feminists being told not to post from a feminist perspective everywhere else on the boards

1. Having lots of threads have s strong feminist perspective was annoying for some and also would veer off into arguments about feminism by a few strong voices who essentially were arguing all over the place

I could understand both arguments tbh.

Anyway we got the topic.

I agree with tidying up, I suspect most users only use chat really and pulling it back into one for example would mean important posts weren't missed.

On the new topic. I don't l understand why, but in practice it's just not going to work. Here are my thoughts.

1. You mention that women need to be able to discuss issues of sex and gender role, and then gender. There are 3 definitions of gender I can think of which are all used widely. Gender ID would be the better term if you were to do it. The fact that sex, gender role is so entangled with trans conversations makes things difficult. I don't think people will know where to post and you'll be constantly getting reports and shifting threads around
2. It often happens in a thread about feminist topics that sooner or later a poster says something like, how can this even be tackled if charities etc don't believe in sex. Would that mean the whole thread should be moved? Would the poster be warned? Etc. It is pertinent though. Because without our words we can't do feminism at all
3. You can bet the general topic would be heavily policed and you'll get loads of reports which will be a lot of work. Decisions will I suspect be difficult and contentious. I wouldn't fancy being a MNHQ mod in those circs
4. I suspect that threads saying eg abortion is a big issue for women would start to be reported a lot. Again this is going to be difficult. Assuming you reject the requests to move threads I suspect there will be a lot of to and fro
5. The gender id topic would be a clear focus for those who want to get MNHQ to stop these conversations. They would be heavily trolled. And the call to shut the topic would be strong. It could be seen as you condoning certain views by providing a talk topic for it
6. I would worry that women posting on the new board could be targets for doxxing etc as they will be the women on those threads. Rather than just s woman posting on feminism who may have whatever views. We know that a utility has been made and shared to track the posters on FWR with keywords being counted to assess their views
7. I just don't think it's the right thing to do. Is for example the situation with rapists in women's prisons a niche issue? I would say it's a massive issue for women due to the impact on the other women in prison. They aren't a nice topic, they're women who are at risk

I also feel we already created the board and posters do say if there's a feminist opinion on eg something in the news then take it to the feminist board is posted. Hiving conversations off even further feels a step too far to me.

I think that's it. Sorry for being long winded!

I'd like to say thank you to you and the team for hosting these conversations, you didn't need to at all and it must have created a lot of difficulty. I am very grateful.

Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory of "they're picking people off" "must be the monitors" and say it's because people have a problem with safeguarding (no they don't, I don't anyway)
If you say what the problem is more likely to be though you get deleted.
So I'll join in the cheerleading which comes across as a bit "yay, you go girl!, and talk about "targets, monitors, and being picked off instead with everyone else.

If anything shows posters are being picked off one by one by monitors this is it. For the avoidance of doubt anyone reporting posters who discuss safeguarding you raise more red flags 🚩than you can imagine

Always the women concerned about safeguarding who get picked off 🤔 & R0 is better informed than any of her monitors, that's why they've targeted her.

Surely posting to a thread with that name, in the feminist section, would suggest that:

feminists are particularly responsible for protecting trans rights - why?
or
feminists are in some way opposed to trans rights - that's a provocative generalisation

If the aim is to discuss trans issues without feminist perspectives - put it outside the feminist board

If the aim is to discuss feminist issues which aren't linked to sex and gender separately from those that are ... that doesn't seem very well thought out at all. They'll intersect and one board will wither.

I hope this won't in any way affect the historic threads in the FWR / chat section - will they be wiped in any reorganization?