So Mumsnet ignored our request to have something to do with 'feminism' or 'women' in the name of the 'naughty step' subtopic

[StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind]

So we now have

Feminist Chat (which was our space anyway)

Sex and gender debate

If they had to go ahead with this spineless nonsense plan, many of us on the preferred names thread suggested it was essential to include feminism in the naughty step topic. You cannot take the debate on sex/gender away from feminism.

I think my suggestion was:

Feminism: Women's Sex Based Rights

LibFem

So not only are they ignoring us and forging ahead with this crap, they've removed any relationship to feminism and women from the subtopic name.

Absolutely disgusted. This feels so reminiscent of the erasure of the word 'women' in so many contexts. To take the word feminist out of this subtopic- @MNHQ can you explain this? Because it's awful.

So far seeing a few ha ha lolz posts which seem to be more about expressing glee and hostility towards GC feminists than...

well, this supposed desperation to talk about feminism without any reference to GC issues because they were so off putting and not something all these desperate to post feminists wanted to talk about. Odd.

I think I get it more now, if it is just a basic business decision and they feel having us around costs them money. It’s their livelihood after all. It’s just sad. And I find it weird that AIBU is considered a fine contributor to the marketplace of ideas, but FWR is seen as a bit yucky. But I will not stop coming here. I am not tech savvy enough for the alternatives, and Reddit threw the feminists to the wolves and I have neither the interest or the stomach to go on Kiwi Farms. MN FWR kept the right balance, I thought. But it’s comforting to see the word feminism in the title. I hope the journalists still have it bookmarked. If there could be a quick button to get to the other feminism chat, so I can easily flip between looking for tips on how to support a gender non-conforming child, and then after that go to share my own story about IUD pain relief, that would also make me feel like it was less of a “sorry we need the guest room for some friends we like more than you, but if you need to you can stay in the shed.”

I think I get it more now, if it is just a basic business decision and they feel having us around costs them money. It’s their livelihood after all. yes! In the same week as the OU told their TRA detractors to step off!

Andrew Neale again saying the same to his TRA agitators.

Guess what happened when such aggressions were directly challenged with a no nonsense response?

I'm sure it was a business decision but MN is a business and we're the product. I'm still pissed off, not least at the way this was done, however on balance, this is still the only forum I know where the discussion is out in the open, plus our presence clearly still bugs the hell out of some people and, for as long as that continues, I'll probably stick around.

I will use both boards which will be annoying but personally I'm through with making 'Where are all these topics you couldn't talk about?' type of posts. I've made them myself these last couple of weeks so I'm not having a pop but I'm moving on now. The new chat board may fall flat on its face or it may not. We'll see. Love and peas.

@jellybeansforbreakfast

I think I get it more now, if it is just a basic business decision and they feel having us around costs them money. It’s their livelihood after all. yes! In the same week as the OU told their TRA detractors to step off!

Andrew Neale again saying the same to his TRA agitators.

Guess what happened when such aggressions were directly challenged with a no nonsense response?

Yes. Never pay the ransom. Dont try and pay off a blackmailer. It's like pouring blood in the water and thinking "Duh, where did these sharks come from?"

Remember what Birds Eye answered when the pathetic TRAs wanted erasure of all contact with Mumsnet.

I think they said "Potato Waffles"
Is that the frozen food giant's version of "Go well" 😂

I've only been here a short while (after Googling Mark Lawson's radio play Baselines and the only thing that came up was "Blimey!"..... which led me to Mumsnet's feminist thread). I've really enjoyed reading and commenting on topics that I dare not mention anywhere else... not really got the hang of it yet, so can't really judge the changes. I just hope we can continue to express ourselves freely here....

Potato!

One of the best responses to any social media challenge ever

I have huge sympathy for MNHQ and the issue of losing advertisers.

