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?

[Quaggars]

Oh right, OK - hadn't read all of that thread as it was fairly long.
So, some people have pointed out that sometimes feminism ignores women who aren't white?
What's wrong with pointing that out?
I'll never understand why some people (not necessarily meaning you, more of a general you) feel personally attacked when others speak about that - if it doesn't apply to you, then they're not talking about you, are they?
Would you rather people just shushed and kept quiet, to pretend it's not there or not an issue or something?

[SpringCrocus]

No worries, Closdes

[SpringCrocus]

Except the posters talking about racism do seem to be saying that it applies to any white woman, as far as I understand it.

[ClosdesMouches]

@SpringCrocus

X posted.
Although, it still appears in the Feminism Chat listings. Not Sex and Gender.

I noticed the same thing with a couple of other threads. Got myself tied in knots for a while trying to figure which board I was on so that I knew what I would be allowed to,post about. ?
Hopefully it will settle down soon.

[SpringCrocus]

It's very very confusing. @MNHQ.

[SelfPortraitWithEels]

Are there any guidelines about what we should post where? It seems weird that a thread asking about different kinds of feminism should end up being booted out of Feminism. @MNHQ

[Quaggars]

It seems weird that a thread asking about different kinds of feminism should end up being booted out of Feminism. @MNHQ**

Not really, just been reading that thread and seems quite obvious why it was moved to the other board - started by a GC poster and took the usual turn where nobody really seemed to be bothering listening to other viewpoints, and right back onto the same old same old trans debate

[belleager]

People keep talking about a drop-down, but maybe all that's needed is a quick note and link at the top of each forum? E.g. All views welcome, please post threads focused on xxxxx here (link) and on more general topics in feminism here (link).

Because I don't see any sign that this is about not giving a GC perspective on feminism chat, or about not defending a lib fem angle on sex and gender. It's not even about denying the connection, is it? The threads on sex and gender are the ones that wouldn't exist but for gender ideology.

But summing up xxxx is hard - it's really for topics about the infringement of women's sex based rates through gender ideology, but I can't think of a neutral way to say that and do think it should be neutral in a forum heading.

[PurgatoryOfPotholes]

That's not the thread I was reading. It was started by an MNer (there's really no need to put GC in like that- bit dogwhistle) and it was shaping up to be an interesting thread. However, a poster with a grudge derailed it by attacking the OP.

[Quaggars]

I still think it is an interesting thread
There's a fair few feminist voices in there which, despite some of the usual GC /rad fem voices on the thread not listening to others and kind of hijacking, would usually not be heard.
Nice to get other perspectives and hear of other struggles I might not usually, eg the issue up thread of white women feminism, I find it interesting and makes me think
Amongst other voices, that's the first one off the top of my head

[ArabellaScott]

started by a GC poster

I really take exception to that - you're talking about a thread I started, asking about what the people who had wanted the new board were interested in. There were some interesting conversations - and a few people telling me to 'get off their board', which was nice, and then it got derailed, reported, and moved.

Really not nice to hound someone off a board.

[ArabellaScott]

I am going to presume that women are welcome to post in either board and that the boards are split by subject, not by poster. Would be nice to get a bit of back up from MN on that point. I've only ever been polite to other posters, but have been sneered at, aspersions cast and laughed at when the thread was moved. Is that all 'in the spirit'?

[OvaHere]

@Quaggars

It seems weird that a thread asking about different kinds of feminism should end up being booted out of Feminism. @MNHQ**

Not really, just been reading that thread and seems quite obvious why it was moved to the other board - started by a GC poster and took the usual turn where nobody really seemed to be bothering listening to other viewpoints, and right back onto the same old same old trans debate

I asked two very specific questions in that thread trying to understand what tangible benefits there are for women and girls in an inclusive model of feminism.

I might not agree with the other view points but I am interested in how feminism analysis is done in situations where the only consideration is the gender identity of the involved people.

I didn't get an answer to either, so...

Does listening equal agreement?

I actually find it interesting to read posts from people who have the opinion that womanhood is in flux as part of a natural life cycle but I'm not likely to just go "oh of course, the word woman is in it's cycle of flux, how could I have not seen that before" My response will be some what critical because that's what disagreement is.

What would a response to the above look like that a GC woman could make that wouldn't result in being accused of not listening or being invalidating?

[SelfPortraitWithEels]

Perhaps it was fated to end up in S&G, because any abstract analysis of feminism does involve defining which group of people you centre. But that's precisely the problem, isn't it? It's like the thread about what problems face feminism right now, one of the recurring themes is gender ideology - but then if you move that too... Basically anything which talks in general terms about feminism risks having to engage with the central Question Which Dare Not Speak Its Name.

[Erikrie]

started by a GC poster

That's a pretty unpleasant to say. Are the boards divided by poster rather than topic now or something? I must have missed the memo. Can we have some clarity on that @MNHQ?

[Quaggars]

started by a GC poster

I really take exception to that

Why, you are a poster with GC views, aren't you unless I'm mistaken?
Do I take umbrage when people call me non GC?
No
Plus feel free to post where you like, all I was trying to say (possibly clumsily) is that if it starts off from a GC perspective, and gets a lot of other GC voices too and some of the other voices not being listened to, I can see why it got moved.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

@ArabellaScott

I am going to presume that women are welcome to post in either board and that the boards are split by subject, not by poster. Would be nice to get a bit of back up from MN on that point. I've only ever been polite to other posters, but have been sneered at, aspersions cast and laughed at when the thread was moved. Is that all 'in the spirit'?

