Thread derailment

The misapplication of what 'derailment' actually means arises from the perceived 'ownership' of the feminist forum by those with GC views as demonstrated on this thread. It's a code for 'wrong think' because there's no consistency for how it is applied given that as long as an irrelevant tangent is GC 'true believer' material its not considered a 'derailment' as opposed to a relevant one that's challenging.

There appears to be no space for those like myself who have GC aligned views on some issues but not on others that are contrary to feminist first principles like bodily autonomy & self determination.

I agree reading comprehension skills have declined in recent years. People will misunderstand a statement and then swear blind that their misinterpretation of your words is what you actually said. It gets tiring.

But I think some of the people who cry "derailment" are just frustrated they can't control the conversation. There's a thread here in FWR, running at the moment, about Margaret Atwood. The OP is extremely frustrated and has stopped reading the responses, because she says the thread has been "derailed". But it hasn't. It's a thread which positions Margaret Atwood as a feminist authority whose warnings women should heed. The "derailment" is women of FWR - well-known posters, all - pointing out that MA ignored the warnings of women like us for years. She ignored our appeals for support, and many of us no longer consider her a voice worth listening to.

That's not "derailment". If the premise of the thread is "look, here's a feminist icon saying something important we should listen to", and a significant portion of the response is women challenging that . . . that's fair. These aren't trolls who have come in from outside to stop the conversation. They're just women who disagree. That's well within the bounds of healthy debate.

TLDR: Yes, there's a problem. But there's also a tendency to classify disagreement as derailment, which is doing no-one any favours.

Yes this too. And the gaslighting that inevitably follows when you point it out or try to steer things back to the topic of the thread.

I dont think i am being silly, I'm genuinely trying to understand.

"Its no different to a group saying they are Marxist Socialists and discuss and base action on that belief."

This analogy is perfectly fitting to what I am asking so we will use that. So, this part of Mumsnet is for people who have a particular GC viewpoint and thus moderation will err towards ensuring those voices are loudest? That's what would happen in a MS forum. It wouldn't be to debate the validity of Marxism or Socialism. People who did that would likely be banned at some point.

You see if you don't know that, then you can't really judge what is a derail and what isn't because it does come across like this is a section to discuss and debate gender and sex through a feminist lens. Not that it is for people who have a specific viewpoint about gender and sex.

"Why dont you ask MNHQ to set up a third feminist forum where women who want to discuss all types of feminism can do that."

You see this is where it seems like you feel I am derailing by asking for clarification about the purpose of the forum etc. I'm specifically asking so I can better assess who is derailing and where. I don't need such a forum, personally.

Well, there may be different things we are talking about.

There's derailing in the trollish sense, where we're having an interesting discussion and then someone sends us off down a tangent and the next 400 posts revolve around that tangent. This is very frequent when certain subjects are raised. One shouldn't rise to the bait, but...

Then there's the politicos, and they're invariably tribal leftists, who think it's a derail if you express an opinion that they think deviates from what should be FWR orthodoxy. My response to which is, who died and made you the gatekeeper?

Surely 'GC' is more about facts than 'views' or opinions. People can't change sex. That is a fact. TWANW & TMANM. That is also a fact.

Dont be so silly.

Its no different to a group saying they are Marxist Socialists and discuss and base action on that belief.

Why dont you ask MNHQ to set up a third feminist forum where women who want to discuss all types of feminism can do that.

Instead of this endless niggling deal with what has been said as a whole.

MNHQ made the split and never full explained other than that some women did NOT was to talk with those who believed sex was a biological fact.

So trying to say I am saying it is a derail.

Logically if MNHQ thought there should be a split, it should be 3 ways.

A GC free feminist forum

An any type of feminism forum

A GC feminist forum

Okay I've now reread and interpreted this a different way.

So do you see this forum as a place where GC views are prioritised over other views?

Kind of like a online space for non-white people where debate over the existence of white privilege is forbidden?

So, and this might be an actual thing, and I just don't know, but when one refers to Women's Rights, does that automatically mean a GC stance?

You see, up to now, if someone said to me that they are passionate or active in fighting for Women's Rights, I wouldn't assume that means they are GC. Just like I wouldn't know how someone feels about trans rights just because they describes themselves as a feminist.

Agree that if you weren't around at the time of the split imposed on us because nice feminists complained about having gender critical / sex based rights feminists being so unkind, it isn't clear.

So you could ask MNHQ what they thought they were doing.

Nobody apart from a few that MNHQ chose to listen to why there was a split.

The url of this forum makes it clear it is the original Feminism and Women's Rights network, and as over time it became one of the few forums on line where women could come and talk about being gender critical and not be banned, without an actual vote or anything, sex based rights was the main believe expressed on posts.

But some didn't like it. Complained and MNHQ created Chat for them.

So FWR (under MNHQ's ditzy heading) by default was for gender critical feminism to be the basis of the forum.

This has come up on other threads, that those participating on FWR dont want every thread to start with having a long discussion about why sex based rights, what about trans rights, why are you being unkind.

Or that they come on FWR to go back to ground zero all the time, or feel obliged to explain why they are GC / SBR feminists.

