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

I would have no objection to the creation of a separate intersectional feminism board, but I do not like the spund of this proposal.

One of the things that brought me into this debate was finding elsewhere that I could never ever discuss feminist issues that I thought had nothing to do with trans issues (FGM, violence against women, sexual harassment) without the discussion being disrupted with accusations of cisprivilege, and language policing.

The proposal as is will be a disruptor's charter.

In respect of q1 I actually think the current rules aren't too bad as long as saying transwomen are men/male isn't a sweeping negative statement

yeah. Sometimes posts that state this are OK and sometimes they get deleted

I suspect that when MNHQ have a fresh batch of interns or similar the rules shift.

Actually I think the best thing would be to fix the app so you can scroll through all the thread titles instead of seeing only 10-15 before they start being repeated.

In respect of q1 I actually think the current rules aren't too bad as long as saying transwomen are men/male isn't a sweeping negative statement.

I think it's fair to not "misgender" named individuals.

I think it's fair to say all TW (as a class) pose a potential risk in the same way as all men (as a class pose a risk).

However, I'm not entirely sure that the mods always apply the current rules correctly?

I also think mods should ignore complaints from people who are either not members or who are non-contributory members (except in the case that a non-anonymous complaint is made by a person who is mentioned by name in a post).

Personally, I also think offensive posts from TRAs should be left to stand unless the people who are actively participating on the relevant thread request removal.

This is a bit of thinking aloud, but I think the issue is more with the moderation than the rules?

As PP have said (and have been saying for some time), why don't the posters advocating for this create posts on topics that they want to talk about? It seems to me that they want to create a board that excludes the regularly FWR posters.

It's the scrolling past that's the wading through, not opening. But as I've said, I'm not exactly campaigning for this - I think it will be useful for some people (I've seen other posters say this many times elsewhere on MN). I really don't mind that much because I don't spend a lot of time on the board, I just come in from time to time to lurk and I only post if I feel there something extra to say that hasn't been said already. If it doesn't happen, that's fine by me.

Maybe the new section could be called "The Gulag"? That would be clear enough.

Just adding my voice to say that I think separating the boards is a bad idea. It feels particularly odd to separate discussions of sex and gender from feminist chat.
If sex and/or gender isn't relevant to a feminist topic, then how is it a feminist topic at all? You'd have to move everything.
I can see it turning into endless reports from monitors trying to move threads where they don't want them to be seen. I also doubt the various bad faith posters will suddenly decide not to stop posting on trans topics. They'll just follow them wherever they go.

Don't split FWR.

I'm on another board which had a fairly active feminist thread.

Discussion about the implications of self id and related issues were hived off into a different thread because some feminists didn't like the discussion. This happened a few years ago.

The original feminist thread was no where near as active as what became known as the "trans" thread but both bumbled along until this week.

Problem is that people who genuinely disagreed with concerns (rather than just people who enjoy trolling feminists) wouldn't post there. Other posters who didn't really have an opinion were told about the crazy mean bigots so never read it either.

Then just this week the thread was pulled with one of the accusations being that it was one-sided. (It's back now with a better suited name and a new additional website policy)

You create a separate section it will still be targeted, The posters in that section accused of being obsessed.

If there are genuinely feminists who dislike the current focus so much they are afraid to start topics on other matters then give them their own topic. Third wave feminism or intersectional feminists.

The decision to separate threads out won't work, perhaps unless MNHQ employ someone fulltime (so actual 2 or 3 FTE to cover round the clock) to police it and move threads.

There's 2 things here aren't there

1. the original request to MNHQ to rethink the censorship women experience here when they want to talk about the facts of male people using spaces and provisions set aside for women.

2. Justine's suggestion of somehow hiving off discussions around sex and gender into a separate board

I'm interested in 2, but let's not lose sight of 1, I'm not sure MNHQ have addressed that really.

I also agree with pp that it could be divided based on libfem, gc fem,

Surely liberal feminists are critical of gender roles in society too?

But you're the one I was agreeing with based on your post I quoted.

Because what I imagine happening is this:

Topic: woeful funding of rape crisis centres. Definitely feminist. But what if they lost their funding for not offering gender neutral services? Move to new section or not?

Topic: maternal mortality in Black women. Definitely feminist. But what if the literature refers to them as “black birthing bodies?” (Yes, sadly,this has happeneded). Move or not?

Topic: deficiencies in funding for research into female specific diseases. Definitely feminist. But the Endometriosis Society now says that “10% of people have endometriosis”. Move or not?

Topic: MVAWG. Definitely feminist. But how do you talk about it without defining who is M and who are W & G? Move or not?

Please do take this in the spirit that it’s meant, which is that I’m trying to understand both what’s intended and how it would work.

I agree, this would be virtually impossible to regulate. Hard work indeed for the team to moderate. And it is all about Feminism isn't it?

thread gets derailed about what people mean when they say "trans" or "woman".

Agreed. Does derailing or merailing a thread to change its context mean that it will now be moved? Is this another move in gamers' paradise like the automated reports of women's accounts on Twitter to have them constantly suspended? Like has happened to remove the blue tick from the LGB Alliance?

I don’t think it should be separated

Ok then, same question but someone asks if we're including trans women in the group of women we're talking about, thread gets derailed about what people mean when they say "trans" or "woman". Would it get moved? This is what happens with the FGM threads as mentioned above.

@CardinalLolzy In my opinion, it shouldn't be moved because it was clearly a derail from the topic and I really doubt Mods would move threads based on that unless the whole thread becomes about it. I really don't think they would/should be heavy-handed about moving threads, it's just useful to have somewhere specific for threads that are trans-related from the get-go.

I'm not exactly campaigning for this, i just see that it would be useful. If it doesn't happen, I'm still fine with it. I'm more interested in posters being able to reapectfully state biological facts while talking about girls' and women's issues without it being an issue to some people.

I’m also not convinced there are enough posters to keep the section going bar telling other people where to post (just like aibu recently)

I agree Sophoclesthefox. And if the very concept of what a woman is, is being erased, it affects every single part of feminism. Quite apart from the fact that the issues we are talking about are now in all the papers, every single day. It's more current and more urgent than it's ever been.

I honestly, quite genuinely, don't understand how it would work.

What I can see is more censorship, rather than less. Or threads moving from one side to the other like a bloody yo-yo.

Honestly, are we going to have threads dominated by people saying this shouldn't be here, it should be there, no it shouldn't, it's about this, no it isn't, you said the word trans.

I’m not sure what liberal feminism means in this context?

Been a while since I’ve thought about it though

It doesn't really bother me the way it is but I can see how it would be useful to not have to wade through so many trans-related threads to get to other feminism issues.

mmm.... like scrolling quickly past them. As you would on AIBU? Or do you actually open each one and read the OP? Could it be that we could be better in our titles to make scrolling easier?

I also agree with pp that it could be divided based on libfem, gc fem,

Surely liberal feminists are critical of gender roles in society too?

I don't really understand how this would work in practice.

There's a Government consultation on women's healthcare. Let's say there's a topic about this in the general feminism board. One of the topics that people might want to raise in their responses to the consultation is the so-called inclusive language ("person with a cervix" etc.) that excludes many women - particularly those with English as a second language/lower educational attainment etc. Can this be raised on the thread or do you have to start a new thread in the sex/gender topic?

I wouldn't have known as much about the sex/gender debate if it weren't for stumbling across this stuff on the general FWR forum. I would hate to see it hived off into a sub-topic. Why not have a sub-topic in feminism for those who believe in gender theory?