Mumsnet is hiving off sex/gender issues into a sub-forum

[YourSexNotGenderIsOnFire]

It sounds like it's happening:
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

Many of us have explained how much we didn't want this and how unworkable it will be, but Mumsnet won't listen.

I honestly feel betrayed, and am just waiting for final confirmation then will delete my account.

Et tu, Justine?

[quote Waitwhat23]@AssassinatedBeauty to my mind, what will happen is the 'general' feminism board may see an initial surge in use (as there may well be some people who don't like the current chat) and will then wane. The 'FWR - women's sex based rights' (as I am choosing to call it) will be seen as a beautifully signposted area for all the people who simply don't want women taking about these issues and will be pointed out as GC views being 'so transphobic that they've had to section them off!'. The sex based rights board will be relentlessly targeted and will then be shut down as there is a general feminist board, which will continue in a toothless version until it sort of dies a death. We then go back to talking about buggies and babies as we 'should'.[/quote]
Yes. Whatever the intent it makes it an easy target.

I think it would be hard for everyone to have to make a call before they post about an attack on women's rights as to whether that attack is being driven primarily by trans ideology or not.

For example single sex loos in schools are a big issue for girls. Trans orgs have been one driver towards unisex loos but it's not primarily a trans issue.

Similarly surrogacy - not even a women's issue according to trans campaigns, "pregnant people" etc, and trans orgs have been very pro surrogacy; so would discussion of surrogacy go on the trans issues or the feminist chat board, or be split between the two depending on who exactly is advocating for surrogacy this time? Or can it go on the feminist chat board even if this week's pro surrogacy rant under discussion comes from a prominent trans person?

It feels to me like this split will be used to label some feminist issues as "anti-trans" when they're not.

I'm more optimistic than some of you, although I'm annoyed about several things: 1) at the expectation that regular posters should be the ones to move over, which strikes me as very entitled behaviour 2) that posters who have lobbied MNHQ privately have had their way over those of us who were prepared to discuss the issue openly and 3) at MNHQ using a thread on a different topic to tell us about it.

However I think the idea that this will stop women talking is delusional.

It is though, I did a tally last night. 37 out of the 50 threads were trans related.

The twitter bot put it at 32 / 50. And this morning was 29/50.

Is everyone who supports this split simply going to maintain the hyperbole. Did you participate in the threads that are not what you and the twitter bot refer to as about ‘trans matters’?

Did you start one for yourself?

So if you want to discuss feminism and trans issues, there’ll be a new board for that. And didn’t you also point out that you will posting on that one too?

So as others have pointed out, what is the point of the two boards. I mean personally. You exaggerate consistently about the degree to which the current board is populated with topics you complain about and then, and do correct me if I am mistaken, you told us you would post on the other thread too.

I don't think it'll stop women talking, I just don't think it'll be on Mumsnet. People will just find other avenues.

One thing that bothers me, aside from being shunted to the dark dingy corner (which is how this feels), is that the initial request was regarding what many of us consider the over moderation of FWR.

This feels like a total distraction from the actual topic of discussion. MN basically said there is no problem with the moderation (blah blah inclusive something) but also we will be moving you along to somewhere else because basically you're the wrong kind of feminists .

@Waitwhat23

I don't think it'll stop women talking, I just don't think it'll be on Mumsnet. People will just find other avenues.

I have thought about this for a while...what happens if one day FWR is suddenly gone. Surely we should be organising some sort of plan B.

For those of us who are not on other social media, maybe we should have another forum we can be directed to. It would be a shame to lose MN as a 'meeting place' but it is simply a facilitator. The contributors who give their time, intelligence, expertise and wit on this board can thrive anywhere.

I've heard ovarit may be one? Is that a good plan b option?

@Waitwhat23

I think you're absolutely right, & if MNHQ can't see it, then I despair for MN as a whole.

I like the name 'Feminism: Women's Sex-Based Rights'. (It beats my idea, which was 'The Elephant in the Room'.)

I propose a change to the content of the sections, though. FWSBR should contain ALL topics to do with feminism, while 'Feminism Chat' (or 'Fake Feminism' as I was going to re-name it) is the one which is marginalised, because it will just contain a few, declining threads in which nobody can mention anything to do with The Unspeakable Elephant. It will operate as a safe feminist space for people who don't really like feminism.

This will make moderation a lot easier, as all MNHQ will have to do is weed out any threads in 'Fake Feminism' which are about The Elephant, possibly moving them to FWSBR. Mods needn't do it the other way round, as FWSBR will accept any & all topics to do with feminism.

