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.

My point wasn't meant to be dismissive of posters, who of course are vital for creating content. It's simply that if the content is generated by a smallish number of regular posters, that is fine if that's what attracts - high number of views and clicks.

@ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn

IIRC feminism chat was the second or third (?) most clicked topic/threads. As advertising spends are based on clicks that's pretty significant.

MN is absolutely reliant on posters, we are all the content providers.

Also-

How many of them were people coming to see what bigot central looks like?

That drives an awful lot of traffic that comes to get first I'd bet.

I thought the money was from clicking on the actual ads?

Although I don't know much about it tbh.

Calling it sex based rights is a bad idea .

It would mean pretty much all the posts had to be here! Given the whole of feminism is about women's rights.

We know what MN want this topic for. A name that satisfies them and isn't awful for us. And that won't get them a whole guardian edition devoted entirely to how evil we are. Is the aim.

And thinking about it. Sex based rights is also not good because a massive lot of things being objected to are not legal rights, but longstanding social convention etc.

@JustineMumsnet in a few weeks would you be willing to give high-level data on how many people who hid the FWR topic now have both topics hidden? I'm just curious to get a feel for this silent majority!

Sex-based feminism, then?

It has to specifically reference feminism., imo. It has to reference sex, imo.

Although, to be honest I think I’ll just continue using the ‘other topic’ and talking about sex where it’s entirely relevant. Which given that it’s a feminism topic would be everywhere, wouldn’t it.

@TinselAngel

I'm not very happy that the trans widows threads have been moved to a section with "debate" in the title.

This too.

Debate has always gone on here but FWR (Feminism and Women's Rights in case you forgot) is so much more than that. It's been a tremendous source of support for countless women as well as a space to do consciousness raising, research and organising.

By labelling this topic 'debate' you are throwing away all of that. You're inviting everyone to come and fight us.

You are removing support for transwidows, for children, parents and siblings, for women who are worried about situations at work or where they volunteer, or in their child's school, or in their hostel, shelter, hospital ward, refuge, support group etc. Or in their trade union, political party or campaign group, or in their literature, embroidery or knitting group etc. etc.

If you want to be the platform that hosts the 'Sex And Gender Debate' then put it in politics not feminism. Throw it wide open. Lots of people who are not feminists have something to say about this. You could say, 'This is a debate topic and we expect posters to argue in good faith. We will not tolerate personal attacks or language which breaks the law, however we encourage posters not to interpret political opinions as personal attacks.'

I would join in a good faith debate under those terms as long as you also supported a feminist space for transwidows and all the other women and children who are being harmed by those who 'don't believe in sex-based rights'.

If there's no feminist space for trans widows then this is not a feminist space.

Hear hear @LangClegsInSpace

I'm a fairly frequent name-changer. I've just checked and a thread I started good while ago, under a different name, asking for advice and support about a trans-related issue at my DC's school that upset my DC, has been moved to Sex and Gender Debate. It was not something I saw as a debate, or wanted to be a debate. I wasn't asking if I was being unreasonable.

The concept of 'debate' on Mumsnet is somewhat synonymous with AIBU, yet we know that MNHQ won't tolerate the tone on this board that is allowed on there.

And by a "good while ago" I mean years.

Debate?

Oh dear...

The concept of 'debate' on Mumsnet is somewhat synonymous with AIBU, yet we know that MNHQ won't tolerate the tone on this board that is allowed on there.

Good point. Are we still stifled here - is there still an ever-growing list of topics and words and abbreviations we are not to mention?

@ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn

I find the idea that the fwr board and this topic are somehow vital to MN success really peculiar. It's tiny compared to the rest of the site.

It's really not.

@datun had some figures, tagging for her attention.

I cant find the original post from HQ. They gave some figures because a poster asked.

But I've searched my own posts and came up with this from Jan 2019.

"Mumsnet has twelve million unique users per month. The feminist board is in the top three of dozens of boards in terms of popularity."

