So Mumsnet ignored our request to have something to do with 'feminism' or 'women' in the name of the 'naughty step' subtopic

Yeah - I feel like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I wouldn't be surprised if this was in service to something else.
Don't massively mind rolling with the two-board thing if there's a way to view both together, but the discussions around it have been kind of weird.

There was absolutely no need to do this.

Women’s Rights no debate.

I feel really crossed with this. Feel like MN is not telling us something.

Apparently if you think there is a troll your are meant to alert MNHQ and they take action.

That's a long-standing rule and I can kind of see the reason.
Thing is though that 'troll' has come to mean 'rude or insulting person' or 'OP making up a story that never happened / goading OP'. Trolling used to be derailing discussion - obviously this includes insults and obviously wrong/disingenuous posts - we see every day how one little awful post just gets constant replies - but I don't know if that counts as troll-hunting now, the boundaries are a bit unclear.

Uncivil/not in the spirit might deal with derailing more. I tend to view someone that won't put forward a clear POV in a debate or won't answer questions without deflecting as being not in good faith and therefore not civil/not in the spirit, but no idea if MN agree!

Maddening though. I think it’s especially shitty given recent legal developments. There was absolutely no need to do this.

NiceGerbil - yes - almost as though some have seen this contrived division by mumsnet as being an attack on feminism itself. I have been wondering where this hole foot in mouth debacle is being talked about, as there certainly seems to be a lot of aggression and hostility to women talking about womens rights. And all the men I know are lovely, its terrible the way women talk about men on this board, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I had a comment deleted as they said I was troll hunting (which is against a rule I had never heard of), but it was to point out that a particular poster seemed to turn up on threads just to hurl abuse.

Apparently if you think there is a troll your are meant to alert MNHQ and they take action.

I am not sure what the dividing line is between a troll, and someone who just seems to think they have been given the green light by MNHQ to tell us we are all just desbicable for even thinking let alone writing about women rights - and if you refer to radical feminism you really are the woman that men have warned us about!

Thanks for reply!

It’s incredibly irritating that ‘debate’ hasn’t yet been removed from the title (bad enough that gender is in there at all).

If it isn’t removed I have decided that I won’t comment here at all but will just talk about women’s, girls’ and children’s rights and protections in law and society and anything pertaining to women’s/girls issues over there instead.

But I posted in the genuine spirit of debate

Here is another example of "debate" being used by a particular goady F.

Mumnset present the feminist board on a platter to those anti-feminists who wish to debate, troll and goad us.
They dont do that on Trying To Conceive or Relationships boards , funny that.

[quote Ninkanink]@wonderin is that a comment on this thread?[/quote]
Not on this thread.

Was just yet another example of "debate" being used.

@wonderin is that a comment on this thread?

I noticed this from MN

Hi all. We've had to delete a fair number of posts from this thread so far. Please can we stick to the principles of civil debate from this point
We may have to take the thread down if we have to remove many more posts

I'm not commenting on the mods reply specifically (they have enough headaches) but the word "debate" again.

I think it shows there is culture where we are not allowed to have strong emotions around things like consent/rape in case a male external monitor would be offended and go wild bothering the mods with reports. This leads to silencing women making important points on cotton ceiling/rape/abuse.

Do we have to say "I respectfully disagree with my learned friend" ?

MN need to say "debate" less and "Potato Waffles" more.

So mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist

100% agree.

I think things will settle but NiceGerbil it may be worth us reporting threads that are 'not in the spirit' instead of being our open and welcoming selves, ready for debate. Lets start stamping our feet

I'll just post here for everything feminism related. My feminism is sex based

Quick question.

Has anyone else noticed that (from my POV) there are really weird posts coming up on the threads here.

Extreme views, views about sex that seem very old fashioned. That sort of thing.

I took it for granted that this new topic would be targeted but if that's what it is, it's not how I expected.

Could be just me feeling like this of course.

Yes. Never pay the ransom. Dont try and pay off a blackmailer. It's like pouring blood in the water and thinking "Duh, where did these sharks come from?"

Absolutely, the first time MN caved to demands from TRA's they made themselves a target for bullying. The discussion here might well have been forgotten about but the constant accusations of transphobia bought more people to FWR to see for themselves what was going on. If they are so convinced we'll be on the wrong side of history then why are they are desperate to shut us down?

Its interesting that TRA's don't target KF, is it possible they leave them alone because they don't want to draw attention to the information posted there about some high profile people in the trans community and because the farmers don't give a fuck and won't be bullied.

Also, I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘nobody is anti-trans’ because I’m sure some people are. Which is why I said ‘I’d say very few on mumsnet are ‘anti-trans’.

mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist.

Yep.

Oh dear Pumperthepumper - another complete misunderstanding of what I said.

Nobody is anti trans. They are interested in women's sex based rights, but TRAs try to say that women talking about their own rights based on the sex they are born are anti trans.

So they have goady and pressurised MNHQ into creating a sanitised feminist "chat" board - where of course women are talking about their sex based rigths.

But visually it makes it look like there is a division.

As in MNHQ only posting the guest post about underfunding in the Chat board and not the other one - ie a clear indication that MNHQ have bought into this drivel that women who talk about their sex based rights aren't interested in equality issues.

It so blatantly obvious.

I don’t think there’s a massive conspiracy behind the move, and I’d say very few on mumsnet are ‘anti-trans’ - I just think it’s a hot topic and so has been given it’s own board for clarity.

I am begining to think this is more political than anything. And that maybe MNHQ have been the willing dupe.

ie the tactic is to segregate the discussion about women's sex based rights (and misleading inappropriately inserting gender into the title).

Then the chat board becomes about equality issues because the end game is to make it look that GC feminists actually dont care about women, they are just anti trans.

So all the TRAs are splitting their sides laughing at mumsnet doing their mansplaining for them.

eg there is a guest post about deliberate underfunding of early years services but only posted on the chat board. Hint, hint, those horrible harpies who talk about sex based rights dont care about mothers or children.

So mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist.

There was a discussion on another site, which now no longer exists, about a year ago that suggested MN might be up for sale. I have no idea if it is true but can't see why not. Justine has been doing this for a long time.

If it is, I can see the attraction of separating out the more contentious debate to attract corporate purchasers. For a long time MN was almost unique in being willing to host debate on GC issues, which we should be grateful for. However I am sure it came at a price, both in terms of lost revenue, and also in terms of straight unpleasantness for both staff and owners.

What makes you think Justine wants to sell? Couldn't she just be trying to hang on to advertising?

I am sure this has been said before, but my assumption is that Justine wants to sell the site, but has found it difficult because of the Terf reputation. So split the naughty lot off and sell in two parts. The latter having little value but an assumption that some GC site will take it on.

That said the tide is turning and perhaps GC views, which MN were originally so brave in hosting, is becoming mainstream. Who knows, soon we may be accepted as being on the right side of history and the traffic we generate may be of value to future purchasers.

You're not you're.
I wish Mumsnet would allow grammar edits. I'd be more up for that than a split board.
Although I do think non editing is good for historical evidence.