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

It was 3rd most popular in an earlier poll. Different criteria...

I wonder if it doesn’t rank that highly in search because people have it bookmarked? It’s a destination forum for feminists. The old one was, I mean.

Or perhaps it’s because Google search results are filtered ideologically and in all other ways to match users’ search histories, so those looking for that kind of content are already likely to know where to find it? Lots of interesting possibilities to consider. Who knows.

20th out of all the forums on MN inc AIBU, Chat, Coronavirus et al seems pretty good to me.

I don’t get how ‘debate’ distinguishes from ‘chat’ or helps demarcate one section from the other

Does anyone post differently if a title has one or the other?

It’s superfluous, despite explanation, I’m not following why

FWR accounted 2.49% of page views on Mumsnet

And yet that 2.4% is so threatening to TRAs and women who aren't interested in feminism(?) that MNHQ have been systematically targetted and, presumably, berated/threatened with more action, for allowing us to talk.

So powerful - the words of women. No, wait....

Final request @JustineMumsnet would you consider ‘discussion’ instead? That has a rather more appropriate meaning to my mind.

Appreciate the inclusion of feminism in the title, btw.🌻🌻

(The differentiation angle, that is.)

However I accept that a line has been drawn.

Ok to be clear, so we can draw a line (hopefully!) - we're going to keep debate to help it be distinguished from the other forum.

Debate distinguishes it from chat

What’s the difference in content?

I know you’d like to draw a line but it does need to make sense to users otherwise they’ll just post about it

Disappointed. That’s really not a good enough argument for that title, @JustineMumsnet.

(Not being argumentative for the sake of it, I promise. I’ll try to come back with a more extensive argument as to why I feel strongly about this but two examples have already been given as to why it’s a highly questionable and extremely insulting title)

Sorry X post with Nink - that post of mine was about having both sex and gender in the name.

No it links the two as if they’re both equally valid. They are not.

We now have Feminism as the first part of the title on both boards! And on my phone, the Sex & Gender board is the first one listed. Is that random or down to busy-ness?

Dunno about 'gender'. One reason we're in this mess is that the words 'sex' and 'gender' are being conflated, so I can see an argument for keeping both - it reinforces that they're two separate things, not interchangeable.

Failing that I think gender critical feminism would be my next best option.

As pp have mentioned, sex-based rights could arguably be a tad too narrow in scope.

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

In decades to come, when women are protected in their employment because of the decision in Maya’s case, and thousands of girls don’t get put on testosterone because of the Keira Bell judgment, the analysis will show these two women were supported by this forum (both post here) and people will know of the impact of Mumsnet. These are monumentally important legal rulings. This forum has educated me to such an extent I have directly challenged the medical affirmative pathway for children locally and so far prevented a handful (so far) of children following the same regrettable pathway Keira did.

So the next time some woke staff member complains about how mean we all are and how upset it makes them, next time an ad company passes up the opportunity to advertise to millions of users who believe in biological reality because they don’t want to upset some men on Twitter, even if Mumsnet’s finances are utterly dire, just remember you’ve been hosting a forum that has undoubtedly done good that will last for a very, very long time .

Well that would be correct in context of ‘inclusive of...’

But then it indicates the chat isn't sex based.

I think sex-based feminism would be better still (even though it should be entirely obvious...).

Good we now have feminism . Gender and debate unnecessary in my view.

It is offensive to call the feminism section Gender when gender is the construct that has been used to oppress us all for millennia and is particularly pernicious right now.

This should be acknowledged MNHQ.