Please would MNHQ clarify the rules?

[ifIwerenotanandroid]

Would @MNHQ (is that the right username?) please clarify the new situation? There's confusion & I think it will save everybody time if there's clarification.

As I understand it, this board is for any discussion of feminist topics where the topic & discussion does not include any mention of gender critical or trans issues. Therefore, nobody partaking in a discussion here can say what their definition of terms is. All we can do is talk about women & men. As soon as anyone says, e.g. 'inclusive' or 'ALL women' or 'biological females', the thread gets transferred to 'Sex & Gender Debate'.

Again as I understand it, the board split was about discussion topics & what's said within discussions. The split was neither of the following:

(a) all 'inclusive' feminists can post here & in 'Sex & Gender Debate', but 'gender critical' feminists can only post in 'Sex & Gender Debate'.
Rather, the board split is not a split between users, but between discussions, with the same rules applying to everyone.

(b) 'Feminist Chat' is now for the sole use of 'inclusive' feminists, who will be able to discuss those 'inclusive' views to their heart's content. As soon as a user posts any disagreement with those 'inclusive' views & definitions, the thread will be moved to 'Sex & Gender Debate'.
Rather, as I've said, nobody can attempt to define terms & impose those on anyone else. Anyone who attempts to do that will cause the thread to be moved to 'Sex & Gender Debate'.

From a discussion yesterday, it was apparent that some users view the board split as meaning (a) or (b) above. Clarification would be very helpful.

I'd also like to know whether penalties will apply to a user who causes a thread to be moved, by posting definitions or assumptions of terms. It's been suggested that Dark Forces of Misogyny might try to scupper any discussion on this board which is getting somewhere, by deliberately causing it to be moved. I don't know how big a threat that is.

Help please, MNHQ!

Fab, Errol, thanks!

What do you think of the suggestion for an optional 'view all' function MotheroffCod?

Errol's suggestion is excellent.

@Caramellatteplease

I'd still like the ability to block or mute posters..

I think that's called cancel culture

No, because block/mute is on an individual level (I don't get to hear those people but everybody else does if they want to); cancel culture is on a societal level (nobody gets to hear those people). It's the difference between my not buying a ticket to go to a lecture hall & listen to someone, & that person being banned from giving the lecture or any other lecture.

I still sometimes look at what someone I've blocked says, but the advantage to me is that I get a warning that this is a person I don't agree with. It saves a lot of time.

To follow your analogy you suggestion is actually more like buying a ticket to a debate in a question hall but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening" to the speaker you disagree with.

Essentially its suppressing debate which is quite definitely a facet of cancel culture. For Mumsnet to do that its allowing people to create their own personal echo chambers. It's easy enough to happen in social media anyway, but I dont think encouraging it is a good thing

Censorship is in itself a feminist issue. It is usual female voices that are lost first. Whether you agree or disagree with them, it is worth remembering that they are likely to be female voices you a muting. I'm not sure that sits well with feminism.

@MichaelMumsnet I have posted this before. I don't agree with the changes, but I totally respect the rights on MN to manage this forum as they see fit, and I am not convinced that the motivation was to silo us naughty GC women. I think the aim was to create more room for other voices & topics.

If so, I think you need to have clear success criteria so that you can monitor and evaluate if this experiment is working. It might also help the rest of us be clear on what you are trying to achieve. I want to use these boards as you intend, but I am not sure I know how.

Thank you Errol & all the posters who are coming up with suggestions of ways to make the two main feminism boards work well.

This was my intention in starting this thread: to clarify how the boards work, so that some of the argy-bargy can be eliminated & discussions elsewhere on the boards can go forward as productively as possible.

The way I'd use it, the analogy is like going to a debate and taking the irritating shouty toddler out to the corridor.

As there seems to be zero chance of this thread sticking to the OP and the practical suggestions raised (this is called derailing, and is a tactic of people who want to disrupt the original discussion as per the OP, and is usually seen as hostile) so I'll be going over to Errol's thread to continue the on-topic discussion.

@ErrolTheDragon - I hope you have also posted this information on the other feminist board. If not we will just be back in the situation that some women are going behind each others backs to get the option the want.

Plus I dont agree with it. there is not split. The idea that somehow you can section of some discussion about women's right into one place and some into another is just silly.

and also isn't working, because the discussions that MNHQ thinks can only happen under the controlled board with rules are happening on the board where there are no rules.

We are all still waiting to get an explanation from @MMHQ as to the basis on which they made the split.

This have never been made.

Also the origins of the suggestion that there should be a split.

There was always a problem with duplicate threads but now we have two threads that is doubled, or quadrupled.

The split is non-sensical. The only rational explanation is a political one of divide and rule.

I don't agree with the split either, stumbledin, but at present it's a fait accompli and I think it's extremely unlikely MNHQ will do a U turn on it in the near future.
So, I'd rather make what we have more usable.

