FWR proposals - discriminatory?

[Tibtom]

We have just had it clarified that believing you cannot change sex is a protected belief (as well as a scientific fact). MN are now proposing to separate those with this belief as intrinsic to women's rights from discussion of women's rights. It feels like an attempt to silence the voice of those with this protected characteristic and stop them taking part in this discussion.

I believe this would be discrimination based on the protected characteristic of belief.

I know it's been said on other threads but bloody hell, how did we get to the point that saying it's impossible to change biological sex is a 'belief', something to be 'claimed' (as worded in the crap BBC article about Maya) rather than the FACT that it is?!

Sorry for the rant. I agree with you OP.

Subject headings are not equality discrimination. Slightly bonkers idea.

I think it makes sense as the subject is huge and needs it's own subject header.

Subject headings are not equality discrimination. Slightly bonkers idea.

Having you posts moved away from an active board because of your beliefs is discrimination.

What does FWR mean, I see it everywhere and googled but I cannot figure it out.

Feminism and women's rights

@Cailin66

What does FWR mean, I see it everywhere and googled but I cannot figure it out.

It refers to this board. It stands for Feminism/Women's Rights, I believe :)

FWR was changed to feminism chat, presumably women's rights are antagonistic to some people!

The board is active because of this subject, the other boards will be quieter.

Your posts are not being moved away. There's currently 6 titles under feminist chat and they are mostly a bit vague or underused. Clarity is good.

@Cailin66

What does FWR mean, I see it everywhere and googled but I cannot figure it out.

Well, ironically, it's the title of the board before they moved it the last time! Feminism and Women's Rights. However, the name stuck.

This time it might be identity politics some people are objecting to seeing but many people, generally, disapprove of women organising to fight for their rights. It doesn't really matter what the focus is.

The way I read it was because all discussion on general women's rights gets railroaded by trans issues. I'm not saying that trans issues aren't a major concern to many but there's other issues to discuss and it's not helpful to see them getting drawn into a certain narrative. Splitting the subject allows those who wish to discuss wider women's rights a safe space without being told they are wrong because they support the rights of those who are transgender, my DD's (and many young people) are in this camp.

I'm not saying whose right or wrong, just that everyone deserves a voice

This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a safe space.

Your posts are not being moved away.

For now. But if any post discussing impact of males being allowed into women's refuges or safeguarding of girls in schools because boys are allowed in girls changing rooms is moved to a quieter/less publically visible site then the poster has suffeted a detriment due to their beliefs and that is discrimination.

And I object to the insinuation that I don't support the rights of those who are transgender. The point of disagreement is over who is entitled to women's rights

@motogogo

The way I read it was because all discussion on general women's rights gets railroaded by trans issues. I'm not saying that trans issues aren't a major concern to many but there's other issues to discuss and it's not helpful to see them getting drawn into a certain narrative. Splitting the subject allows those who wish to discuss wider women's rights a safe space without being told they are wrong because they support the rights of those who are transgender, my DD's (and many young people) are in this camp.

I'm not saying whose right or wrong, just that everyone deserves a voice

I don't get it though, how can you discuss issues that affect women if we can't say who is a woman, it dilutes the problems.

@Floisme

This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a safe space.

AIBU, Doghouse, some TV topics - there aren't many safe spaces (in the conventional meaning) on MN.

It feels the world is startled at the reality of women.

The way I read it was because all discussion on general women's rights gets railroaded by trans issues

@Tibtom

The way I read it was because all discussion on general women's rights gets railroaded by trans issues

This!

I see it as moving the gender critical posts to a beautifully signposted area for the benefit of those who relentlessly monitor and report posts because they don't like women talking about these issues.

Given that any post on AIBU which is seen to be discussing 'trans issues' is predictably told to get back to the FWR board, it's hardly difficult to predict that any post which touches on sex or gender (even in the most vague way) will be told to get to the 'Sex and Gender' board or reported as being on the wrong board. It's going to stifle conversation, cause confusion and provide a target for misogynistic monitors.