On the other hand, Mumsnet only exists because women are female people. All that advertising for diapers, pumping equipment, baby clothes, suppliers of services to children, etc, all of that is because babies exist. And babies exist because they come from women (the female kind). When women talk about the anguish of their infertility, that is female-type infertility. When they complain about menopause, menopause only exists because it marks the end of an [adult human female] woman's childbearing years. When women come here to say that they don't know what to do because their partner is abusing them but they can't leave because they are now pregnant by same partner and cannot support a child on their own, that only happens because those women are female, and the partners male.

Trying to have a discussion board for women, and for mothers, but attempting to minimise and silo discussion about women's sex-based rights, seems like a contradiction.

I haven't RTFT but would like to highlight that any "debate" would be about sex and gender identity (not gender). MNHQ changed the title of the special FWR rules to reflect this. It is curious that there seems to have been a backsliding.

Good point Rowantrees.

I posted recently in the Women's Health topic and that really sums it up for me.
Every single person posting or reading that knows exactly what kind of topics are in there and the types of bodies that it relates to.
We all know. MN too. Unless they're going to change it to just plain 'Health' which would then include male bodies or, god forbid, 'Vagina, Vulva, Cervix, Uterus, Breast, Menopausal, Estrogen/Progesterone and other XX Related Hormones, and or Birth-related Health' then frankly, it's not being very consistent.
Every single bloody person on this site knows what a woman is the moment they stop tying themselves in knots trying to be kind to people who aren't being very kind to us.

@ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn

Has this ever happened before here, where decisions about a topic are made based on the opinions of those who don't use the topics and existing topic user views are dismissed?

It does come across as MN not wanting to 'host this debate' when it's presented like this.

I'm reminded of the introduction to the AIBU topic. A lot of the (original) MNers didn't want it, they said it would be the undoing of MN, that lots of people would look no further, that it would take over, and that many people who could give valuable advice and insight on other boards would never go further than AIBU.

(Someone very prescient might even have said journos would use it for material, but I'm not sure about that one.)

I’m fairly new to “this” board, mainly been lurking, reading and learning. Was a bit confused this morning, after a couple of days away from the board, to come back and see the split.

Other, more knowledgable posters, have come up with much better board names, so I’m not even going to try. But the word debate feels totally wrong to me. There is no debate at all about being a woman. And no debate at all about being concerned and standing up for our rights.

For those that have been highlighting and educating on these issues for a considerable amount of time, I can completely understand your disappointment at how this has been brought in.

I clicked on the “drop down” link today in automatic pilot mode (didn’t clock that the name had changed). Interesting that it brought me to this rather than the “chat” section.

As others have said, slightly odd that those who are “against” these discussions are on this board still voicing their arguments. Surely they’d be happier avoiding the subject - after all, it’s now much easier for them to do so!

"As others have said, slightly odd that those who are “against” these discussions are on this board still voicing their arguments."

I've been on here a while and "What the feminist board on mumsnet is like" is a weirdly popular point of discussion, almost like it has any bearing on the things actually being discussed. I'll sit back and let them have it for now, until they are just discussing themselves!

Well, the last memorable drive by 'your not feminist ING right' complained that threads with gravity weren't being started and then, when told they should start their own thread, started a very 'light' personal topic.
Nothing wrong with anecdotal or light threads, but a bit galling if you've been insisting everyone else is ignoring the 'big issues'.

You're not you're.
I wish Mumsnet would allow grammar edits. I'd be more up for that than a split board.
Although I do think non editing is good for historical evidence.

I am sure this has been said before, but my assumption is that Justine wants to sell the site, but has found it difficult because of the Terf reputation. So split the naughty lot off and sell in two parts. The latter having little value but an assumption that some GC site will take it on.

That said the tide is turning and perhaps GC views, which MN were originally so brave in hosting, is becoming mainstream. Who knows, soon we may be accepted as being on the right side of history and the traffic we generate may be of value to future purchasers.

What makes you think Justine wants to sell? Couldn't she just be trying to hang on to advertising?

