Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?

[ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn]

The belief that transwomen are men and that transmen are women has been accepted as a legitimate and protected belief, yet we are not able to state this on Mumsnet under the current rules.

It has become increasingly difficult to discuss feminist issues on the dedicated feminism boards as a result of the moderation rules.

In light of Maya's success in court, and that 'gender critical' beliefs are considered protected under the Equality Act, would it be possible for the FWR sex/gender mod rules to be re-visited please?

@MMHQ why not make the “intersectional feminism” the sub- board ? It will have far less traffic so surely makes more sense ?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Surely it will just mean that the sex/gender board becomes the reincarnation of feminism chat, which was the reincarnation of FWR?

I strongly suspect that is what will happen. I am also very much looking to all the posts in the sex/gender free feminism section though

I wonder if it's just about optics. Look at our feminism chat, nothing about trans in it at all.

@JustineMumsnet

Could you come up with a different title to sex/gender, that at least acknowledges that it's something to do with feminism? It feels like it's a title that is actually critical of the content.

Could you come up with a different title to sex/gender, that at least acknowledges that it's something to do with feminism? It feels like it's a title that is actually critical of the content.

I quite like 'Feminism Chat' and '"Feminism" Chat'

I don't think labels that are jargony or opaque to many people are a good idea. Feminism should be accessible, I'd have hated having to try and work out whether people would categorise me as radfem or libfem or whatever.
If it's going to split, then topic-based makes most sense. I'm still not convinced ppl won't play silly buggers trying to get threads moved or derailed though.

@CardinalLolzy

I don't think labels that are jargony or opaque to many people are a good idea. Feminism should be accessible, I'd have hated having to try and work out whether people would categorise me as radfem or libfem or whatever. If it's going to split, then topic-based makes most sense. I'm still not convinced ppl won't play silly buggers trying to get threads moved or derailed though.

I'm not convinced that a title called sex/gender, isn't implying that it's not based in feminism.

I don't like "sex/gender" as a title as no-one can ever answer what gender (as in "identity") has to do with sex!

Should style/beauty be under "gender expression"?

Yes it seems so odd to have the word gender in a title when it's acknowledged that the people posting are critical of it!

As someone suggested in one of the many other threads if it was Feminism: Chat, and Feminism: Sex/Gender that at least makes a bit more sense?

It's a shame Justine wants to separate based on topics rather than on belief then we could just have Feminism (sex) and Feminism (gender)

@CardinalLolzy

they simply don’t engage with the Feminism topic at all (thousands of Mumsnet users have hidden it altogether).

Might I suggest that the people who dislike/are so uninterested in Feminism to the extent they've hidden it - so can't even see the threads and scroll past- might not be the most appropriate people to have the overall say in how the Feminism board is run?

I don't think it's a case of '' not liking the feminism board '' As it clearly says its more that liberal views get drowned out and made to feel unable to post (ie, when they do get pushed off with man, handmaiden, whatever) I think it'd be nice if there was room for those voices.

I quite like 'Feminism Chat' and '"Feminism" Chat'

Ha ha I like it, subtle ;

I agree with pp I don’t really get jargon-y titles, I don’t know where stuff fits as I just file it all under feminism

^As it clearly says its more that liberal views get drowned out and made to feel unable to post (ie, when they do get pushed off with man, handmaiden, whatever)
I think it'd be nice if there was room for those voices.^

The problem is, Justine wants to separate by topic, rather than by belief, so I suspect these voices may still get drowned out.

If I might just make a procedural point, I think you’d find you’d received less of a backlash to this idea if it hadn’t been dripped out in the middle of a thread about an entirely separate issue, @JustineMumsnet …
If you’d started a thread setting out the proposal, canvassing views, hearing all sides and then making a decision, you’d still have got plenty of people disagreeing with you but I suspect a lot less general bad feeling.

