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

I'm not insinuating anything
It was somebody else who said had received three strikes, not me.
I was just saying after three strikes you can get banned as that's what the guidelines say

Fine for me

It was this thread here ^www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?pg=27^

I can't click onto that thread. Has it been deleted?

I'm peed off to find that @R0wantrees has a) been suspended and b) not reinstated. A very sensible poster.

Seriously? What for?

Quite Curious! That’s why so many ppl change names regularly. We know the monitors are watching, reporting & screenshotting

Id just like the law reflected properly. Not areas separated off to appease those who don't like debate.

Forums which fracture in this way arent productive ultimately.

In terms of increasing tolerance its important.

Yes. The back story is that R0wantrees was targeted by the monitors and reported until enough shit stuck.

It has happened to quite a few if us.

I agree that discussions about sex and gender are intrinsic to feminism and I think separate boards as proposed are unworkable.

I think the request to have a board where posters could talk about inequality and stereotyping could reflect a particular early stage of feminist consciousness as much as a lack of interest in the threat posed to women's sex-based rights by gender ideology.

In general it is less disturbing to recognise that there are inequalities in the work place and that stereotypical expectations are negative, than to recognise that the whole of women's experience is structured around the threat of male sexual violence and that all men benefit from this. The questions that feminism asks about sexuality and society and our interpersonal relationships challenge us. Sometimes the different positions are characterised as differences between lib feminism and a radical feminist approach but it could sometimes be just the point in her thinking a particular woman is at. Of course lots of women come into feminism 'at the deep end' often precisely because they have directly experienced and recognise male sexual violence.

I don't think anyone should be' protected' from radical feminist analysis but I understand it can be scary because the truths it explains are scary and lots of women don't want to go there or want go there gradually.

But dividing the current board into separate boards, no. Adding a board or pointing women to the other feminism boards, great. They will only work if women want to use them. Clearly women want to use this board.

If you get three strikes you do get a ban though I think from guidelines?
So not just a case of '' she posted something somebody else did '' if there was what sounds like a backstory behind it?

I didn't think I could be any more disappointed by MNHQ's approach to this issue...and then I read Justine's reply. FFS.

Either MNHQ just don't get it, or they're scared of angering the TRAs.

Totally agree

To be clear the post of 19.51 still stands at the time of me writing this.

R0 received a third strike for a post at 08.21 which was basically the same content as the post made at 19.51.

The fact that R0wantrees was banned for posting something that had been allowed to stand when posted by someone else

good heavens

some of the posters saying they have had rude responses or been made to feel unwelcome have never posted on FWR

Plus, it is perfectly normal for there to be prevailing views on all sorts of topics, on all the different boards. Try going onto The Doghouse and saying you're thinking of breeding a couple of litters from your new dog, if you want to experience responses of a rudeness that would get FWR posters deleted in seconds! Or tell the Weaning board that you have introduced solids at 4 months, etc etc.

I don't see MN proposing that posters who hold the prevailing view on other boards should be segregated off into a specialist board. It seems an incredibly odd idea to punish posters for the fact that a the majority agree with them.

R0wantrees?

I thought she hadn't been around, but then she does come and go sometimes.

This is ridiculous. She is one of the most civil posters that exists. She's just all about the information.

MN could create a new board where all women’s rights subjects that touch on trans issues are discussed, where there are no special rules breeching the Equality Act, leaving Feminism Chat for those subjects guaranteed to not be affected by male inclusion.

I suggest they call the new board FWR, and that all threads to date that touched on male inclusion or safeguarding are saved and moved over to the new board. As the board will be explicitly about women’s rights, i will be highly inappropriate to have any men on the moderating team and, obviously, no reporting from non-posters should be acted on.

Also, what on earth have they done to R0wan?

No to a separate sex and gender topic. I don't see how you can separate it from feminism

But, as this thread and one of the others has shown, some of the posters saying they have had rude responses or been made to feel unwelcome have never posted on FWR.

You are listening to them but not those who say they recently ventured in to post a very basic question and got a warm reception.

Ignore last post, just seen previous post which I'd missed explaining more

Rowantrees has gone?
Sure I saw her post recently, when did that happen?

We spend an inordinate amount of time explaining that we are trying to discuss women's right, not trans rights.

I assumed you were joking, having your own sarcastic dig and a sniggle, but many won't see it that way?

I'm peed off to find that @R0wantrees has a) been suspended and b) not reinstated. A very sensible poster.

Haven't the time RTFT but MNHQ, please leave FWR as it is. The whole sex/ gender debate is fundamental... Women are treated as we are because of biology not our 'identity'. The bearing of children has a huge impact on women's rights.

This is not a debate that should be sidelined.