Well yes, that's my understanding too and I'd be very surprised if it's not the case.

I'll report this post so that MNHQ can see it and hopefully respond on the thread.

[Quaggars]

Are the boards divided by poster rather than topic now or something? I must have missed the memo.

No, they're not, cross posted with my past comment where I've clarified a bit more what I meant

[Sophoclesthefox]

Nonsense, Quaggarrs. The only reason you think it was started from “A GC perspective” or “a GC poster” is because it was started by Arabella, who is a well known voice on the feminist boards- and an unfailingly polite one, at that. The question was phrased as neutrally as can be, and as the thread developed, she was in receipt of some horrible comments, in the course of which it became clear that a number of posters on the feminist chat board have absolutely taken this board split to mean that GC posters are not generally welcome, even when posting on topic.

That the thread was moved seems to suggest that it’s as much a set of posters who are as unwelcome as it is a set of views, and the effect is to enable and embolden posters who only want to snipe, attack and name call over those who genuinely want a debate.

Those attacks on you were quite uncalled for, arabella, I’m sorry

[Waitwhat23]

The derailment of that thread was a real shame as it started off as an interesting chat about what subjects could be further explored. I was particularly interested in the conversations around the intersectionality between racism and feminism.

When I read a comment from one poster who said gleefully 'piss off back to your own board GC posters, this is our space', is when the issue became obvious. There's meant to be two areas of discussion, not two areas where neither group/certain posters is allowed into. I roll my eyes at some posters who only seem to post on threads about women's rights/trans rights issues in order to be deliberately contrary but they have a right to be here - it's a public discussion board. At least a conversation can be had. The FWR board was constantly being accused of being an echo chamber and I can't see how hounding posters onto the 'right' board helps.

[Helleofabore]

@Quaggars

Are the boards divided by poster rather than topic now or something? I must have missed the memo.

No, they're not, cross posted with my past comment where I've clarified a bit more what I meant

And yet the aggression that has been displayed on not just Arabella’s thread but others, has been appalling and would not have been allowed to stand previously. Yet, they are now.

And no one can deny the posts that are clearly stating that those posters think the split boards are segregated and feminists who don’t share their inclusive views are not welcome to post on the chat board.

MN has not helped at all by ping ponging threads around.

[SelfPortraitWithEels]

It strikes me that the people who didn't want this split are rolling their eyes at the foreseeable ambiguity and aggro, and the people who did want it actually wanted something entirely different, namely the right not to be debated - and are feeling cheated that proponents of other views are still allowed to question them, robustly.

Would it not be better to have a Feminism Chat board and a Feminism Debate board? Then threads which are uncontroversial can go on the former, and posters on the latter are assumed to be up for argument and critical thinking. That would leave a nice "inclusive" space for threads about eg women's art, the Bluestocking, ideas for activism, anything which is not intended to garner differing points of view ("what shall we do about misogyny?" rather than "is xxxx misogynistic?") and so on. Basically anything you'd talk about in the pub without worrying about upsetting anyone. And then anything theoretical or likely to strike at the heart of fundamental differences of approach within feminism would go on the other, and transferring threads would not be "Naughty Corner"ing but a realistic and predictable response if a thread got argumentative. And then, since posters would know that "Debate" meant "Debate", we could engage in robust, frank and lucid argument with a possible relation of the rules (within the bounds of civility, naturally) around terminology - but only on that board.

[SelfPortraitWithEels]

Argh. Relaxation.

[ArabellaScott]

Thanks, Sophocles.

[33feethighandrising]

@SelfPortraitWithEels

It strikes me that the people who didn't want this split are rolling their eyes at the foreseeable ambiguity and aggro, and the people who did want it actually wanted something entirely different, namely the right not to be debated - and are feeling cheated that proponents of other views are still allowed to question them, robustly.

Would it not be better to have a Feminism Chat board and a Feminism Debate board? Then threads which are uncontroversial can go on the former, and posters on the latter are assumed to be up for argument and critical thinking. That would leave a nice "inclusive" space for threads about eg women's art, the Bluestocking, ideas for activism, anything which is not intended to garner differing points of view ("what shall we do about misogyny?" rather than "is xxxx misogynistic?") and so on. Basically anything you'd talk about in the pub without worrying about upsetting anyone. And then anything theoretical or likely to strike at the heart of fundamental differences of approach within feminism would go on the other, and transferring threads would not be "Naughty Corner"ing but a realistic and predictable response if a thread got argumentative. And then, since posters would know that "Debate" meant "Debate", we could engage in robust, frank and lucid argument with a possible relation of the rules (within the bounds of civility, naturally) around terminology - but only on that board.

I think they already did that - it's why the board was split into feminism chat, activism theory (and book club, was it?).

But everyone just ended up in the chat section anyway.

The "problem" of feminists being outspoken and supposedly scaring away the other posters isn't new.

I think it's a shame that Justine sees the number of people who've hidden the feminist section as an indication that something needed to change. I think it's an indication that the hide function was working well and keeping people happy!

This problem won't go away unless MNHQ are bold enough to say, OK, we accept some people are never going to like what the feminists are saying. Fine, use the hide function and leave them the hell alone.