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.

I think it's a terrible idea.
It's wrong in principle to divide the board into two 'tribes' and police the content. Isn't that a version of 'No debate'?
And it will be unworkable in practice. How are posts or threads in the 'wrong' section going to be dealt with? Deletion of post? Deletion of thread ? Moving threads between sections? Moving them back again if they change tack? What exactly are the criteria?
It's a stupid and regressive idea. Proposing it just a few hours after Maya's case is extremely poor judgment and is an insult to the users of this board.
Don't do it, MN.

@334bu I have actually posted before (once) and had an interesting discussion with some people but a lot of posters were overly argumentative and seemed to seek to invalidate some opinions of other posters quite aggressively. On most boards difference of opinion is accepted but often on this one the tone suggests there’s only one correct view.

Eg someone on here has posted about “men and their allies” taking over the feminist board. It sort of makes it sound like someone who doesn’t want to talk on the identity politics board isn’t a woman but an “ally” of men. I don’t like language like that that seeks to divide rather than seeking debate and furthering of understanding.

I actually don’t have a solution to suggest to this issue but I wanted to give my own view as a woman, which is that I sometimes find that not all views (and therefore the women that hold them) are welcome on this board. And that identity politics dominates the board. And that potentially the views on MN feminist section are skewed as any opposing voices just opt out.

@DancesWithTortoises

It would only encourage the thread police to stamp their feet and demand threads are moved.

HQ should stop pandering to them and tell them to scroll past like grown ups.

This.

I think it's a silly idea, mnhq.

Check out the latest on Stonewall?

My apologies PaleGreen I did not realise that you have name changed and had already posted on the FWR board. I was interested in how a newbie might structure the board to encourage others to contribute.

Looking at the top trending thread started in Chat this afternoon, I think it may be too late.

Can open, feminist worms everywhere.

I think this is getting a bit silly. Posters say they are alienated from FWR because the topics they want to discuss aren't there. But then it turns out they dont start threads and/or cant be bothered to look past the first page to see if there is a thread on the topic and/or dont post so it is they themselves that are helping to sink these topics that they complain are being pushed out.

Also, if there was another board, or somehow a strick rule about what could go on FWR, there is nothing to stop women whose feminism is from a gender critical / sex based rights position from posting on these threads.

So as I said yesterday what this seems to be about is that there are too many on FWR that have a similar viewpoint. And short of having a quota, ie kicking some contributors of the board, it solves absolutely nothing.

the only way it will change is those who dont like the current topics start other thread, take the time to contribue, and dont bother going on to threads you are not interesed in to complain that contributers have view points you dont share.

As an extra to that I am sick of what seems a few self appointed board monitors who feel they are somehow empowered to say what is or is not feminist. If as a woman you want a feminist perspective on walking alone, buying a bra, public toilers, being lesbian or bisexual, then it is absolutely right that women can post here, because it is an issue they want to discuss but from a feminist perspective.

Why is it that some women have this extremely narrow view of what feminism is about? It is about our lived experience as women.

Including being the mother of non binary children.

As an extra to that I am sick of what seems a few self appointed board monitors who feel they are somehow empowered to say what is or is not feminist.

Yes. It's about controlling speech, not about having anything useful to contribute instead.

What is TAAT in MNHQ speak?

@stumbledin

What is TAAT in MNHQ speak?

A thread about a thread

You haven't attempted to post on it. If it's something that is interesting to you why not?

Because as I said earlier the posts didn't discuss the original link, the OP sought out the word intersectional in the Gorilla Girls website, linked a article on Foucault and the thread became about that. It's not only me that found that to be a conversation stopper, it was everyone else.

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.

I've read the original link and I'm going to watch the podcast later but I won't come back here to talk about the Gorilla Girls as the word intersectional was enough to damn them and I don't want to discuss them with people that have done that.

The thread got to child abuse in five or six posts and died a death.

Anyway the hostility here for observing that different topics might improve variety is duly noted.

It's not hostility - it's exasperation. Women have been posting about all sorts of things that affect them on FWR for years. Some of these things have a crossover with trans issues because of selfID, some of these things have a crossover with trans issues because it's impossible to post about them without tras jumping on the thread and scolding for wrong speak and some of these things have nothing to do with any of the above. If you can't see the irony of (insert sex here) monitors dictating what women can and can't say on a feminism board then there isn't much else to say.

