Some topics not showing up in searches

[slug]

Specifically anything in Feminism has stopped showing up in the "Last Hour" or "Last 15 minutes" search.

I know they are there and I know there are recent posts so why don't they show?

STOP ANSWERING AND GO OUT
yanks self through door
Wish me luck 'shopping' with dd

Good luck

"Is this effectively hiding the entire FWR board from the rest of MN?"

Yes.

And it is because of the tone of trans threads.

When you surround yourself with fellow TERFs, your sense of what is reasonable changes. Do do not realise how this seems to others who do not share your views. You do not realise when it ties into bigotry.

You do not realise that other protected groups can and have defined the extent of expression of other protected groups (did you stand with Jews, Muslims or Christians when defining conditions of provisions of goods and services in pluralistic, well-supplied sectors?)

Meeting every 'no, not everyone sees it like that' with 'you're silencing us' just sounds like 'so you have to shut up instead, because some women are more equal than others'

Rejecting a trans topic, because you see it as a central issue and therefore indivisible from feminist chat, is the thing that has led to the ending of FWR as a real, fully participant part of MN. Because now it's gone, people might not want it back.

I think a trans topic, or a lib fem chat topic could have been excellent ideas, and was somewhat disappointed when both were rejected (the former multiple times) and taking just the contentious areas elsewhere would have kept feminism as a mainstream part of MN. But I think that chance has gone.

Meeting every 'no, not everyone sees it like that' with 'you're silencing us' just sounds like 'so you have to shut up instead, because some women are more equal than others
That applies to both sides of this debate.

Hmm, weird read for me, this thread. This focus further up the thread on the "serial reporters" being the problem and shutting down debate... Personally I don't want to report anyone because I am able to and want to debate the issues without saying anything reportable! Or certainly not deletable, as far as I'm aware. I mean sometimes I may want to bring out the big guns and get cutting, just as no doubt everybody does when they have an opinion and feel they are defending it. But I know it's against the rules. So if I can't check myself I step back.

And I do report posts. I don't want to, but I don't want to discuss things in a climate of deliberate offence and personal attacks, so I DO report because I want to have the discussion, not because I don't! Honestly there are some posters I haven't been able to share a thread with without reporting them, and they've been deleted every time, so I know I'm not wrong. And I'm not doing it to piss MNHQ off so much that they impose sanctions, I'm really not.

So I kind of don't see why if i have to bust a gut to stay so far within the guidelines in order to make my point, why shouldn't everyone else? Why shouldn't everyone have to learn to be super cautious? Because I am completely aware that my almost-but-not-quite lone voice on MN would have a raft of people queuing up to silence if I transgressed, even a little. So I have to be nice to be heard (and of course I am nice too, I reckon ).

So when you're having a discussion hosted at the generous discretion of others, yeah, you have to be respectful of their space. Isn't that what we all expect from somewhere like MN?

Missed the updates whilst typing; whoops!

meditrina cheers for remembering the libfem topic request!

Oh yeah, so the thing I missed about the updates was the point that many, many of the deletions are on threads where there is no actual debate. This I can believe, and I imagine it's probably true that most deleted threads on the topic are the one-sided ones.

@RatRolyPoly I get where you're coming from and applaud it.

However I discovered in a different context that examples are essential - because not everyone has the same standard of reasonable and nice. So by saying this is OK and this isn't - it's more obvious.

Again I am hampered by I don't actually know what the problem is - is it mod overload or tone - there seems to be 2 different issues here. And @MNHQ refer to both in different comments so it's hard to extricate them - there are things like "others are watching" - what does that mean?

Anyway examples of posts and threads that are OK and those that aren't would seem to be a sensible move - even if not in the Guidelines but maybe discussed between ourselves on FWR. And posted every so often as a reminder.

Yes, I'm finding it hard to understand what the real issue is here. It's evident (from twitter for example) that there's an attempt to put pressure on MN to stop being a focus for gender-critical talk, and that's really chilling. If it's happening via advertisers, then I suggest prioritising the development of a subscription-model ad-free version of MN (and simultaneously reminding your advertisers that gender-critical women buy things too!). If it's happening via threatening letters from lawyers concerning posts that most of us would like to be legal and remain so (e.g. including "misgendering" but not being offensive to the reasonable person I keep banging on about), then I suggest telling them to bring it on, and if necessary, asking us to contribute to your legal defence fund.

...or why doesn't everybody involved in the discussion try to contribute in a way that is not only within the talk guidelines but also so ridiculously respectful as to give nobody any cause for concern? I mean what actually is the problem with that?

We are having to read between the lines because MNHQ aren't saying much about what the problem is, but the way I read the tea leaves, the problem with that is that there are some reporters (who may or may not also be posters) for whom being "so ridiculously respectful as to give nobody any cause for concern" would have to include, among other things, agreeing that it is possible for a human being to change sex; that is, it is not really the way things are expressed, but the things that are expressed, that they are complaining about. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the entire problem is posts that you, I and most people would agree are disrespectful - but I'm not seeing so many, or so many deletions, to make that explanation for MNHQ's concern seem plausible to me.

Background to my confusion, incidentally: I reported a post that was (implicitly, but clearly) hoping for violence against a named individual the other day, and received a mail that MNHQ were looking at it, yet it stands. Part of the issue is that when a post is deleted, you can't see what it was that was deleted! Therefore it's hard for posters who don't spend all day on MN reporting and seeing what does and doesn't get deleted in response to get a clear idea of what is and isn't deletable, let alone what pressure may be being applied in the background.

I guess I would like whoever is complaining to MNHQ that the board is so unpleasantly anti-trans to look at the almost 10,000 signatures on a petition about women’s rights that has been pretty much driven by MN as an indication that this is NOT a fringe feminist issue but a concern for regular people, even people without ‘skin in the game’ so to speak.

