Could Mumsnet clarify the purpose of the sex and gender forum?

[Lexibletheflexible]

Can we get some clarification on the actual "purpose" of the sex and gender forum, please?

Many members on there seem to allude to it being for GC people rather than to discuss issues related to gender and sex. They make posts like this one:

"and the overall purpose of the sub forum."

What is this "overall purpose" that some members seem to be privy to and isn't outlined in the group title?

I can show various other posts by regular members who seem sure of the same thing. I think it would help all of us if we understood what the site/staff intended its purpose to be.

What I'd mostly like to know if it is a place to perpetuate, promote and nurture GC views or a place where users discuss issues related to gender, irrespective of their stance on gender and trans related issues?

FWR use to be one, single forum. Some people within that didn’t want us GC feminists to talk about our sex realist’s beliefs. Therefore, the sex and gender forum was set up by MN specifically for us to discuss those beliefs.

I can show various other posts by regular members who seem sure of the same thing.
That'll turn this into a TAAT.

I think it would help all of us if we understood what the site/staff intended its purpose to be.
It's just a forum where sex and gender are discussed. The clue is in the name.
HTH

It is for discussion. Your hundreds of non GC posts today haven't been deleted, have they? People have simply disagreed with you, and some have suggested that you lack historical understanding of the issues you are discussing.

For some, having to explain everything from scratch every time a new poster arrives is just a bit tiring, that's all.

OP, you know very well what its intended purpose is you, just don’t like it.

Yep.

No need to be disingenuous @Lexibletheflexible as you know perfectly well what this board is about.

Seconded…

It's to discuss issues around sex and gender. Sex as in male and female, not shagging. There's a separate topic for that!

Surely the purpose is bloody obvious?? Surely?
It’s just incredible how much the existence of that board gets questioned and not, say, the exercise board (is it for exercise people to talk about their interest or is it for non-exercisers to turn up and debate about why they don’t exercise?) or the property board (is it for people interested in property or people who want to argue that no one should own property?)
It’s a headscratcher all right… 🤔

Could someone clarify what the Food/Recipes forum is for please?

I'm waiting for clarification from staff that its purpose is to endorse GC views rather than discuss sex and gender.

I don't think its purpose us to endorse GC views as such.
There is a problem however that the opposing views don't stand up to logical scrutiny.
Remember it was set up as a separate board so others could avoid the discussions. It is hardly fair to come on later and complain that the people on there know what they are talking about and expect others to be able to back up their views/assertions.

I always thought it was to discuss sec and gender and how they affect women's rights. But that doesn't mean it's meant to endorse only GC views.

It's not there to 'endorse' them, but for over a decade it was pretty much the only place GC views were left to stand. Your arguments will stand or fall on their merits rather than, as was happening elsewhere, be the de facto winner due to the deletion of GC views. That's probably why it seems one sided to you if you're used to #nodebate on the transgenderist position.

It doesn't endorse GC views but does allow GC views to be discussed. It was set up to allow this at a time of "no debate" when biological reality was not allowed on many other platforms.
This one small corner was very important in allowing other views to be heard against, what was then, the prevailing GI opinion.

I am fine with debate. What i am asking about are the posts that allude to the idea it has a purpose which users insinuate is to endorse GC views. Like it's for GC people and those who challenge said views are somehow disruptive or antagonistic

Like I said, I think they're just tired of explaining the same old things.
What do you want from this? Anyone making you feel unwelcome to be deleted? Or just to go back to FWR and say 'nyah nyah, HQ said I could stay'. Because nobody as far as I can see is asking you to leave. They just wish you could keep up and string a coherent argument together. Perhaps focus on making fewer but higher quality posts?

My cats would like to know what The Litter Tray forum is for.

It depends doesn't it.

Coming onto any random thread and making assertions of only tangible relevance and not backing them up can be disruptive.

It would be nice if those with opposing views could set out an argument that holds water, maybe starting their own thread. But it hasn't really happened yet. 'Be kind' and 'feelings' doesn't tend to win against biology, logic, and the underlying reasons behind single sex spaces.

Like it's for GC people and those who challenge said views are somehow disruptive or antagonistic

No.
People who challenge GC views find their arguments demolished.
Nobody can change sex, and anyone who argues that they can will find that their views are not realistic.

It would look a lot more like debate if the GI posters came armed with some facts, data etc.

As they don't, I can see why it doesn't.

Break the mould, be the first!

Nearly a decade and there are still people aghast at the audacity of women to discuss gender in a critical way.

Always the same tired wide eyed 'Oh I just don't understand, pwease explain it to me for the 400th time miss' energy.

As I said, I'm asking for clarification from staff on this "purpose" that it has that isnt outlined in the group description.

In that quoted conversation it was you who called her “disruptive”, no? She was justifying her right to post, she didn’t imply you couldn’t.

'We' don't need clarification @Lexibletheflexible - remember to use your I statements.

Did someone say something on there you didn't like?