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 think this would be a grave mis-step on the part of Mumsnet -- we are seeing more and more light being shed on the GC issue by the mainstream media, in political and legal arenas and elsewhere.
The tide seems to be turning as awareness of all the implications grows.

It's no time to bury our heads in the sand and separate the GC viewpoint and discussion from other feminist issues, there are simply too many crossover points.
Equal pay and employment or promotion issues? Tick. Safety and VAWG? Tick. Blurring the lines of the patriarchy? Big tick.

I think it should be left as it is as our biological sex is central to everything we experience as women. However, if posters are thinking about the Equality Act I don’t imagine the Act would apply here.

Gender ideology is what feminists have been fighting since the days of Mary Wollstonecraft and its current resurgence is the biggest threat to women in years. All other issues on this board go back to this because gender ideology is at the root of all sexism and misogyny. If we cannot name the problem, if we cannot state the truth, if we cannot state who is a man and who is a woman then we are deprived of the language to describe our conditions and enact women's rights.

Currently we are fighting:

1. Women being defined as a sexist stereotype.

2. Children who reject sexist stereotypes being medically altered.

3. Children who are gay or lesbian being medically altered.

4. Lesbians being punished if they refuse to have sex with men.

5. Language and statistics being altered to tell lies and obfuscate relevant sex-based data.

6. Women being disempowered to exclude predators from their most vulnerable spaces.

7. Women being disempowered to exclude MRAs from their political organising.

8. Women being disempowered from having any space that isn't male-centred and male-dominated, e.g. sports.

9. Any attempt to speak about the above being shut down with aggressive and totalitarian tactics.

I can't think of a single issue on this board that isn't linked to biology, gender ideology and the existence of women in male-dominated space, particularly as the gender fans tend also to be fans of porn, prostitution, surrogacy and all the other things that keep us down. Creating another topic just feels like an attempt to stop us making the connections.

I think splitting the board is a terrible idea but it wouldn't be an Equality Act breach.

Pro and anti Brexit views are almost certainly protected by the Equality Act but posts on those topics still get moved from eg AIBU to the Brexit board.

I'll just leave the site if they split it though 🤷‍♀️

Pro and anti Brexit views are almost certainly protected by the Equality Act but posts on those topics still get moved from eg AIBU to the Brexit board.

Posts being moved from a general board to a specialist board is one thing but it’s quite different from what MNHQ are proposing.

Detriment and chilling effect could be suffered if a newbie (or any woman) posts a thread related to sex based rights in the main feminism chat and then has their thread removed to a sex and gender board.

It absolutely sends the message that their views are niche or unwanted or unpalatable rather than being the bones of feminisms as another pp said.

And the idea of policing individual posts, (and what, deleting them entirely?) which are ‘too related to sex and gender issues’ and thus not ‘on topic’ is nothing other than the most sinister censorship.

If you are not already a member some may like the discussion site Ovarit. You need a code to join but you can get one by DMing Ovarit on twitter.

ovarit.com/

twitter.com/WomenAreOvarit

Thanks Christina what are the options if we not on Twitter?

Posts being moved from a general board to a specialist board is one thing but it’s quite different from what MNHQ are proposing.

But that is how an outsider would view the sex/gender subforum. "Oh it's just moving it to the specialist board".

I do agree with the rest of your post btw. I think the idea is awful - I just think it would silly to suggest that it would lead to an actionable discrimination claim.

@CatsInTheirHats

Thanks Christina what are the options if we not on Twitter?

You can also ask them on spinster.xyz

Members of Ovarit also have codes once they reach a certain level but they may be wary of sharing them with complete strangers on the internet…

Hmmm,a group of people being told they are actually just a subset who should be hidden away. What does that remind me of?

I find I am spending increasingly more time on Ovarit and spinster to be honest.

I did a search on spinster for mumsnet to find other mumsnetters to follow as many will have mentioned mumsnet in posts or bios. I post more on ovarit and mainly lurk and like on spinster.

Do not split the board.

"Given the ruling yesterday, Mumsnetshouldbe saying 'our users have the right to talk about these issues'. "

This proposal is simply an opportunity to report, challenge and censor those who wish to discuss women's rights from a biological perspective rather than a self ID perspective.

I strongly disagree.

@CatsInTheirHats

Thanks Christina what are the options if we not on Twitter?

You could try emailing the admins [email protected] but I guess if they can see your twitter or other social media they can see you're genuinely interested in the conversation and not a troll. They will no doubt tell you how to proceed at any rate.

Thanks ChristinaXYZ I totally understand the need to be careful. I’ll have a read 👍