Heads up: MNHQ planning to create a sex/gender topic separate from FWR.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/4267223-Any-chance-of-a-review-of-the-FWR-moderation-rules-in-light-of-Maya-Forstaters-success-in-court-please?pg=1

We also think now might be the time to consider a reshuffle of the topics in the Feminism board. Feminism and feminist organising has always been a crucial part of Mumsnet and we want all Mumsnet users to feel they can use these boards to discuss the hundreds of ways in which sex - and gender roles - impact on women’s lives, irrespective of their views on sex and gender. So we’d like to introduce a separate topic for Sex and Gender issues and at the same time streamline some of the other topics under the FWR umbrella (some of which are rarely used).

As I said on the linked thread, I thought sex/gender was the basis of feminism and therefore a bit odd to split it off.

@OvaHere

I have indeed. I'm particularly interested in pay and career progression and always get involved when this comes up. The most recent thread on pay gap calculations was an extremely narrow focus however, it was only about gender identity so I didn't post, I would rather discuss the pay gap itself.

I understand the frustration but over time pay gap data, like crime statistics, will become more and more useless as sex based recording is abandoned or fudged.

It only takes one senior, well paid man in a company to identify as a woman to skew the data of that company enormously.

How can progress be monitored when the basic data is flawed? The threat to data has to be talked about and tackled first.

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

Justine, if you are reading any of the multiplicity of threads protesting against the decision to sideline feminist chat i.e. the sort that centres natal females and acknowledges the importance of biological sex, please can you define what constitutes a woman in your opinion? I'm puzzled why men and their 'allies' are going to get the feminist chat to themselves in future whilst natal women have to be shunted into a siding? It would be great if you could explain the reasoning behind your decision. Thanks.

So, according to the twitter account determined to monitor this board, there are 32 / 50 threads on the front page of the board that that account considers are about trans matters. It is likely that it considers this thread is about 'trans matters'.

That leaves 18 threads that are not about gender identity I guess.

This is a higher than usual number though, as I said. Usually it is reported to be down below 25 / 50 most days.

Who'd ever thought a goady twitter account could be useful?

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

Ignoring one of the threats to a) accurate reporting and b) actually addressing the issue is also not going to help in any way. Nor does minimising it. Perhaps post your information or concerns and let it all be discussed.

The same with career progression.

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

It dominates because it is relevant and many posters see that. However, if there are a lot of other aspects, post about them. I do not understand why this is not possible.

And this is an issue with the discussion, currently this aspect dominates the conversation about the pay gap, when there are a lot of other aspects of it to talk about. Separate focus boards would allow this.

This is a thread from April, a couple of IDpol mentions but mostly focused on experiences.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4213741-Bullshit-excuses-and-explanations-for-the-gender-pay-gap

This is one from 2018 that was bumped a few times through to 2019. All 15 pages at a glance don't seem to have any diversion into GI discussion.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3248721-Gender-pay-gap

So it is possible to have the discussion with others who share the same keen interest. Granted it's not a topic that sparks a lot of passion as of right now but we can't police what women want to talk about most.

*Ignoring one of the threats to a) accurate reporting and b) actually addressing the issue is also not going to help in any way. Nor does minimising it. Perhaps post your information or concerns and let it all be discussed.

The same with career progression.*

The problem is though that the way the discussion goes is that it becomes 100% about that and every other aspect gets ignored. Its the same on pretty much every feminist topic here.

@GintyMcGinty

*Ignoring one of the threats to a) accurate reporting and b) actually addressing the issue is also not going to help in any way. Nor does minimising it. Perhaps post your information or concerns and let it all be discussed.

The same with career progression.*

The problem is though that the way the discussion goes is that it becomes 100% about that and every other aspect gets ignored. Its the same on pretty much every feminist topic here.

See my above post. It doesn't become 100% about that every time. I posted some examples.

It dominates because it is relevant and many posters see that. However, if there are a lot of other aspects, post about them. I do not understand why this is not possible

So you say IT DOMINATES because it's is relevant but in reality for those of us that perform the calculations professionally, if we post here about the actual impact on the calculations and say it's statistically of no impact .... well just wait and see the reaction. So the conversation is strangled at birth by innacurate catastrophising and relentless posts about...well again, let's hear it all again..

It's worth noting that most conversations here without the catastrophising fizzle out pretty quickly. I think this board has a culture of catastrophic drama with little nuance. I do think separating out the identity conversation might allow more people to use the boards more broadly.

There's a thread about counting nudes in museums today which immediately segued into a zero tolerance thread about the crime of using the word intersection. No intent at all to discuss the actual project.

It gets boring.

I have only recently started posting, but have been lurking for a long time. I initially came here because as another poster said, feminism in online circles these days tends not to care about mothers and children. Even before becoming a mother myself I found this exclusion intolerable and so found mumset and it's posters a breath of fresh air.

The breadth of topics here is wonderful. I have learnt so much about the many issues facing women and have even had my views completely 180 on topics like surrogacy.

Anyone denying that the board speaks of more than just gender identity issues is being completely disingenuous.

