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.

Would that be done deliberately or accidentally?

It would be done if it was relevant to the subject, wouldn't it? Because we all want to have a productive discussion and contribute our own understanding.

But really, that's quite a revealing post.

@PaleGreenAndBrightOrange

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.

We know what the alternative is because there are social media groups and platforms full of it elsewhere - it's heavily policed Lib feminism in which women are routinely told off for wrong think/speak if they're not inclusive enough. There are a whole host of platforms where anyone interested in discussing feminism can join in. Let's be honest, the reason FWR is targeted is because it's influential.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

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.

Yes different types of crime is relevant to recidivism however I was answering a poster who thought it would possibly make it absolutely essential to include trans identity.

It really shouldn't matter whether you are talking about theft or drug dealing should it?
The problem with drug dealing and theft is that the perpetrators are often substance abusers, this topic might also lead into discussing prostitution/ sex work and this might be considered GC. So which board?

You are sounding a bit desperate now.

however I was answering a poster who thought it would possibly make it absolutely essential to include trans identity.

I didn't mention recidivism, please don't misrepresent my post. My point was generally that sex and gender might be highly relevant to a discussion about women in prison. Depending on the discussion.

Even if you stick all the gender crits in a gulag and make them wear "bad feminist" badges it isn't going to stop people who recognise biological reality seeking them out, or journalists dropping by to seek out important discussions about child safeguarding etc This is obvs the next step before lobbying for an outright ban over transphobic content, but do you think all the women who call a spade a spade will then just vanish into the ether. This sort of approach has been tried over and over, it doesn't work. Compromise is always better.

We know what the alternative is because there are social media groups and platforms full of it elsewhere - it's heavily policed Lib feminism in which women are routinely told off for wrong think/speak if they're not inclusive enough. There are a whole host of platforms where anyone interested in discussing feminism can join in. Let's be honest, the reason FWR is targeted is because it's influential.

Exactly.

I also think this is a terrible idea.

Especially as it's clearly in response to the courts upholding peoples' right to believe that men are men and women are women.

Feminism is about sex-based oppression. That's actually what it is.

Unless discussions about gender are moved to a separate 'Gender' topic and discussions about sex ie being a woman remain in the Feminist Chat topic.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

however I was answering a poster who thought it would possibly make it absolutely essential to include trans identity.

I didn't mention recidivism, please don't misrepresent my post. My point was generally that sex and gender might be highly relevant to a discussion about women in prison. Depending on the discussion.

I was referring to embarrassing admissions, not you.

You brought up recidivism and framed it around that, not anyone else.

I was referring to embarrassing admissions, not you.

Unfortunately, the board doesn't thread so it's not possible to see to whom you're replying. Even now, I'm not the poster who referred to recidivism, I was answering a remark about it.

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.

It's gone to page 2 now, Sexism by numbers. Killed stone dead by several diversions off into queer theory.

Your sarcasm was a bit gratuitous there.

Even now, I'm not the poster who referred to recidivism

That was actually Orangecircling themselves, and people tried to answer based on that framing even though my point was a more general one.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Even now, I'm not the poster who referred to recidivism

That was actually Orangecircling themselves, and people tried to answer based on that framing even though my point was a more general one.

That was my impression but it felt like a futile cycle to check because Bunbury popped in with. a cup of tea.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

I was referring to embarrassing admissions, not you.

Unfortunately, the board doesn't thread so it's not possible to see to whom you're replying. Even now, I'm not the poster who referred to recidivism, I was answering a remark about it.

I know, and I answered that. I'm the interest of clarity I only answered embarrassingadmissions.

I'll say it again, anyone who doesn't think this board meets their needs has several options:

Stay and argue your corner.
Campaign for MNHQ to set up a new board for you - or they could simply rename one of the other rarely used feminist boards just for you.
Use a different forum - I'm sure many if not most online feminist groups would welcome you.

And yet none of those alternatives seem to be good enough. The demand appears to be that most of the current users of this board move out so that they can have it all to themselves.

Why is that?

@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.

It's gone to page 2 now, Sexism by numbers. Killed stone dead by several diversions off into queer theory.

Your sarcasm was a bit gratuitous there.

So you're talking about this thread? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4268698-Sexism-by-numbers-Guerrilla-Girls-male-gaze-project

You haven't attempted to post on it. If it's something that is interesting to you why not? Good quality posting that raises the discussion to different levels tends to be what keeps threads going.

What did you want to say? Go put it in the thread.

Plus we know there are numerous high profile cases coming up that are going to shine a much brighter light on the issues than FWR can. Is MNHQ going to tell the good feminists that they can't discuss legal cases in the public domain? There are feminist issues around the experience and treatment of Keira Bell and Alison Bailey to be debated. Why and how could / would you censor women from discussing them? Are you going to take down any and every thread that creeps out of the pen MNHQ?

@PaleGreenAndBrightOrange

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.

Mumsnet is one of very few online spaces I know of that allows this type of discussion. And now I'd like to think the discussions will flow even better after the Forstater case enshrines our right to state what we believe without dancing around the language we use.

GC feminists have already be shunted off into this corner of the internet. We don't need to be further sectioned off.

If you have something to say in a GC thread or thread about the trans debate then say it. Engage in it. We're all happy to debate. What good is it to anyone to hide themselves away in separate little clubs where like-minded people simply talk amongst themselves ad nauseam?

You want one group where you and your pals can all talk in agreement and another group where those you disagree with can go?

What a pointless exercise.

Don't like the subject of a thread? Don't click on it. Don't like the subject of a thread and want to say something about it? Get in amongst it then and see how your arguments stack up. It's good for you to engage with people you disagree with. Keeps your brain from turning to mush.

If this does happen is there anywhere else we can all migrate to to discuss FWR?

Don't like the subject of a thread? Don't click on it. Don't like the subject of a thread and want to say something about it? Get in amongst it then and see how your arguments stack up. It's good for you to engage with people you disagree with. Keeps your brain from turning to mush.

Yes this. Even though I'm GC there's loads of threads I don't post on. My 'Threads I'm On' list for the last week only has 16 threads on it. The first page of FWR usually has around 50 active threads at any one time.

We all pick and choose based on what interests us, what we have to add and how much time we can spare. Just open one that does interest you and dive in. Nobody can hide from disagreement though and that stands true for the whole of Mumsnet or any forum for that matter.

I am happy with the way things are. What with being an ordinary woman and all.

@EdinburghFeminist

If this does happen is there anywhere else we can all migrate to to discuss FWR?

The problem with that question, sadly, is that the Misogynist Monitors will all be waiting for the answer so they can start supervising us there too.