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.

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.

I'm not a monitor. I've posted here for many years since my kids were little.

I'm actually not making a judgment on the workings of the broad tent of feminism threads based on monitors, simply on the way the software works.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

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.

Do you think a project by a group of women who have used the word intersectional can be discussed here at the moment? That thread was a very typical, a stark illustration of the editing out of women's work.

OK, so what would you like to see happen with that thread in the future?

I'm trying to work out what the two boards system would actually look like, with an example, talking to someone who is in favour or two boards (or at least not in favour of maintaining status quo).

in favour OF two boards sorry.

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats

Mainstream feminism is intersectional.

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

Mainstream feminism is intersectional

If mainstream feminism didn't recognise that the basis of the oppression of women is their sex then it would be pretty shit, and frankly, in chocolate teapot territory

@EndoplasmicReticulum

OK, so what would you like to see happen with that thread in the future?

The thread is as dead as a dead thing. It might not have died if it was permissible to talk about the women's project without the identity background check being the first assessment applied.

Yes, I know the thread is dead, and I know you don't want to post on it as is.

What I'm trying to understand is, if MNHQ split the boards or whatever, and you seem in favour of that, what would happen that is different?
Using that thread as an example.

Orange. In the same way that this board currently gets lots of visitors educating us on what feminism is, what gender critical beliefs are, what a woman is, even if 2 boards were created, how are mumsnet going to control the discussion. To keep the two boards separate. The concept that sex gender and trans issues can be separated from feminism is unrealistic. They are inextricably linked.

In the case of the Guerrilla Girls dead thread mentioned, it was actually the OP who discussed the intersectional aspect.
So presumably it the thread as posted would start off on gulag-board, and therefore Orange wouldn't see it at all.

If Orange or someone wanted a discussion on the project without criticism of the intersectional stuff they would start the thread on don't-mention-sex board, and hope nobody mentioned it because if they did the thread would be moved? deleted? posts deleted? huge pointless argument?
How does it work?

There seems great scope for mischief and / or misunderstanding.

Mainstream feminism centres women; always has done, always will. Does not intersect with men’s demands however you dress them up. You (men) can abuse us physically, mentally, on social media, at work, as we go about our everyday lives, but you cannot stop us thinking ‘that’s a man’. Get over it.

The thread is as dead as a dead thing.
It might not have died if it was permissible to talk about the women's project without the identity background check being the first assessment applied.

But you didn't post on it so you have no idea if what you wanted to say was 'permissible' or not.

I get that you're annoyed with the first few posts in that thread but they preclude no one from adding to it with their own thoughts about the project. Loads of threads on MN start in one direction then veer off into another as people join in.

If you are right about the first few posts killing off the thread then perhaps your contribution would have brought it back to life?

@AdHominemNonSequitur

Orange. In the same way that this board currently gets lots of visitors educating us on what feminism is, what gender critical beliefs are, what a woman is, even if 2 boards were created, how are mumsnet going to control the discussion. To keep the two boards separate. The concept that sex gender and trans issues can be separated from feminism is unrealistic. They are inextricably linked.

Even told how to debate I have seen today it seems.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

Yes, I know the thread is dead, and I know you don't want to post on it as is. What I'm trying to understand is, if MNHQ split the boards or whatever, and you seem in favour of that, what would happen that is different? Using that thread as an example.

I just explained. The women's background search is what killed the discussion. A topic area where we have the opportunity to chat about a project without the automatic dismissal because the upfront background check showed up a word that makes them persona non grata.

The work could be discussed.

OK, so if someone started that thread about the project on the new board, it would not be allowed to comment negatively on the intersectional aspect. Do you think that posts that did that would need to be deleted rather than the whole thread moved?

I get that you're annoyed with the first few posts in that thread but they preclude no one from adding to it with their own thoughts about the project.

I am not at all annoyed. I'm simply giving an example of where work could be discussed neutrally without the identity slant taking precedence. I said I won't go back on the thread, as I would be talking to posters who have segued straight into child abuse so I have no interest in engaging after that. The project itself is interesting. Clearly once the thread got from Guerilla girls to child abuse in five posts NO ONE else wanted to go there either.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

OK, so if someone started that thread about the project on the new board, it would not be allowed to comment negatively on the intersectional aspect. Do you think that posts that did that would need to be deleted rather than the whole thread moved?

Do you think the intersection to child abuse made it a useful discussion or could the discussion be more useful without that? This is my point.

Yes, I get that you didn't like the discussion as was. I'm really trying to work out how the thing would work in practice. Assuming there is a new board and you are having a useful discussion, but up pops someone who makes the point about the dreaded intersectional thing, what happens? Is their post deleted?

FWIW, I didn't engage on the Guerilla Girls thread because there's not really any discussion needed. I'm pretty sure everyone on a Feminist board would agree it's a shit situation. There's load of analysis of the female body in art out there - I wrote some of it myself 20+ years ago.

I'm not saying it's ok - clearly not, because it's still an issue 20 years on! But the conversation that needs to happen is not here on the feminist boards but out there in society about why it is, when we all agree on paper that sexism is bad, shit like this is still so ingrained.

And that's also the reason FWR appears to be "dominated" by gender ideology - because in its current form it's a new thing and feminists are working their way through it, sharing experiences and analysis and coming to conclusions and consensus (or at least coalescing into a few camps).

By contrast, the stuff that is more lib fem is more established and already accepted at least in principle in society, so the work to be done is less theory and analysis, and more getting out there and getting that principle applied in practice. And as I said in an earlier post, that's happening all over mumsnet every day.

^^ That's not to say the lib fem threads should not be here obviously! Just an explanation for why they may not get as much traffic. It's not that people don't care, more that the first few posts most likely cover what most readers are thinking.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

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?

This,

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

What does that mean, in plain English?

I think it means that in Robin’s opinion, you can’t be a feminist if your main priority is females.

I'm intrigued as to what 'anti-trans' means too

I mean I'm completely cool with people dressing and acting in the the ways that make them happy. but I'm guessing that's not good enough for Robin. I wonder what would be?