I see now under beneath the heading: "Feminism: chat" - three or four lines below it - there is a live link "Feminism: sex and gender".

If you believe that TWAW there should be a special thread to discuss that. If you don’t, the two boards should both be available .

@MichaelMumsnet

Hi *@ifIwerenotanandroid*,

It's still early days and we're seeing how the two sections bed in.
We want all Mumsnet users to feel they can use these boards.
The sections are separated by subject matter and we're looking at moving threads on a case by case basis - for now we're trying to moderate with a light touch.

Here's a quote from JustineMumsnet which might help to explain things:

'we intend to streamline the topics in the FWR category from five down to two: one ‘Sex/Gender debate’ topic, and one Feminism Chat topic. This doesn’t mean that every thread mentioning sex or biology will be moved to the ‘Sex/Gender debate’ topic, which would as many of you have pointed out be unworkable and odd. It’s not about pushing gender-critical feminists into a ghetto, but it is about clearly signposting where people can find conversations - between all kinds of feminists - of the ‘what does it mean to be a woman, are trans women women, is trans-inclusive feminism/activism/language impacting on women’ variety, and providing a separate topic without conversations of that kind.'

As always, if you're concerned about any post or poster then please do send in a report - we're always fine to take a look.

and providing a separate topic without conversations of that kind

Dear god. What???

My very first thought is "poor mods". It's going to be unworkable and is just inviting loads of twits to complain and try to get threads hidden then people complaining that their thread was hidden.
I hope they have compensated you in someway. New fancy desk and chair, a desert trolley and a cocktail bar on demand.

My second thought is, can we have a view all option. I know we have two separate unconnected URLs but can there not be an option on talk page to see all posts.
Practically is a nightmare of looking back pages and pages then realising that it must be under the other URL. Esp when there is no obvious reasonong as to what goes where. Few people I know have given up on MN because of this massive usability issue. I'm not going because I don't want backroom emailers to win even more than they already have.

This in fact has now turned into something for more orwellian.

I started a post last night about a newsnight report about a very violent man who the police had ignored and consequently two women were murdered.

It is obviously about women as a sex class being victims of male violence.

mumsnet have had the absolute cheek to move my thread.

So this means they do have a political agenda. They do think they know what is the correct way to think and talk and are arrogant enought to impose this on others.

That in itself would be bad enough but they have never ever explained.

This is not about stream lining. This is a political move to try and isolate what THEY and THEY ONLY think should not be part of general discussion.

And apart from the intellectual arrogance of that very concept, if they had bothered to check there was already a thead about this violent man on the chat board.

The created two boards, and it is obvious that the board that has those who share the commonly held view about women's oppression being based on their sex class is the one where I want it discussed.

The idea that they can instruct us who we can get feed back from is beyond comprehension.

They are admins. They aren't politcally qualified.

More over it is an infringement of free speech and expression.

This is a political move to try and isolate what THEY and THEY ONLY think should not be part of general discussion.

I'm a bit ??? at the use of non binary pronouns here.

I am very supportive of plurality of opinions. The new feminist chat is far less possessive than the old one.

More over it is an infringement of free speech and expression

?? You have still been able to express yourself freely.

MNHQ are not making 'political' decisions, they have their set of topics and move posts to more appropriate ones all the time.

The one where Justine her very self said thousands of mners had hidden the board
Now the people who dont want to read about womens rights have twice as many boards to hide 🙄 that'll keep em happy (not)

At the risk of sounding pedantic not every feminist topic is about women's rights. Rights are a specific part of the overall discussion. Space, this is just giving more space.

Space, the final frontier

I much prefer it all in one place. You then just select the threads that interest you and ignore the rest. I dont want to go between 2 sections

I much prefer it in two sections, it's so much better to see different topics.
It makes all the non trans threads more visible (Eg, off top of my head the Britney thread) which would have got swallowed up in with everything else)
Easier to see everything I think

Quaggars - there are no trans threads. There are threads about women's sex based rights which is the basis of feminism. And in fact you will find irrespective of mumsnet attempt to create a division posters continue this discussion on both threads.

I find it really sad that the only justification seems to be that some find reading through the list of titles of threads is too ardous, and therefore everybody should be disadvantaged to suit their lack of concentration.

Oh for goodness sake Stumbledin, there are trans threads.

Off top of your head? What the 3 threads on Britney and as for being swallowed up I assumed you popped over to AIBU which has much longer thread on Britney which am sure you contributed to all of them.

Discussion about women’s sex based rights

not every feminist topic is about women's rights.

What feminist topics are not about women's rights?

I don't have a right to not experience mansplaining, I don't have a right to a job in STEM, I don't have a right to a partner who understands feminism, I don't have a right to ignore housework (it's literally a choice), I don't have a right to stop men admiring me in a horny manner even they are married unless it's at work of course.

Use your imagination Ms Scott.