Given the ruling yesterday, Mumsnet should be saying 'our users have the right to talk about these issues'. I really don't know why this isn't happening.

Surely the activity will follow the topic?

As others said the reality of binary sex and the science based definition of a woman as an adult human female are fundamental to women’s rights. Women’s rights are necessarily based our biological differences to men and the way our bodies are specific to our reproductive role in the human species.

Not to mention many of us come here because this is one of the few places we can discuss the threats to our sex based rights and definitions, and gender identity ideologues come here for precisely the same reason so surely this new board will be where all the activity will be...

It’s impossible to discuss women’s rights without discussions of the impact of biological sex and gender stereotypes on women specifically and society in general. I fail to understand the logic in this suggested reorganisation; I read Justine’s comments on the thread discussing this idea and, from reading her comments, I feel that MNHQ is creating a cul-de-sac for discussions of sex and gender as a downgrading or a punishment or a way to ensure FWR is liberal feminism only - no second wave, no radfems, no Marxist feminism with its pesky emphasis on the existence of material reality.

If FWR is such a highly-trafficked board (it was certainly the reason I came to MN to see what was going on and FWR was the reason I created an account to follow discussions and now that I’ve been here a while I read quite a few other boards too) why do MNHQ want to silo it off and probably make it harder to use a?

Two issues with that:

1. Will it be as visible? If not then we have suffered a detriment.
2. Will I be banned from discussing my belief that sex is unchangeable and fundamental to human rights on boards discussing women's rights? If so I have suffered another detriment.

@DaisiesandButtercups

Not to mention many of us come here because this is one of the few places we can discuss the threats to our sex based rights and definitions, and gender identity ideologues come here for precisely the same reason so surely this new board will be where all the activity will be...

This. I can’t discuss this in real life because I would be ostracised, despite having relatively moderate GC views. This is a feminist issue. Moving the discussion to a separate space is being done to prove that we are all hateful transphobes and to try to separate this discussion from feminism (which is bollocks). Imagine if someone said they were fed up with seeing posts about male violence on FWR and tried to get MNHQ to create a separate area for them so that they didn’t clutter up the feminist area. My response to this is Fuck. Off.

Concealing it will render it invisible (look at the number of times FWR makes 'Trending' and disappears for unclear reasons). And people will carry on wondering why women didn't speak up about these important contemporary issues. And preference falsification will continue to be a meaningful phenomenon that is tantamount to gaslighting wider society as to what is happening and the erosion of the human rights of women and those of us who have a sexual orientation and not a gender orientation.

(Quoting the book summary below.)

www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674707580

Preference falsification, according to the economist Timur Kuran, is the act of misrepresenting one’s wants under perceived social pressures. It happens frequently in everyday life, such as when we tell the host of a dinner party that we are enjoying the food when we actually find it bland. In Private Truths, Public Lies, Kuran argues convincingly that the phenomenon not only is ubiquitous but has huge social and political consequences. Drawing on diverse intellectual traditions, including those rooted in economics, psychology, sociology, and political science, Kuran provides a unified theory of how preference falsification shapes collective decisions, orients structural change, sustains social stability, distorts human knowledge, and conceals political possibilities.

A common effect of preference falsification is the preservation of widely disliked structures. Another is the conferment of an aura of stability on structures vulnerable to sudden collapse. When the support of a policy, tradition, or regime is largely contrived, a minor event may activate a bandwagon that generates massive yet unanticipated change.

In distorting public opinion, preference falsification also corrupts public discourse and, hence, human knowledge. So structures held in place by preference falsification may, if the condition lasts long enough, achieve increasingly genuine acceptance. The book demonstrates how human knowledge and social structures co-evolve in complex and imperfectly predictable ways, without any guarantee of social efficiency.

What a load of pointless drama.