So Orange - how would you like it to look going forward, with that thread as an example?
No criticism of the intersectional stuff presumably, then you would post on it?
That thread could be posted in the non-gulag board, but if someone did comment on the intersectional thing would that comment get deleted? Or the whole thread moved?

I'm just not sure how it would work.

Might you end up with a situation where the same topic is posted on two different boards, one where you can mention the thing and the other where you can't?

Thanks shesellsseacats - well that just illustrates the point. The thread I start was about censorship whether the self appointed monitors or MNHQ.

I was criticising the censorship of a thread because some people just didn't understand.

I do hope this isn't going to be the new standard by which threads are judged. ie I dont understand it, therefore it must be wrong, therefore I will report it to MNHQ.

So just to say @MNHQ to delete my thread on the bais of it being a TAAT seems to me like you dodging the bullet on you act of censorship.

Or would you prefer some magical mystry thread about someone siad something that someone didnt understand or thought wasnt funny so they thought they were entitle to silence that other person.

This by the way is how the group Reclaim the Streets has been persuaded to kick so many women who are active feminists off their facebook page.

They have a rule that it two people complain, you dont just have your comments deleted you get blocked from the group.

and yes you guessed it, 99.9% reported are all gender critical / sex based rights feminists. So a whole group of thousands is actually be controlled by 2 people who dont have to identify themselves or make any contribution to show why someones elses contribution is offensive.

Seems a very weird view of the world. I dont understand statistics. I find it offensive that someone posts something statistical that I cant understand. So I think they should all be silenced.

That's the statistical problem solved and just tough that statistic might be useful.

@Orangecircling

You haven't attempted to post on it. If it's something that is interesting to you why not?

Because as I said earlier the posts didn't discuss the original link, the OP sought out the word intersectional in the Gorilla Girls website, linked a article on Foucault and the thread became about that. It's not only me that found that to be a conversation stopper, it was everyone else.

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.

I've read the original link and I'm going to watch the podcast later but I won't come back here to talk about the Gorilla Girls as the word intersectional was enough to damn them and I don't want to discuss them with people that have done that.

The thread got to child abuse in five or six posts and died a death.

Anyway the hostility here for observing that different topics might improve variety is duly noted.

So you'll only post on a topic if the OP is worded how you prefer it? In that case it's best to start your own threads to reflect your own opinions.

You seem to be saying you want variety but at the same time you don't want to post here about something you've read or listened to.

I think if you posted a podcast review some women would read and respond. You can't have a guarantee nobody would critique your take on it but that's how conversations get going.

I don't really understand what you want from a section you don't want to engage with.

Mainstream feminism is intersectional.

Thanks for rocking up and educating us about feminism 👍👍👍

Mainstream feminism is intersectional.

Not if it doesn't recognise the major axis of oppression that is being born into the female sex, it isn't.

Mainstream feminism is intersectional.

@RobinMoiraWhite - is mainstream transactivism intersectional?

Would a transactivist recognise that a wealthy, white, healthy middle-class transwoman is far more privileged than a poor black disabled working-class woman, for example?

If so, can you point me to some mainstream intersectional transactivist writing that recognises and acknowledges other axes of oppression? I’d very much like to read it.

Nope. Being anti-trans is core to gender criticality. Mainstream feminism is intersectional

This seems the new popular mantra since Maya's win. Being repeated a LOT by various big names.
I'm not going to bite though because "anti trans" "gender criticality" and "intersectional" are in the eye of the beholder and have given up trying to pin down definitions from lawyers.

Surprised to see you on this thread Robin, did you get bored enjoying the one about your book and Independent article?

Nope. Being anti-trans is core to gender criticality. Mainstream feminism is intersectional

How incredibly lazy. No actual argument. No evidence. No carefully worded discussion. Just name calling and unfounded accusations.
But sure, keep going with that approach. More and more people are seeing through it.

I am sick and tired of being told I am transphobic or anti trans for not believing you are female.

There are an inconvenient large number of trans people who are gender critical for that assertion to hold any weight, do you suppose they are anti trans?

Relevant thread in Chat this afternoon.

Seems a lot of women can see that gender critical does not = "anti trans".

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/a4269653-Mumsnetters-who-support-trans-women-please-comment-here

Yes, many of them appear not to be FWR regulars.