Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We've given lots of thought to our moderation policies around trans rights and sex and gender issues and thought it would be a good idea to articulate where we stand in the form of a clear statement, so everyone can be clear about our moderation going forward. You can find it here. Hope it provides a helpful reference point. Thanks.

[BeUpStanding]

Thanks for hosting the debate

[Fingernailvarnish]

I am not 100% clear on what is and isn't allowed, I will do my best.

Interesting to read that some posters have been reporting posts, wasting MNHQ time, excessively.

[CunningOperative]

Ah, well. It was nice while it lasted. Goodbye and thanks for all the fish

[LangCleg]

Justine - if you're going to operate a three strikes system, then I think you're also going to have to tell people when they've had a post reported and deleted so that we actually know when or if we've gone wrong - and indeed, appeal or object if we think it's unfair. Few of us go back and check every thread we've posted in to see if what we've said still stands and we've been asking you to tell us when we've overstepped for ages now.

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

Agree about aggression towards mods.

Will there be a similar statement about discussion of lesbians and our right to define our sexuality in our own terms?

[Mumsnut]

Sane, sensible stuff. Thanks Mumsnet.

[LangCleg]

Also, threads can get heated and I've seen several recent ones where people on both sides of the argument - but not me! Hooray! Mind you, I haven't checked every single post of mine so it might be me too. Boo! - have had three or more posts deleted in just that thread. Even with everyone being careful and with the best will in the world, this is still going to happen. Why don't you make the three strike rule about threads not posts?

[SlothSlothSloth]

Seems fair.

[Ereshkigal]

Agree, there absolutely needs to be an appeals process. I'm sorry but some of your mods are more reasonable than others. I'm saying as much for pro trans posters as I am for gender critical ones. I think the term cis is goady but not everyone does. Other people think being able to call male people male is a right we should be able to have and essential for discussion of these issues. Where are you going to draw the line?

[SlothSlothSloth]

Thanks, MN.

[Fingernailvarnish]

May I post Trans identified XY person?

[RatRolyPoly]

Nice one MN. Particularly agree on respecting your mod team; thanks for all the work they've been putting in so far.

[NotBadConsidering]

We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people

I presume this means as a group in relation to their trans status? Surely I'm allowed to say or criticise someone for their actions or express a negative view on them even if they happen to be trans? Can I still call Ian Huntley an evil-fucker child killer? I have no issue with the former but the latter is worrying; I would hope not to elevate individuals to a level beyond criticism just because of how they identify.

[Ereshkigal]

Biologically male trans person.

[SwearyG]

I like trans-identified XY person, fingernail it’s very good. TIXY for short?

[Ereshkigal]

If we are to discuss biology which is critically important to these issues how can we differentiate? Is that ok? They are after all biologically male.

[daimbars]

Thanks Justine for the the post, I can see a lot of thought has gone into it and it's a really positive step.

I appreciate GC feminists are affronted with the terms CIS and TERF and many pro trans posters are equally affronted with the term 'transactivist' or TRA which has the same negative connotations and is used as a slur on here. Could you look at including TRA in your list please.

Please can I also ask you consider deleting posts that associate transgender people with autogynephila (AGP) as this crops up quite a lot.

[hackmum]

"That said, it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns, or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but it’s likely that going forward our moderation team will delete these expressions."

Well, this is going to be interesting. I reckon about 50% of posts will go on that basis!

[Ereshkigal]

Daim, I'll point out that both you and I would have been suspended by now. You got three posts deleted on one thread yesterday and so did I. So did Picasso. So did others. I don't think I said anything particularly wrong. Maybe you didn't either. So I am concerned.

[RatRolyPoly]

I'm personally quite glad TIF/TIM & TERF are going. I'm not personally offended by any of these (probably because none of them have ever been applied to me as a slur), but they do seem to cause a lot of upset.

There are alternatives; GIC feminist, feminine/masculine presenting trans person; I'm sure we'll find the words so that everybody knows which group we're referring to.

[PsychoPumpkin]

All sounds extremely fair to me.

It’s definitely possible to keep the debate going without crossing the line.

[ShotsFired]

Interesting how "trans identified woman" / "TIW" isn't an issue though.

You'd think if it was such an unambiguously offensive term, they'd be shouting as loudly as the biologically male version. So where are they (in real life and in MN statement)?

[daimbars]

Ereshkigal my posts were deleted as they quoted what you and Picasso had said.

[RatRolyPoly]

I think that's because each side of the argument thinks "trans identified woman" applies to a different group of people Shots

[Goldenbug]

As long as the suspension isn't done by computer. 3 posts deleted for 'meanness' is different to 3 posts deleted for accidental posting in the wrong forum of double posting.