I don't think this is being handled at all well.
There is nothing from MNHQ about the proposed change on Feminism Chat itself, rather talk offstage elsewhere. Which is rude. Basic feminist principles: Nothing about us without us etc.
There is no collective discussion about what impacts the Maya case may have on language here and it was pretty crass to tie the mooting of the upheaval of the new forum to the Maya case language implications discussion in site stuff. Seems like a case of misdirection. Don't look over here, look over there.
Also, pressure is not coming from within feminism chat for a change, but from...? Some emails? Yet it will be imposed on and have the biggest impact on posters already here anyway. Cos we are the ones actually posting and engaging here and providing content and traffic. Whereas the people who have it hidden, don't bother posting, who pop up to say 'good', who don't bother starting threads, or commenting seem to be about to be given the resource others have built up. Most odd.
It's a bit like me demanding that they change style and beauty to suit my needs. Never been on it, never posted but centre me, because I am not included. Because, reasons.
OK, I can see that there is probably some appetite for a Liberal/3rd wave Feminism type board for posters who find the feminists of the current Feminism chat the 'wrong kind of feminist' and it's true they do struggle to get their voice heard.
Personally, I think that this is because their arguments are not strong enough and not robust enough to deal with both the onslaught on women's rights, spaces, language and voices we are experiencing currently and the very strong well argued opinions of the regulars here. But if they had their own section of board, I imagine they would be able to articulate them better or in greater depth.
If Feminism Chat as a forum title makes it seem as if this is the 'only' form of feminism on the site, then I personally have no problems about swapping the name. The new one should be chosen by the members and posters, not mumsnet who have shown themselves to be tone deaf in their handling so far.
The huge mistake, I believe, would be to try to control the content of the boards by saying one is for discussions of sex and gender and the other one isn't. Nothing is that straightforward, particularly when it comes to feminism.
We have already seen evidence on this thread where twitter bots/pp interpreting threads as 'trans issues' is not sufficiently nuanced. PP thought 37, twitter bot thought 29, I'd say 9!
Is a current thread about guides: a trans issue because of guidance with input by Aimee 'incapable of understanding safeguarding' Challenor and Jane 'extreme porn advocate' Fae? A Safeguarding issue? A Single sex Space issue? A Gender over sex issue? A teenage girl issue?
Threads about Sonia Appleby case: Trans issue because about Gids? Safeguarding issue? Black woman being excluded from discussion issue? Protection for whistle-blowers? Health issue?
Maya case: Sex matters issue? Hierarchies of Protected characteristics? Interpretation of the Equality Act 2010? Belief/lack of belief? Free speech? Grainger V? Misgendering non binary people with beards? Work environment/job security for women with 'controversial' views?
I saw a spread sheet with the key words which are used to scrape for tweets to report and girl guides, safeguarding, Maya and Sonia Appleby are all on the long list. JKR too. The three letter abbreviation that dare not speak its name is the top term.
It's a bit like how a previous (possibly now banned?) poster always used to try to get threads on teens with gender issues moved to the LGBT board rather than appreciating that the thread starter had wanted a specifically feminist response.
The point is that there could be parallel discussions on any or all of these topics from a lib fem and an FWR point of view.
And posters could pick the approach they would prefer if they really want to talk about the issues but had a different feminist belief. That is one of the things that Maya's case showed us. We are allowed to express our belief or lack of belief.
And, please God, the more egregious comments as exemplified by the SRE worker would still be picked up by lib fems with a working knowledge of safeguarding?