Heads up: MNHQ planning to create a sex/gender topic separate from FWR.

@Orangecircling that's interesting - you speak as if that has already happened. Do you have a link to that thread conversation for interest? It would help me see which views you feel are erroneous and too dominant.

Regardless though, I'm not much liking the word "catastrophising" tbh. There are undertones of "hysteria" to that. A large number of contributions to an argument on this board, making a similar reasoned and researched point can't really be said to "catastrophise" especially with keen and careful moderation in place.

Don't do it MNHQ.
So the new board would be, to talk about women's issues WITHOUT mentioning that 'woman' now includes non-women??

I came here for feminism and discovered what mainstream journalism is not telling us. Other women need to be able to join the dots too.

There should be a single "feminism" board and people should be free to post whatever they want.

If you don't like the title of the thread, don't click on it.

Any other approach is over complicating the matter and bound to piss someone off. We're all sensible enough to engage in whichever threads we like. If you don't want to talk about the trans debate then don't engage with those threads.

If there are lots of threads about the trans debate, that is proof that it is a highly contentious and much talked about issue at the moment. It is not a reason to shove a particular brand of feminist into a corner because you don't want to deal with them.

I have no interest in little echo chambers of specific feminism being created. MNHQ wouldn't be able to manage it effectively anyway- unnecessarily complicated work for all involved.

I have only recently started posting, but have been lurking for a long time. I initially came here because as another poster said, feminism in online circles these days tends not to care about mothers and children. Even before becoming a mother myself I found this exclusion intolerable and so found mumset and it's posters a breath of fresh air.

The breadth of topics here is wonderful. I have learnt so much about the many issues facing women and have even had my views completely 180 on topics like surrogacy.

Anyone denying that the board speaks of more than just gender identity issues is being completely disingenuous.

If anything, sometimes I have seen threads utterly unconnected with feminism or women (but related to LGBT or gender identity) posted here and not removed; or more commonly moved here from other boards. Feminism Chat posters have explicitly pointed out that these threads do not belong here.

It is that content that should be exorcised from Feminism Chat, not the threads directly related to women and Feminism that include or discuss gender identity.

I hope Mumsnet reconsiders.

It dominates because it is relevant and many posters see that. However, if there are a lot of other aspects, post about them. I do not understand why this is not possible

So you say IT DOMINATES because it's is relevant but in reality for those of us that perform the calculations professionally, if we post here about the actual impact on the calculations and say it's statistically of no impact .... well just wait and see the reaction. So the conversation is strangled at birth by innacurate catastrophising and relentless posts about...well again, let's hear it all again..

It's worth noting that most conversations here without the catastrophising fizzle out pretty quickly. I think this board has a culture of catastrophic drama with little nuance. I do think separating out the identity conversation might allow more people to use the boards more broadly.

There's a thread about counting nudes in museums today which immediately segued into a zero tolerance thread about the crime of using the word intersection. No intent at all to discuss the actual project.

It gets boring.

*Ignoring one of the threats to a) accurate reporting and b) actually addressing the issue is also not going to help in any way. Nor does minimising it. Perhaps post your information or concerns and let it all be discussed.

The same with career progression.*

The problem is though that the way the discussion goes is that it becomes 100% about that and every other aspect gets ignored. Its the same on pretty much every feminist topic here.

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

This is a thread from April, a couple of IDpol mentions but mostly focused on experiences.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4213741-Bullshit-excuses-and-explanations-for-the-gender-pay-gap

This is one from 2018 that was bumped a few times through to 2019. All 15 pages at a glance don't seem to have any diversion into GI discussion.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3248721-Gender-pay-gap

So it is possible to have the discussion with others who share the same keen interest. Granted it's not a topic that sparks a lot of passion as of right now but we can't police what women want to talk about most.

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

It dominates because it is relevant and many posters see that. However, if there are a lot of other aspects, post about them. I do not understand why this is not possible.

So, according to the twitter account determined to monitor this board, there are 32 / 50 threads on the front page of the board that that account considers are about trans matters. It is likely that it considers this thread is about 'trans matters'.

That leaves 18 threads that are not about gender identity I guess.

This is a higher than usual number though, as I said. Usually it is reported to be down below 25 / 50 most days.

Who'd ever thought a goady twitter account could be useful?

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

Ignoring one of the threats to a) accurate reporting and b) actually addressing the issue is also not going to help in any way. Nor does minimising it. Perhaps post your information or concerns and let it all be discussed.