I want to be able to continue to speak to others on this issue, to hear all sides. I don’t want an echo chamber. I find some posts do attack the man not the ball. But it’s hard to separate this out when the very nature of the debate hinges on physicality and language and belief.

It’s not just moderation resource, that’s clear. “Looking in from outside” - the problem is that the people “looking in” don’t care to debate, or reason, or get involved past a single inflammatory post here or there or a sea-lion approach of refusing to answer key discussion points but deflecting to inflame.

A significant number of posters have said they considered it transphobic to think about or discuss these issues UNTIL THEY READ AND LISTENED MORE. Then they changed their minds. And were surprised the debate was actually not toxicly transphobic but full of opinions that are well-debated and mostly respectful.

The ‘tone’ is for the most part a perception issue, I believe.

I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes with talks to investors but I think the women here have made their case strongly on a lot if occasions that it’s silencing of discussion that is the most upsetting and divisive point of this issue. That message needs to be given to the people ‘looking in’.

Hmmmm... with the greatest respect for what the GC feminists on MN have achieved, I'm not sure 10k signatures supporting a very tame premise (i.e. "consulting women" on self-ID) really qualifies something as "not a fringe feminist issue". Not even in the context of registered MN users, let alone the national population. But saying that it does have 5 months or whatever left to run, so I'm prepared to change my mind.

I'm seeing MNHQ very, very tactfully but repeatedly trying to tell GC posters that they are part of the problem, and some GC posters are just not hearing it.

People aren't necessarityl deflecting to inflame. They really do see the issue differently. But where people don't believe them, belittle than etc, they leave them to their echo chamber.

The number of signatories was not great, either in absolute terms or in proportion of MNetters.

Using respectful language needs to extend in all directions, but it rarely does when there is a dominant clique whomare so utterly convinced that they are right that anyone who dissents must be there solely to disrupt, or to silence, or to further an MRA agenda.

But does it matter any more? Now that feminist topics are out of MN mainstream that is. It's become a largely hidden corner, which most of MN will ignore and it may well be rapidly forgotten.

Was that an intended outcome?

What’s s GC poster?

I have to say, Active is more interesting now there aren’t so many repetitively titled trans threads.

Thanks for making it all go away

I think if there are posters who are consistently goady and posting inflammatory threads they should be banned.

The more I think about the board being hidden, the sadder I get. It is almost impossible to discuss feminism anywhere now, apart from in an intersectional, privilege-points way, where women self flagellate about why they deserve their oppression.

I bet the MRAs are rubbing their hands in glee.

The board was what attracted me to MN and what keeps me here, I'm sorely tempted to dereg over this. It feels like censorship. I'm sure i can't be the only one.

Yes meditrina and vampire. New posters might not realise that there is a Feminism board at all and will therefore post their feminist and GC threads on AIBU and chat.... a possible, interesting consequence.

GC = gender critical

I'm on the fence.

Hiding it from active has meant I don't read FWR anymore. This isn't right, it's a good, robust part of the board and GC posters have changed my thinking and helped me explain to others.

However if MNHQs hands are tied, this is their way of sin binning some posters.

Hiding the FWR board from Active Conversations is a very regressive move. And a very worrying one. It's effectively silencing women's voices on very important, very serious issues.

I, for one, would never have become aware of the proposed legislation on transgender if it wasn't for seeing threads on Active. In fact, going further back, if FWR had been hidden, I'd have never sought it out (or known it existed) and I'd still be ignorant on a whole range of issues to do with feminism and women's rights. I've learnt a lot from FWR on MN and I know many, many other women have too.

This cannot be a long term solution. It would make far more sense to create a trans topic and then people cam hide it if they wish. Personally I wouldn't, as I read a lot of the trans threads (and comment on some) and like to keep updated - MN is the only place where I can do that. But if it's hidden, I'll be far less well informed from now on as I tend to just check Active.

Hiding the trans topic is a very serious step and hiding FWR is an incredibly serious step indeed. This smacks of silencing women and appeasing bullies, IMO.

Yes, Quentin, I feel the same way you do. Very sad. If we can't openly chat about this on MN, then that leaves nowhere.

Censorship's about right.

No point in having a FWR topic if it's hidden. It'll become an echo chamber, fail to attract any new voices, and die a slow death.

So that explains why the boards have been so quiet! I thought we had all admitted defeat and shut up shop or were out celebrating a big victory!

I only heard about the whole Self ID issue on MN and then only because it came up on ‘last day/hour’ searches. I have not been so activated by a subject since Greenham Common days! I have written before that I am a very liberal, live and let live person, who thought that Women’s rights had been fought for and won (well getting there). I abhor hate speak, and to be honest have really not found that on here, some of which may be down to moderating, but I’ve seen more deleted posts on SN threads TBH.

I have been at a couple of mainstream political events in the last few weeks and on raising the Self ID issue (having carefully sussed out the thoughts of those I was talking to) they have all (mostly men, but that’s politics for you☹️) made reference to Mumsnet, with phrases such as ‘they are brilliant at this’, ‘that’s where the best discussions are happening’ and ‘saying what we can’t, yet’.

MNHQ, this is an own goal. I’d like to say You’ll Never Walk Alone, but on this decision i rather think you are. Women need MN more than ever before, if the moderation of these boards is too onerous, then may I suggest the job vacancy list include a couple of new posts at MNTowers? 😊

I agree with others. I would never have been aware of the problems inherent in self id if I hadn't stumbled across gc threads in active.

I think keeping this debate open and giving it the benefit of fresh air and exposure can only be a good thing. Women need safe spaces where they are able to discuss these serious issues and mn has been a wonderful resource. Please don't silence the debate now!