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

Watch what the board?
There's no need to be rude Quaggers as per usual

How was that being rude?! I was just agreeing that that's a good way to do it!
Trying to be helpful.
By watch the board it means along the bottom or top of your device you should have Thread I'm on, Threads I'm Watching, Threads I've Started etc.
So say if you wanted to "watch" this thread, click on the top right hand side of the OP and there should be a drop down list.
Click "watch this thread" and it'll get added to your watch list.
The top of the thread will tell you what section it is in and you can click and access easily from there.

Watch what the board?

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer no, any thread on the board.

Language matters so much- yet women who believe in the reality of biological sex always seem to be bottom of the pile in having our chosen language respected. See also 'menstruators', 'pregnant people' etc.

Yes, this. Given that this assault on language is central to the debate, it does seem odd that MN have just gone ahead,
ignoring the many suggestions from posters and chosen a name for the board that nobody suggested and nobody seems to approve of...

Orangecircling
The note from MNHQ was quite clear. The board named Sex and Gender debate

Which note Orange? I've not seen any note or announcement anywhere.

@Winederlust but with respect it isn't. Many elements of the sex and gender debate are social, philosophical or even theoretical. It is not all solely to do with sex based rights and in fairness I feel that the more important bit was the first bit - sex based rights are not limited to rights related to the sex and gender debate, for example abortion rights which are another very important and topical issue. So again, Sex Based Rights does not accurately describe the intention of this board, which is to discuss issues around gender identity and biological sex.

Hi @JustineMumsnet

Thanks as ever for this site and hosting this debate. I know you didn't need to and it would have been much easier not to. I can imagine the mail you've been getting.

One request that I'd like you to consider please changing the name to 'Sex and Gender Identity Debate'. I think that would be much clearer for these reasons:

There are 3 definitions that I know of for gender and this is confusing generally for everyone tbh at the moment.

1. Gender means the same as sex- widely replaced sex on a lot of things years ago. Presumably as more 'polite'.

e.g. there are loads of pregnancy threads about finding out the gender, guess the gender, sonographer wasn't sure about gender etc.
Apply for a bank card, loyalty card etc most forms for years have asked for gender when they mean sex.

1. Gender is used to mean sex role stereotypes. It's stil used that way on e.g. the WHO site. I will post an excerpt from their Gender Oppression page in a sec to show you what I mean. Loads of countries around the world have action plans around gender equality etc- meaning sex. The definition of gender as imposed sex role is still widely used. It's also been used a lot in feminist writing for a long time. So it would be good to have some separation because the concept of gender as the mechanism of our oppression is obviously a massive topic and unrelated to this board.

1. Gender ID meaning internal sense of what gender you are. I think think those who feel they need to be the opposite sex (transsexual) is included in this. This is the one that relates to this topic.

If essentially the word gender ends up as something for this section then a concept with a lot of history and use in feminism and understood meaning and used in loads of feminist books etc is pulled out of the main topic. That's the sex roles use of the word.

This is even higher that the FWR consensus as the rest of the site doesn't seem to be as thronged with anti-woman activists.😉

Who are these users that have been listening to?

If you hit watched they’ll come up in your watched list and you can access the boards at the top of the page

Yes, that's a good way to do it if anyone's having difficulties accessing

An odd justification that because others didn't like the content of the board it needed to be renamed to be inclusive to them, even though they are still not going to be using it? So hurt feelings of users not on the board are more important than the thoughts and arguments of those active on the actual board?

It does feel like encouraging women who used FWR to sign up to premium as you "permitted" the debate was done in bad faith, when you later try to hide it by disguising the section so it doesn't have any mention of feminism.

I wouldn't have looked on this board with the new title because I didn't know about "the gender debate" and would have thought it a random irrelevant board to me. I came to discuss feminism, discovered these topics and my eyes were opened - like I'm sure many others.

I agree and am pretty fucked off with the title “Sex and Gender debate”. I don’t need or want to debate sex and gender; I need and want to discuss how gender ideology and self-ID impacts on women’s lives and sex based rights and to discuss current affairs relating to this. It’s not about “debating sex and gender” FFS. That is just the derailing that goes on.

Women’s sex-based rights would be fine, thankyou, or failing that gender critical feminism, which whilst not perfect has become the general term for actual feminism feminism which focuses on sex as the axis of oppression.

Sex based rights is easy to get

No problem it won’t be an issue for search

Quaggers, I'm actually having trouble accessing both pages. And I don't think it's nice to imply people having difficulty navigating it are stupid.

I’m confused, because the shortcut to my phone was to feminism chat... have they just renamed it? Or created a new subtopic and just redirected everything there?

Due to* not die to.
Obviously.

There is quite a large difference between being silenced or having the conversation "supressed" and that conversation being put onto a subtopic within the same overarching subject. It's already in feminism

Exactly, I mean it's in the feminism section, the discussion is still being hosted on here, in the feminism section and the website page (URL) is titled women's rights - how is that silencing, exactly?
People are making out like others are daft and won't know where to look, like it's hidden away in some secret bunker in a dusty corner of the internet - when it's still in feminism all along

Personally I think the name implies the threads will be something they're not, bit whatever. I stated what I thought and was ignored before this changed so I can't see anyone actually listening.
However, Justine I would like to look at both boards. At present if I use the drop down it goes straight to the gender board. I can only get to the feminism chat board by going to talk, all subjects, feminism.
There's not going to be much traffic if everyone has to do this.
So can we get that sorted please. As at present I am sure there will be lots of posts I would like to read on both, die to the confusion around what goes where.

Thank you for taking time to address some of the points @JustineMumsnet I feel though that this has caused a great chasm and share the concerns of others that this board will be repeatedly targeted, moreso than before.

I guess all we can do is see what happens.

I think people are really getting ahead of themselves here. There is quite a large difference between being silenced or having the conversation "supressed" and that conversation being put onto a subtopic within the same overarching subject. It's already in feminism.

It’s nice to see @JustineMumsnet here. Not before time though. I’m sorry for sounding rude but I have a few questions:
Why didn’t you respond to the original thread?
Why did you announce this in the middle of a thread about something else?
Why, particularly when it became clear on the previous thread that it was a controversial suggestion, didn’t you start a thread explaining your plans and answering questions so people had some warning / explanation?
Why did you implement the plan without warning and without seeking users’ feedback?
Why didn’t you respond to all the many threads which were started to discuss what forum names and divisions of subject matter that users would prefer?
Why didn’t you post a sticky thread in the relevant forums explaining how these new forums are to be used and what the rules would be?
Why is MNHQ deleting posts on threads discussing this while also not explaining the rules and not responding to the huge amount of engagement from regular users on this subject?