"As far as I recall, HQ confirmed that people accessing the site via the feminist board increased twelve fold in one year and was 177,000 in one month. Accessing. So newbies."

I don't think HQ want to reveal this sort of data any more. It's a different culture, even since 2019.

I cant remember what else they said, other than FWR was a significant entry point for new posters. And traffic was going a bit mad.

As MSM reports more and more on this issue, I imagine traffic is still increasing. I know it is elsewhere, as more and more people get involved.

'"As far as I recall, HQ confirmed that people accessing the site via the feminist board increased twelve fold in one year and was 177,000 in one month. Accessing. So newbies.'

They didn't necessarily register.

How many came to see how horrible it is.

I mean we don't know.

I really don't think that losing this conversation or a lot of the more frequent posters would impact them. I really don't.

They didn't have to host this. It's the only place afaik that is open that it's allowed in any way.

I really love this site. It changed my life. It has for so many women.

The whole site has always been s target and the get especially.

They don't need the DDOS attacks and the worse stuff that's happened.

They do not have to do it.

I really don't understand how others really feel the GC conversations on this site are fundamental to their business/ success etc.

I've mentioned that I think (may well be wrong) that the posters on this topic are less likely to meet the cohort the advertisers are interested in.

This is super confusing. Isn't the rape of nuns part of the subjugation of women based on sex? Why is it in feminism instead of sex and gender?

I've not read the full thread so apologies if I've missed.
I'm GC
I imagine they haven't gone for sex based rights as that may be felt to imply them taking a "side" perhaps?
Rather going for a more neutral title with debate in it implies some kind of neutrality

Loads of threads in feminism chat go on to discuss issues of identifying as the opposite sex; one is there where I've done it myself as it is relevant to the discussion, which is a wider one about feminism. So it's a bit pointless.

It's annoying switching but as a result I'm seeing more threads I suppose. (I'm in the app.)

Just have to make sure loads goes to aibu too I suppose.

I've just read through the thread (although it's been a sleepless night so I may have missed things) but i can't can't see anything mentioned.
Was "gender critical feminism" considered? Isn't that most descriptive and actually contains the word feminism. Plus takes into account that

(Oops posted too soon) ....plus takes into account that not all discussions are "debates", there are a lot of support and advice threads within this subject.

My concern about the split and unfortunately I haven't RTFT is that in Feminist Chat I often came across threads that I might not normally read. This meant that sometimes my support was given where I might normally have missed the issue. This should be concerning for all Feminists.

I hope I don't miss something important. We should start a look on the other board thread, on both of them, somewhat like Bunbury's and Bluestocking

In tempted to start any threads in feminism chat and let the mods decide where it goes. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@WarriorN

In tempted to start any threads in feminism chat and let the mods decide where it goes. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Tbf I think there are many many GC threads where "feminism chat" is the more appropriate topic as they may not be looking for a debate (maybe looking for advice or support) but GC discussion is still feminist chat

Yea I agree.

The thread about female hormones and female athletes and injury risk was briefly plopped in sex and gender. Wasn't a debate. Was feminist research. V glad to see it swiftly moved back.

@JustineMumsnet

Hi all. We considered Feminism - sex and gender but rejected it because Google doesn't like long titles for search purposes and second because it. However you'll notice the url of this topic is women's rights and that it is housed in the Feminism and women's rights category.

@JustineMumsnet, the bit about Google not liking long titles is outdated. Their Search Relations team now say that they’re absolutely fine & can be a good thing as long as you don’t go over the top.

www.seroundtable.com/amp/google-longer-title-tags-seo-30985.html

Justine originally I wasn't as bothered as some about having 'feminism' in the title but your reference to google is making me think again. Is this board less likely to show up in a google search if there's no mention of 'Feminism'? Because if so, then it hardly needs saying that's very concerning.

It also feels quite provocative (even if not intentionally) to allow one of the boards to keep the word while removing it from the other.

If the number of words is an issue then 'Feminism: sex and gender' for me. I don't think the word 'debate' is doing much heavy work in this context - this is already a discussion board.