As to that email which apparently makes this whole thing necessary , I don't see how having the proposed split will solve the problem the emailer identifies, which is that when a thread is started which is about (alleged) GC views, lots of GC people respond. This seems an unreasonable complaint in the first place: MN allows discussions, it doesn't (yet) only allow in people with certain views or make sure every topic has 50/50 responses - that would kill off AIBU, for a start.

But if MNHQ's proposed split goes ahead, threads which even mention GC will be moved to FWSBR, where GC posters will presumably continue to eat them for breakfast. So where's the advantage to a tiny subset of posters? They will either face the same situation they're in now, or have to post in the safe space where those nasty rough feminists aren't allowed and where they can never mention the rough girls & their dangerous ideas, & never, ever talk about trans issues.

How is that an improvement for that tiny subset?

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer

My observation was you were moaning there were too many discussions on gender. 37. Yet you were responsible for 3% of them. And no you didn't start it even though you clearly wanted to discuss it. Which is why I don't have much faith in the non fwr board being suddenly full of spanking new topics.

Same with every other poster who moan about gender but then don't engage with the non gender boards.

I’m not moaning about anything - I’m stating a fact that the majority of threads on the current FWR board are related to trans issues.

@Helleofabore

It is though, I did a tally last night. 37 out of the 50 threads were trans related.

The twitter bot put it at 32 / 50. And this morning was 29/50.

Is everyone who supports this split simply going to maintain the hyperbole. Did you participate in the threads that are not what you and the twitter bot refer to as about ‘trans matters’?

Did you start one for yourself?

So if you want to discuss feminism and trans issues, there’ll be a new board for that. And didn’t you also point out that you will posting on that one too?

So as others have pointed out, what is the point of the two boards. I mean personally. You exaggerate consistently about the degree to which the current board is populated with topics you complain about and then, and do correct me if I am mistaken, you told us you would post on the other thread too.

When I counted last night it was 37/50 - although I’m on my phone so there’s a chance it wasn’t bang on. I don’t see how that’s hyperbole, the majority of threads started are on trans issues.

I did say I’d post on both. I’m guessing the point is to tidy up the boards so you know where to head related to what interests you. I’d guess the trans board will be the most popular anyway, and both will still come up on active.

Thank goodness, I would live to be able to return to the Feminism chat board without being bombarded with 'GC' posts.

*love

@rbe78

Thank goodness, I would live to be able to return to the Feminism chat board without being bombarded with 'GC' posts.

Why aren't you capable of scrolling past the threads you don't want to read? Also can you link to some of the threads you have started? I'm interested to see what your version of feminism without talking about sex looks like. Thanks.

*When I counted last night it was 37/50 - although I’m on my phone so there’s a chance it wasn’t bang on. I don’t see how that’s hyperbole, the majority of threads started are on trans issues.

I did say I’d post on both. I’m guessing the point is to tidy up the boards so you know where to head related to what interests you. I’d guess the trans board will be the most popular anyway, and both will still come up on active.*

And you didn't respond to my point (not that you're compelled to- it's just you seem to want to state things without actually really engaging in discussion- eg on number of threads etc) about why there are lots of threads relating to trans and gender issues.

And btw- given you've wanted to discuss compromising on language and the importance of not offending people- I find it really offensive that you called it the 'trans board' in your post. Trying again to separate it from being a massive feminist/women's right issue, with no reference to women in that title. Dismissing us as a group of transphobic obsessives.

Someone on another thread made a really good point that many of the discussions around (for example) the gender pay gap have been around for decades, research and theory written about it and the challenge now is to inbed it into real life situations. There's a lot of discussions going on about 'trans issues' because it's a topic which has only come into the public consciousness recently (generally speaking) and there's still a lot of things things to be unpicked. Once the current push of gender ideology settles down a bit, the huge surge of discussion about it will also settle down a bit. As someone on this thread said earlier, if social media had been around during the fight for women to vote, I'm sure that there would have been a huge emphasis on that, despite all the other pressing issues at the time.

Rbe78. When I first arrived here I was on the fence about being GC. I obviously knew gender was bad for feminism, but I had no idea on the clashes between trans demands and women's sex based rights.
I lurked, asked questions, lurked a bit more. I came to a conclusion.
I was very open to the other viewpoint as I desperately wanted the easy way, to be kind.
I and others, most certainly would have.listened to a logical dissenting voice. But all I have seen is cherry picking, accusatory one liners and full blown lying. With a lot of me, me, me thrown in.
Your voice would have been very welcome and it's a shame you don't use it. Perhaps if you'd have engaged you might have put your view across well enough to convince others.
To my mind, an ideology that doesn't allow debate doesn't hold up to.much.