Nobody voted on this. Nobody chose the label.

That was MNHQ in response to a few complaints, and to be fair, some who thought it would be easier to have that shared believe as the jumping off point, not the point.

If that is the basis of the forum, they should make it clearer because it doesnt say this is primarily for people who don't believe TWAW. I assumed it was the section to discuss issues that are related to sex and gender in the context of feminist theory.

If that is the case, then it makes sense that you'd assume anyone who said they are a midwife who uses trans inclusive language at work is distressed by having to. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to assume that.

Is that a reply to my post.

I wasn't talking about pile ons. I was talking about instead of responding to someone saying what she as a GC employee had to do at work in the past the response would be to empathise, ask more about it.

Not a relentless roll call from everyone say how pure their GC beliefs are, when they are lucky enough to be in work where they dont have to deal with not just work but outside forces having transed your work place.

And as said, MNHQ has said that those who believe in sex based rights have to be hived off, so obviously the basis of this forum is for those who share this analysis of feminism.

If not then there is Chat.

I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying but the trans issues are brought up in conversations all over the site. The people wanting to discuss if TWAW do not just stay in this group.

Not in the least.

Right wingers try to make out this is the case, but in most instances posters on FWR say they feel politically homeless.

And that in focusing on how left and liberal politicians are failing, is because they / we would have hoped they would support women's sex based rights.

Whilst if you take the population as a whole it seems it is superficial and we get swing politics, ie this lot failed so I'll try another brand, it was very obvious on the the threads during the election that most are much more thoughtful than that. ie non voting, spoiling ballot papers, or tactical voting.

So actually I think it is hard to not have realised that criticising for obvious reaons Labour etc., is totally inline with the feminist politics of FWR.

So hard too understand how anyone could have thought that.

But I do think the slur by Stonewall etc., of FWR and jokes about us being dinasours seems to make some who for whatever reason are right wing, share the politics of those posting on FWR.

And its not surprising.

The media as a whole makes out that believing in women's sex based rights is right wing.

Just as they always report about the Supreme court or whatever as an attack on trans people.

They never report it as a women's rights issue.

Depends what you mean! Many threads do have opposing view points which is completely ok, feminism doesn’t have singular views. If you mean people piling on an individual and making personal slurs that’s always wrong.

I think that is another trend which seems new to me.

That a lot of the responses are more about publicly virtual signaling on FWR that you are a true sex is biology believer.

And threads just become a relentless roll call of just how much a lot of posters then go on and on about following the one true line.

So in the example given, which by the way many threads are about, having to not be confrontationaly at work, in the past it would be more likely to get responses along the lines of that must be hard to do, do others feel like you, how did this happen ie management decision.

I think this is what made me comment yesterday about the twitterisation of FWR.

It is thanks to MNHQ saying it was just to awful for nice feminists to have to share a forum with feminists who understand feminism based on women's sex based rights, that we were ostracised to our own bunker.

No one needs to relentless advertise this is their believe.

Do the trolls go and bother the nice feminists on "chat".

The trick, if you are going to engage, is to query the key point being made - ask the to elaborate and posture alternative views accordingly

That way you are both engaging respectively with someone who fully believes, teasing the ideas apart and challenging the thinking for other readers

There are a lot of irrational interpretations of some posters’ posts which end up as ad hominem attacks and only serve to disable the discussion rather than enable it.

Yes exactly this. People are so ocmvicned that they are right, they think it is okay to essentially troll them off of the thread.

I have to agree with you, I do unfortunately see quite a lot of this.

I don't engage as much as I used to on the "hotter" threads, because in my experience any hint that you are not totally aligned with the zeitgeist, or even if you are but you just take a more moderate stance, will tend to generate this kind of response, along with accusations of derailment / being a man etc.

In my personal opinion, I also think a lot of the accusations of "derailing" are less based in actual concern about the thread being derailed and more of a tactic to chase posters that you don't agree with off the thread; it saves the necessity of calling them a troll outright, which is against the rules.

I've seen plenty of deliberate derailment into recipe discussions by certain groups on here, who are rarely if ever accused of derailment - probably because they are on the 'right' side.

Its a great shame because I think FWR has become a little bit of an echo chamber, to its detriment. I've been following this debate on here since 2012 (under one name or another!) and I do think the general standard of posting has degraded somewhat over the years.

I've been guilty of that on some threads, for sure. I think we all have our lines of where we think it is/ isn't worth engaging. I can think of 2 I've genuinely tried with only to be insulted or they've given up, so I recognise those in future. But others might need to go through that process too...

If it's the first time I've felt suspicious of a poster's intentions, I assume they're here in good faith.
The second time, I still give the benefit of the doubt.
After that, I conclude that what they're seeking is attention and I don't engage any further.

Perhaps it’s unfair, but I find the regular posters who engage with the derailing/trolls more frustrating than the trolls themselves. There have been a number of threads on FWR where the entire thread becomes an argument between well known trolls and a few posters.

Please, just take it into DMs if you want to debate. Otherwise the rest of us who are actually interested in the topic have to scroll through 20 pages of personal arguments to find relevant posts.

Oh right thanks!

I will bear that in mind, thanks.