The same with career progression.

Justine, if you are reading any of the multiplicity of threads protesting against the decision to sideline feminist chat i.e. the sort that centres natal females and acknowledges the importance of biological sex, please can you define what constitutes a woman in your opinion? I'm puzzled why men and their 'allies' are going to get the feminist chat to themselves in future whilst natal women have to be shunted into a siding? It would be great if you could explain the reasoning behind your decision. Thanks.

I am tempted to ask MNHQ if we can please have a sub-section of AIBU for any discussion of what constitutes rudeness. it gets so tiresome and there are other things I want to discuss, for heaven's sake...

[quote cakedays]@wanderinwomb what is EmmaGate?[/quote]
An intern at MN:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388461-The-aftermath-of-the-intern-data-leak

@wanderinwomb what is EmmaGate?

It's simply a function of the software that the lower traffic threads drop off quickly and don't get noticed so much to keep the discussion going.

Likewise that the software doesn't identify that there are already one or more threads on a particular article/piece of news - so the discussion ends up fractured between threads.

I still can't see the rationale for moving out the threads that get the most traffic. Not on discussion grounds, not on business grounds.

I have indeed. I'm particularly interested in pay and career progression and always get involved when this comes up. The most recent thread on pay gap calculations was an extremely narrow focus however, it was only about gender identity so I didn't post, I would rather discuss the pay gap itself.

I understand the frustration but over time pay gap data, like crime statistics, will become more and more useless as sex based recording is abandoned or fudged.

It only takes one senior, well paid man in a company to identify as a woman to skew the data of that company enormously.

How can progress be monitored when the basic data is flawed? The threat to data has to be talked about and tackled first.

Now it seems its everybody else fault for letting these minority interest posts fall off the front page.

It's really not about blaming people.

It's simply a function of the software that the lower traffic threads drop off quickly and don't get noticed so much to keep the discussion going.

I'm not a fragile flower for understanding this!

Funny.

Have now RTFT and still think separating the board into silos is a terrible idea. So many brilliant posts made on this thread explaining all the reasons why.

So is it in fact that the suggestion to isolate off gender critical postings, is in fact a way of saying to those with gender critical views, please dont post?

Not here, but judging by the discourtesy that is frequently on display from some posters that adopt a combative stance in re: GC, I would doubt the instruction is couched as "please dont post" rather than as an imperative that they would wish to enforce by courtesy of a privileged/valorised status as a monitor of how women should discuss our experience and sex-based oppression.

What I really hate about the FWR board is the bloody obsession with women's rights! Can't we somehow make it a bit more welcoming to the people who just don't have the same bee in their bonnets? Maybe by making those threads a bit less visible, and foregrounding some nicer ones?

There is much lashing out at the moment by anti-woman activists who know that Mumsnet was and is vital in women getting together and fighting the war on our rights.

MN need to view any suggestions to hide or move the topic that most women here want to talk about and that most other mumsnetters support, through that lens. They should have learned after #EmmaGate

Mumsnet, you should be damn proud of this place.

What I wish as someone who has tried, particulary after a thread about why is FWR not talking about "real" feminist interest, to post on a variety of women's issues that those who are complaining will comment.

Now it seems its everybody else fault for letting these minority interest posts fall off the front page.

Seriously? As someone who has occassionally started a duplicate thread, I usuallly make the effort to click on the handy button, next page, to see what might have been posted that I have missed. Just a tiny little hint if you can remember last time you came to FWR, lets say 10 June, surely it isn't beyond the thought process of anyone to think I will look back at what has been posted until I get to 10 June.

There is also the element that some have more time to post than others. There is life outside of FWR, eg work, family, taking a breather, so what might seem a disproportionate number of posts about gender critical feminism, is also a reflection of those who have more time to post.

So it really does seem to come down to, not what I suggested in an earlier post that somehow the mere existence of threads about women's sex based rights creates a hostile enviroment which makes other threads somehow contaminated, those who are complaining just cant be bothered to look - and in fact comment.

So yes please MNHQ, please create these fragile flowers a safe space. They can start all the threads they want on all the issues that they feel are being ignored. And that will then indicate if there is a need for this.

But what this doesn't do is do away with the fact that if you think the basis of discrimination and violence against women is because of their sex, it is likely that these safe space threads will get comments reflecting this.

So is it in fact that the suggestion to isolate off gender critical postings, is in fact a way of saying to those with gender critical views, please dont post?