There was a discussion on another site, which now no longer exists, about a year ago that suggested MN might be up for sale. I have no idea if it is true but can't see why not. Justine has been doing this for a long time.

If it is, I can see the attraction of separating out the more contentious debate to attract corporate purchasers. For a long time MN was almost unique in being willing to host debate on GC issues, which we should be grateful for. However I am sure it came at a price, both in terms of lost revenue, and also in terms of straight unpleasantness for both staff and owners.

I am begining to think this is more political than anything. And that maybe MNHQ have been the willing dupe.

ie the tactic is to segregate the discussion about women's sex based rights (and misleading inappropriately inserting gender into the title).

Then the chat board becomes about equality issues because the end game is to make it look that GC feminists actually dont care about women, they are just anti trans.

So all the TRAs are splitting their sides laughing at mumsnet doing their mansplaining for them.

eg there is a guest post about deliberate underfunding of early years services but only posted on the chat board. Hint, hint, those horrible harpies who talk about sex based rights dont care about mothers or children.

So mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist.

@stumbledin

I am begining to think this is more political than anything. And that maybe MNHQ have been the willing dupe.

ie the tactic is to segregate the discussion about women's sex based rights (and misleading inappropriately inserting gender into the title).

Then the chat board becomes about equality issues because the end game is to make it look that GC feminists actually dont care about women, they are just anti trans.

So all the TRAs are splitting their sides laughing at mumsnet doing their mansplaining for them.

eg there is a guest post about deliberate underfunding of early years services but only posted on the chat board. Hint, hint, those horrible harpies who talk about sex based rights dont care about mothers or children.

So mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist.

Except there’s nothing stopping people posting on both boards.

I don’t think there’s a massive conspiracy behind the move, and I’d say very few on mumsnet are ‘anti-trans’ - I just think it’s a hot topic and so has been given it’s own board for clarity.

Oh dear Pumperthepumper - another complete misunderstanding of what I said.

Nobody is anti trans. They are interested in women's sex based rights, but TRAs try to say that women talking about their own rights based on the sex they are born are anti trans.

So they have goady and pressurised MNHQ into creating a sanitised feminist "chat" board - where of course women are talking about their sex based rigths.

But visually it makes it look like there is a division.

As in MNHQ only posting the guest post about underfunding in the Chat board and not the other one - ie a clear indication that MNHQ have bought into this drivel that women who talk about their sex based rights aren't interested in equality issues.

It so blatantly obvious.

mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist.

Yep.

@stumbledin

Oh dear Pumperthepumper - another complete misunderstanding of what I said.

Nobody is anti trans. They are interested in women's sex based rights, but TRAs try to say that women talking about their own rights based on the sex they are born are anti trans.

So they have goady and pressurised MNHQ into creating a sanitised feminist "chat" board - where of course women are talking about their sex based rigths.

But visually it makes it look like there is a division.

As in MNHQ only posting the guest post about underfunding in the Chat board and not the other one - ie a clear indication that MNHQ have bought into this drivel that women who talk about their sex based rights aren't interested in equality issues.

It so blatantly obvious.

It’s not though, unless you’re saying nobody on this board can post on the other one. You’re free to do what you like - but if your post is about the trans overlap it goes here.

Also, I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘nobody is anti-trans’ because I’m sure some people are. Which is why I said ‘I’d say very few on mumsnet are ‘anti-trans’.

Yes. Never pay the ransom. Dont try and pay off a blackmailer. It's like pouring blood in the water and thinking "Duh, where did these sharks come from?"

Absolutely, the first time MN caved to demands from TRA's they made themselves a target for bullying. The discussion here might well have been forgotten about but the constant accusations of transphobia bought more people to FWR to see for themselves what was going on. If they are so convinced we'll be on the wrong side of history then why are they are desperate to shut us down?

Its interesting that TRA's don't target KF, is it possible they leave them alone because they don't want to draw attention to the information posted there about some high profile people in the trans community and because the farmers don't give a fuck and won't be bullied.