Compromise for new FWR section - could you support this?

[shesellsseacats]

Sex self ID / sex and gender and related questions are THE main topic of feminism at the moment. This shouldn't be hidden away.

But fair enough, if people want a section that doesn't have this topic in it.

So, how about MN keeps this main topic as Feminism Chat, same as now (all feminist related topics welcome) and then add a feminist sub-topic that's for those who don't want to discuss sex and gender.

This will give those who want it, a section free from this discussion, but be much less of a moderation headache for MN.

Win-win, no?!

Could you get behind this?

If so, what could the new sub-topic be called? (Some sensible answers, please! I'd love MN to take this seriously.)

"The attempt to separate will kill FWR."

I think that's the aim.

What is it MN are proposing exactly? I must’ve missed it in the other thread.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

"The attempt to separate will kill FWR."

I think that's the aim.

I think spelling it out always makes the point even better.

Pretty disappointing to read this. For every high in this movement there seems to follow a low. They come from such unexpected sources sometimes.

I would have thought that in the light of Maya’s judgement MN would be falling over themselves to right any wrongs done to women and show support. No, we do not need to be penned up. A start might be an amnesty for those banned over incomprehensible rules.

This board is tremendously important.

I say that if there are those who don't like the content of FWR, start your own threads about what you want to talk about, or find another site that is more to your liking?

These "many" requests that MNHQ have received to split the topic...define many? There must be thousands of us here who quietly lurk.

goes back to lurking

@Undersnatch

What is it MN are proposing exactly? I must’ve missed it in the other thread.

This is what Justine said, on this thread

Hey,

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. We’re delighted with yesterday’s judgement because it vindicates the position we’ve held at Mumsnet for some time. Namely that people should be able to discuss sex-based rights and the implications of gender self-id freely, without harassment and that it’s not transphobic to do so.

This has not been an easy position for us to hold - we’ve been frequently labelled as a hate site by a few vocal activists on social media and in outlets such as Pink News and many of our advertisers have been targeted with such accusations, and subsequently withdrawn activity. So it’s a relief that, as of yesterday, our position is very clearly on the right side of the law.

That said, we believe it’s important, and in fact the only way forward where competing views and rights are directly in conflict, to be respectful of other opinions and beliefs - hence our insistence on civil debate and our keenness to be inclusive of diverse voices. There’s an important difference - hinted at in yesterday’s judgement - between stating a view in principle and stating it in an aggressive and offensive way - such as deliberately misgendering individuals or repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’. Threads devoted to named individuals to unpick their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle or personal choices constitute a personal attack, so we will continue to delete them along with unfair generalisations. It’s this type of behaviour (as opposed to the view that sex is immutable) that we consider to be transphobic, and hence it is against our Talk guidelines.

Posting guidelines on Mumsnet have never simply been about a set of defined rules of what can and can’t be said: we always want to take context into account because this is as much about the kind of community we want, collectively, to create (one that is inclusive, supportive and thoughtful as well as incisive and bold) as about the semantics of what’s written.

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).

I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity here when elsewhere many gender critical feminists have had to put up with extraordinary amounts of incivility and indeed downright harassment. Please be assured that we will continue to insistently make the case for women’s right to be heard on this topic both on Mumsnet and off. But we do believe it’s far more effective to do that from a position of the moral high ground.

My request to Mumsnet is to not split the topic, or if you must, start a new Feminist section for those who don t like the sex and gender debate.

"I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity here"

I don't like that bit. We're not all sat here waiting for permission to be rude to people.

@justineMN

"I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity here"

When you insist on inclusivity, are you insisting that we include natal males in our definition of women?

No

Blimey that message from Justine is somewhat 😬😬

“Disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity here”

I’m really hoping that’s just clumsy phrasing Abd isn’t meant how it’s coming across….

I was annoyed too at that 'Disapointed...' comment too but to be fair (and it's the second time this morning I've written that) the second half of the sentence gives it some context. I think it's equally directed at the likes of some departed TRA posters and midnight gentleman callers.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

"I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity here"

I don't like that bit. We're not all sat here waiting for permission to be rude to people.

I agree, this is worded really badly- no decent respectful person wants to be disrespectful to others.

