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

Well, the last memorable drive by 'your not feminist ING right' complained that threads with gravity weren't being started and then, when told they should start their own thread, started a very 'light' personal topic.
Nothing wrong with anecdotal or light threads, but a bit galling if you've been insisting everyone else is ignoring the 'big issues'.

"As others have said, slightly odd that those who are “against” these discussions are on this board still voicing their arguments."

I've been on here a while and "What the feminist board on mumsnet is like" is a weirdly popular point of discussion, almost like it has any bearing on the things actually being discussed. I'll sit back and let them have it for now, until they are just discussing themselves!

I’m fairly new to “this” board, mainly been lurking, reading and learning. Was a bit confused this morning, after a couple of days away from the board, to come back and see the split.

Other, more knowledgable posters, have come up with much better board names, so I’m not even going to try. But the word debate feels totally wrong to me. There is no debate at all about being a woman. And no debate at all about being concerned and standing up for our rights.

For those that have been highlighting and educating on these issues for a considerable amount of time, I can completely understand your disappointment at how this has been brought in.

I clicked on the “drop down” link today in automatic pilot mode (didn’t clock that the name had changed). Interesting that it brought me to this rather than the “chat” section.

As others have said, slightly odd that those who are “against” these discussions are on this board still voicing their arguments. Surely they’d be happier avoiding the subject - after all, it’s now much easier for them to do so!

(Someone very prescient might even have said journos would use it for material, but I'm not sure about that one.)

I posted recently in the Women's Health topic and that really sums it up for me.
Every single person posting or reading that knows exactly what kind of topics are in there and the types of bodies that it relates to.
We all know. MN too. Unless they're going to change it to just plain 'Health' which would then include male bodies or, god forbid, 'Vagina, Vulva, Cervix, Uterus, Breast, Menopausal, Estrogen/Progesterone and other XX Related Hormones, and or Birth-related Health' then frankly, it's not being very consistent.
Every single bloody person on this site knows what a woman is the moment they stop tying themselves in knots trying to be kind to people who aren't being very kind to us.

Good point Rowantrees.

I haven't RTFT but would like to highlight that any "debate" would be about sex and gender identity (not gender). MNHQ changed the title of the special FWR rules to reflect this. It is curious that there seems to have been a backsliding.

I have huge sympathy for MNHQ and the issue of losing advertisers.

On the other hand, Mumsnet only exists because women are female people. All that advertising for diapers, pumping equipment, baby clothes, suppliers of services to children, etc, all of that is because babies exist. And babies exist because they come from women (the female kind). When women talk about the anguish of their infertility, that is female-type infertility. When they complain about menopause, menopause only exists because it marks the end of an [adult human female] woman's childbearing years. When women come here to say that they don't know what to do because their partner is abusing them but they can't leave because they are now pregnant by same partner and cannot support a child on their own, that only happens because those women are female, and the partners male.

Trying to have a discussion board for women, and for mothers, but attempting to minimise and silo discussion about women's sex-based rights, seems like a contradiction.

Potato!

One of the best responses to any social media challenge ever

I've only been here a short while (after Googling Mark Lawson's radio play Baselines and the only thing that came up was "Blimey!"..... which led me to Mumsnet's feminist thread). I've really enjoyed reading and commenting on topics that I dare not mention anywhere else... not really got the hang of it yet, so can't really judge the changes. I just hope we can continue to express ourselves freely here....

Remember what Birds Eye answered when the pathetic TRAs wanted erasure of all contact with Mumsnet.

I think they said "Potato Waffles"
Is that the frozen food giant's version of "Go well" 😂

I'm sure it was a business decision but MN is a business and we're the product. I'm still pissed off, not least at the way this was done, however on balance, this is still the only forum I know where the discussion is out in the open, plus our presence clearly still bugs the hell out of some people and, for as long as that continues, I'll probably stick around.

I will use both boards which will be annoying but personally I'm through with making 'Where are all these topics you couldn't talk about?' type of posts. I've made them myself these last couple of weeks so I'm not having a pop but I'm moving on now. The new chat board may fall flat on its face or it may not. We'll see. Love and peas.

I think I get it more now, if it is just a basic business decision and they feel having us around costs them money. It’s their livelihood after all. yes! In the same week as the OU told their TRA detractors to step off!