For clarity, The Unspeakable Elephant =/= trans people, it's the current attack on women's sex-based rights, the backlash against the progress women have made in the last 100 years, & the rights clash between various protected characteristics.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

*When I counted last night it was 37/50 - although I’m on my phone so there’s a chance it wasn’t bang on. I don’t see how that’s hyperbole, the majority of threads started are on trans issues.

I did say I’d post on both. I’m guessing the point is to tidy up the boards so you know where to head related to what interests you. I’d guess the trans board will be the most popular anyway, and both will still come up on active.*

And you didn't respond to my point (not that you're compelled to- it's just you seem to want to state things without actually really engaging in discussion- eg on number of threads etc) about why there are lots of threads relating to trans and gender issues.

And btw- given you've wanted to discuss compromising on language and the importance of not offending people- I find it really offensive that you called it the 'trans board' in your post. Trying again to separate it from being a massive feminist/women's right issue, with no reference to women in that title. Dismissing us as a group of transphobic obsessives.

There are lots of threads relating to trans issues because that’s what’s important to people just now. People have a lot of opinions they want to discuss.

I’m calling it ‘trans issues’ because we don’t know what the new board is to be called - what do you want me to use instead?

@ifIwerenotanandroid

For clarity, The Unspeakable Elephant =/= trans people, it's the current attack on women's sex-based rights, the backlash against the progress women have made in the last 100 years, & the rights clash between various protected characteristics.

We can't move forward any further with these longstanding issues if we can't even protect our sex based rights and our children's safety and well-being.

When we are actually going backwards, when harmful gender stereotypes that we have been fighting against for years are becoming more entrenched because of this ideology.

I honestly think it suits our monitors for FWR to continue, albeit more closely corralled. If it did go pouff, I imagine the discussion would just break out on other boards - chat / AIBU etc which would be even harder to keep tabs on. In fact isn't that how FWR came about in the first place?

I could of course be wrong - I remember being all in favour of 'When they go Low we go High' and look how that ended - and I don't deny that this feels like a kick in the teeth. But the issue is out there in the sunlight now. Does anyone seriously think they can stop or even control the discussion on a forum by parents for parents? Cos dream on.

*There are lots of threads relating to trans issues because that’s what’s important to people just now. People have a lot of opinions they want to discuss.

I’m calling it ‘trans issues’ because we don’t know what the new board is to be called - what do you want me to use instead?*

Back to the questions. It's not for me to compel you to call a new board anything- nor would I want to. I just thought given your desire for us to be 'inclusive' and 'compromising' on the language on period products, your have had some sensitivity on the fact that describing a board as a 'trans board' could well be offensive as it implies that trans and gender issues are separate to feminism when most of us here believe that to be incorrect.

I hope someone is archiving all the threads on here which are full of useful information. Just in case, you know...

There may well be a majority of trans delated threads on the board

But thats cos no one posts anything else, its not like there is a filter which means that no one else can post….people just don’t post

And in the same way FWR has had to ignore posters who aren’t there in good faith then it can’t be beyond the wit of women to ignore posters who keep bringing the conversation back to womens rights/trans rights (depending on how you view the issue)

I'm just trying to work this out in my head.
Let's say this happens and there's a radfem and libfem board. Does that mean people who post radfem in the lib fem board will get strikes? Or moved over? Or deleted?

Will it be the same for the rad fem board? Will people posting about sex work is work and just want to pee get deleted etc?

Otherwise it sounds quite unfair.

The other thing I wonder about is. A couple of months ago there was an individual who said they worked with children making all sorts of ludicrous claims,such as it's ok to tell children porn is fun etc. Now, because of the GC feminists being on that thread too the misinformation was quickly debunked, with links to the national curriculum, DfE, general discussion on how safeguarding works. The poster stamped their feet and flounced because they didn't like that their authority was not automatically taken to mean everything they said was correct.

If a lib fem board existed though, with no GC feminists posting on it, those misconceptions would have been allowed to stand. It's like only letting covid deniers post in the covid section. You've then got a situation where Mumsnet is actively helping to spread misinformation. That won't end well.
I mean if the daily mail get hold of the fact that Mumsnet discussion is saying porn for children is a ok they're going to run with that. It's a clickbait gift.