Feminism chat needs to stay as is. I don't know why there are so many other subtopics under the feminism section so those could be streamlined.

If there has to be another section, can we keep Feminism chat like it is- for all topics on feminism, of which at its core is related to issues on sex and gender- it cannot be separated from feminism. For those who like to come on and complain (without ever bothering to post or actually start threads they claim to be interested in), maybe @MNHQ could create a subtopic called Libfem or something. Where the feminists who want to please men can avoid us nasty vipers over here.

There's no need for any moral high ground. There is a need to observe equality laws correctly, and Mumsnet should be the flagship for that.

The boards were split several years ago because people objected to the radfems. This is no different. Its still the feminists that are being presented as 'the problem', on the board that was created for them.

All that really needs to happen is MNHQ need to be brave enough to make the changes to talk guidelines originally requested in the Site Stuff thread to reflect the outcome of Maya's case. All this talk of reshuffles and subsections is just smoke and mirrors to avoid having to tackle the real problem, which is the backlash those changes would provoke from the 'monitors'. Disappointing to say the least.

No, but I don't think it should be hived off at all. This is being framed by some on twitter as 'even Mumsnet are now trying to get rid of them'.

Especially as the other topics within Feminism are underused - by all means streamline those then. As pps have said, anyone is free to start a thread rather than moan about existing threads within the topic.

@Floisme

I was annoyed too at that 'Disapointed...' comment too but to be fair (and it's the second time this morning I've written that) the second half of the sentence gives it some context. I think it's equally directed at the likes of some departed TRA posters and midnight gentleman callers.

It's also what I thought when I read it. I winced at first, then thought it could be directed at others, not GC Feminists, given the whole of the post about being happy with the ruling.

Wow that message from Justine is a bit tone deaf. I have never been deleted for being rude about Trans people, I have been deleted for such things as pointing out an offender was not female #NotOurCrimes and for expressing pity for a TW. I also noticed that when I started a thread that turned into useful resource thread due to the great FWR MN posters here I subsequently had a number of reports on that username that stopped when I NCed. Deletions are only about rudeness when one feels it’s rude for women to speak up, which is all about gender stereotypes and what sex we are.

It's also what I thought when I read it. I winced at first, then thought it could be directed at others, not GC Feminists, given the whole of the post about being happy with the ruling.

We have recurring threads from Bunbury about being aware of screenshots that can be misconstrued or taken out of context (as they are being by people who are antagonistic to the existence of discussion on these issues). It's a shame that Bunbury's guidance wasn't heeded by somebody who is very media savvy and experienced.

Hmm I wonder if that's why it's so vague and open to interpretation? It would be helpful if Justine could come and clarify but perhaps it's 'safer' not to?

No. I want to discuss my female rights as a woman within the Feminism board. I want to hear from fellow amazing feminists in the feminism board. I want a specific board where I can go to to read and discuss all issues affecting woman and girls.

Where gender issues is impacting on women’s and girls rights, safe spaces and lives, then it obviously needs to be discussed in the feminism board.

What should the new ‘be kind’ board be called? ‘Things that annoy women and also probably annoy men too when you think about it, but aren’t really borne of misogyny because we would prefer not to think about that’?
Is there a move to hive off analytical vs annoyed boards in relation to race, disability, age, sexuality, religion?

Once a man says he's a woman and demands all our rights we've immediately stepped back 70 years. How should this be a sub-category of feminism? It at the crux of everyone. Males taking cross sex hormones are saying now that they will suffer menopause the same as women taking HRT. So can't even talk about menopause anymore without males jumping in.

I think if people are offended by the topics under discussion about women by women in a space for women, then they have two choices: scroll faster (indeed, don't click on the threads that you don't think will suit you is good advice for any Mum's Netter) or go off and start a new platform where feminist issues free from sex and gender can be discussed, and moderate the hell out of it.

I hope MN admin don't start closing down any mention here. I value the fact that people do express their personal opinions openly here; sex and how gender interacts with the sex-based rights and needs of women is integral to modern feminism and to ban talk about it seems bizarre; many members here have found friends and fellow feminists in a space where they can discover that they are not alone despite what other platforms seem to think.

In short: if FWR doesn't work for someone, they're free to leave. Please let this space be free from censure, blocking and denunciation.