Andrew Neale again saying the same to his TRA agitators.

Guess what happened when such aggressions were directly challenged with a no nonsense response?

I think I get it more now, if it is just a basic business decision and they feel having us around costs them money. It’s their livelihood after all. It’s just sad. And I find it weird that AIBU is considered a fine contributor to the marketplace of ideas, but FWR is seen as a bit yucky. But I will not stop coming here. I am not tech savvy enough for the alternatives, and Reddit threw the feminists to the wolves and I have neither the interest or the stomach to go on Kiwi Farms. MN FWR kept the right balance, I thought. But it’s comforting to see the word feminism in the title. I hope the journalists still have it bookmarked. If there could be a quick button to get to the other feminism chat, so I can easily flip between looking for tips on how to support a gender non-conforming child, and then after that go to share my own story about IUD pain relief, that would also make me feel like it was less of a “sorry we need the guest room for some friends we like more than you, but if you need to you can stay in the shed.”

So far seeing a few ha ha lolz posts which seem to be more about expressing glee and hostility towards GC feminists than...

well, this supposed desperation to talk about feminism without any reference to GC issues because they were so off putting and not something all these desperate to post feminists wanted to talk about. Odd.

@JustineMumsnet Sinister? I'm just trying to be honest with you. There's a reason why other platforms have stopped housing this debate and it is because of finances - it costs them money - in terms of lost ad revenue, resources to moderate and the cost of staff upset/recruitment. There's also an unknown reputational cost.

I understand platforms don’t want to lose money, but if they keep giving into bullies demands, instead of remaining firm against them, they will always be at the mercy of controlling bullies won’t they? Surely refusing to give into their demands, and naming the bullying behaviour for what it is, is the only way to stop it? As more and more say no to them, and name the behaviour for what it is, the less power the bullies will have. (This is true whatever the issue is bullies are trying control speech about.) I think it will only do companies reputations good to be seen as not caving into pressure from bullies.

It's an interesting idea Flanker. The trouble as I see it is that the genderists are there already, plumping the cushions, removing all the Jess de Wahls artwork and stripping the bookshelves of JKR and Germaine Greer. I'm tempted to leave them to it and make the best of it here, whatever goady title they've given us.

As someone pointed out on another thread, if they're flagging up that this is a place for debate, surely they can't continue to censor language or delete posts that mention key words and phrases the TRAs don't like. If you come in here, you can't have a fit of the vapours if certain acronyms relating to male sexual fetishes are mentioned, or words that might be applied to mountaineering, animal maintenance, or the four-letter c word that is bizarrely deemed more offensive than the usual one.

I wish they'd stop saying "house/host the debate" as if is a Question Time producer trying to engage both sides.

This is just a forum where women talk about what the issues of the days are for us.

I know it makes me cringe a bit

Sinister? I'm just trying to be honest with you. There's a reason why other platforms have stopped housing this debate and it is because of finances - it costs them money - in terms of lost ad revenue, resources to moderate and the cost of staff upset/recruitment. There's also an unknown reputational cost

I wish they'd stop saying "house/host the debate" as if is a Question Time producer trying to engage both sides.
This is just a forum where women talk about what the issues of the days are for us.

This mentally of 'debate hosting' is very strange, would MN say that about AIBU or Relationships boards?? We can talk much more freely on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter than we can here BTW.

The ridiculous rules that only apply to feminists are off putting. Most of us are here because it is a majority female user base.

My worries with Flanker's approach is that it's MNHQ who retain the right & capabilities to move & delete threads, & take action against posters, at their whim. So you can post stuff where you like but it may not stay there.

I'm also a little concerned that all the old Chat threads are now in the new board, so if it's ever decided that the new board can go, all those old threads will go with it.

I don't know what the answer is. I think it's a matter of regret that MNHQ haven't been open with their users. Have they updated any T&C yet? Have they put out a statement clarifying what goes where, who can say what & what restrictions there are on each board?

Aha. That is an interesting angle, Flanker. Makes good sense.

I'm not too bothered about "debate" either, particularly after "NO DEBATE".
Titles can only ever be loose anyway and hopefully not too prescriptive.