If anything, sometimes I have seen threads utterly unconnected with feminism or women (but related to LGBT or gender identity) posted here and not removed; or more commonly moved here from other boards. Feminism Chat posters have explicitly pointed out that these threads do not belong here.

It is that content that should be exorcised from Feminism Chat, not the threads directly related to women and Feminism that include or discuss gender identity.

I hope Mumsnet reconsiders.

There should be a single "feminism" board and people should be free to post whatever they want.

If you don't like the title of the thread, don't click on it.

Any other approach is over complicating the matter and bound to piss someone off. We're all sensible enough to engage in whichever threads we like. If you don't want to talk about the trans debate then don't engage with those threads.

If there are lots of threads about the trans debate, that is proof that it is a highly contentious and much talked about issue at the moment. It is not a reason to shove a particular brand of feminist into a corner because you don't want to deal with them.

I have no interest in little echo chambers of specific feminism being created. MNHQ wouldn't be able to manage it effectively anyway- unnecessarily complicated work for all involved.

Don't do it MNHQ.
So the new board would be, to talk about women's issues WITHOUT mentioning that 'woman' now includes non-women??

I came here for feminism and discovered what mainstream journalism is not telling us. Other women need to be able to join the dots too.

@GromblesOfGrimbledon

There should be a single "feminism" board and people should be free to post whatever they want.

If you don't like the title of the thread, don't click on it.

Any other approach is over complicating the matter and bound to piss someone off. We're all sensible enough to engage in whichever threads we like. If you don't want to talk about the trans debate then don't engage with those threads.

If there are lots of threads about the trans debate, that is proof that it is a highly contentious and much talked about issue at the moment. It is not a reason to shove a particular brand of feminist into a corner because you don't want to deal with them.

I have no interest in little echo chambers of specific feminism being created. MNHQ wouldn't be able to manage it effectively anyway- unnecessarily complicated work for all involved.

Absolutely this!

@Orangecircling that's interesting - you speak as if that has already happened. Do you have a link to that thread conversation for interest? It would help me see which views you feel are erroneous and too dominant.

Regardless though, I'm not much liking the word "catastrophising" tbh. There are undertones of "hysteria" to that. A large number of contributions to an argument on this board, making a similar reasoned and researched point can't really be said to "catastrophise" especially with keen and careful moderation in place.

@CatsInTheirHats

Also, just to say that I would happily pay some subs to MN in support of FWR in particular, but I am afraid of being doxxed (and obviously not by women’s rights campaigners)

If there was a way to pay via an anonymous gift card I would do it.

It is vital that we keep all the knowledge and wisdom women have together and accessible.

Same - and I raised this repeatedly when subs were first introduced, but with no response. I'm happy to contribute to the costs of modding FWR, but I'm never going to trust MN with my personal data.

I'm not much liking the word "catastrophising" tbh. There are undertones of "hysteria" to that.

Dittany and others anticipated our current circumstance and legal quagmires many years ago. To some extent, they were driven away from FWR for their Cassandra-like, catastrophising views. Some people's knowledge and foresight will always be characterised by others in derogatory ways particularly when they're at odds with their own knowledge or cognitive biases.

It's completely unworkable and a recipe for "why is this in the "wrong" section bunfights on all sides.

I do think separating out the identity conversation might allow more people to use the boards more broadly.

What happens when a thread is started in the other section and "the identity conversation" is highly relevant to the subject? Like women in prison etc?

Would that be done deliberately or accidentally?

I'm trying to imagine the cross over. Say for example someone was talking about recidivism rates, is identity critical to that?

" Recidivism"
Would depend on what kind of offences you are talking about?

Some of the content on the feminist section of MN alienates some women so I don’t see a problem with creating different subtopics. Currently it’s an echo chamber - the full spread of opinions is not represented because a lot of women don’t engage with it - it’s not a place where you can have a reasonable conversation unless you share a specific viewpoint. Voices that have different opinions are often shouted down by a vociferous majority so just stop engaging. I know lots of women who hold a broad range of views in RL but on MN it’s much narrower. Would be great to encourage more women to participate in the feminist threads without it always coming back to ONE thing.

recidivism rates, is identity critical to that?

Might it not depend on the nature of the crime?

Particularly, say, if one were considering recidivism among women sex offenders - a number that has been increasing because of contemporary methods of recording information?

@334bu

" Recidivism" Would depend on what kind of offences you are talking about?

It really shouldn't matter whether you are talking about theft or drug dealing should it?

Some of the content on the feminist section of MN alienates some women so I don’t see a problem with creating different subtopics.

I am sorry that you have never felt comfortable enough to post on FWR. As a potential new poster how would you divide up the content of this board?

It really shouldn't matter whether you are talking about theft or drug dealing should it?

I don't know - it might if there were participants in such a discussion with greater experience of the drivers for theft and drug dealing. I'm aware that quite a few reports/news stories indicate that a substantial number of women in prison are there because they were engaged in crime on behalf of a man (e.g., drug dealing). I've no idea what their recidivism rate is but I should think it might reflect the amount of resources available to support them before and after they leave prison.

My limited understanding is that there may well be substantial difference in the type of support required to prevent recidivism. I would hope that any such conversation would attract input from the knowledgeable MNers who work in prisons and support services.