I don't think it's a case of '' not liking the feminism board ''
As it clearly says its more that liberal views get drowned out and made to feel unable to post (ie, when they do get pushed off with man,

What "clearly says that"? Justine's post says " feminists who are intersectional/fourth wave/transinclusive/liberal (however you wish to classify them) who say the passion and preponderance of the gender-critical viewpoint in the current Feminism Chat area means they simply don’t engage with the Feminism topic at all"

Please don't make things up as it makes you look like you're just goading. If a post "clearly says" something it's not difficult to copy the actual words used instead of changing them.

@Redbottle

What a strange response to an unrelated request. Just leave things as they are.

I see fwr as a daily round-up of women's issues. I don't have time to check multiple forums and don't want to be shielded from different opinions.

Some threads don't get many responses, but it doesn't mean that they go unread. With information sharing threads, sometimes there isn't much to say other than 'noted!'

Perhaps there could be a push towards clearer thread titles instead?

Exactly. It’s a discussion board, it all sounds a little bit snowflake to start moving topics around so that people’s sensibilities aren’t disturbed.

People are adults, they can make choices about what they respond to, ignore or report.

As the very first post on this thread said, it’s clarity on moderation that is the issue.

What "clearly says that"?

Here for starters
(where Justine quotes correspondence they received)

There is definitely a sense that Feminism Chat is only a place to discuss gender critical feminism. Any posts which question GCism get flooded with hundreds of hostile responses. Which might be more fair if MN was an explicitly GC site, but it portrays itself as a space for all feminism.’

Clue being in the all feminism bit - as in those with views outside of GC ones.
For example more liberal views.

I'd like to echo Vanishun's excellent point about this apparently being driven by correspondance behind the scenes.

If there had been a heated public debate about this change I would understand it better but, in every thread I've seen about it, whether on Feminism Chat or on Site Stuff, the overwhelmingly majority view has been against a split.

It feels unsettling and most undemocratic that posters who will not place their views in the public domain have been given the final say in this decision.

I quite like 'Feminism Chat' and '"Feminism" Chat'

Ha ha I like it, subtle

Yeah, therein lies the problem on here

There's only one way to feminism, if you don't always agree it's ha ha "feminism" in quotation marks.

@Quaggars

I quite like 'Feminism Chat' and '"Feminism" Chat'

Ha ha I like it, subtle

Yeah, therein lies the problem on here

There's only one way to feminism, if you don't always agree it's ha ha "feminism" in quotation marks.

Just a joke. I’m sure we’ll see some really good threads in the new feminism chat.

Look forward to seeing what it is people want to talk about.

If the decision has been made, which I sense it has, then can I at least make a plea that the title of the new board for sex and gender chat isn’t “sex and gender”?

I post on this topic because I care about women’s rights. I don’t mind if people disagree with me, in fact, I want them to, because that’s how debate works, how we figure things out, and how we reach consensus. But blandly saying the topic is “sex and gender” isn’t great, because it takes the feminist/women’s rights angle out of it altogether. And it’s foundational.

Please let’s keep the feminism in FWR. Can we have “feminism: no holds barred” and “intersectional feminism”, or similar?

Personally, I could easily go for intersectional feminism and gender critical feminism.

This is me, personally, and I can't vouch for anyone else.

But it describes my approach. And, again in my opinion, it also describes the approach of those who are not gender critical.

Can I ask Quaggar, as someone who supports this (I think), would having a separate gender/sex discussion section work for you or would a separate "more liberal feminism" section work better? IE do you think things should be separated by topic, or broadly by belief - to use your words GC and Liberal?

The best idea for a name I've seen was @Tinselangel's
'The Gulag' please.

@Datun

Personally, I could easily go for intersectional feminism and gender critical feminism.

This is me, personally, and I can't vouch for anyone else.

But it describes my approach. And, again in my opinion, it also describes the approach of those who are not gender critical.

Me too, but Justine has said this is not what she wants to do

"It's not about splitting things according to beliefs - it's about splitting things according to topics - so folks who really have views on feminism but don't want to join in the womens v trans rights debate (either because they don't share a GC view or because they just don't like the the topic) can avoid them."

I can't see the point. If people wish to debate about sex / gender topics and find their minority view is drowned out on Feminism Chat, how will be they be more heard on a dedicated board? If they currently post on topics such as new statues (non sex / gender) for example, do they feel intimidated?