Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

Maryz - absolutely. And the “friendly face personal named poster” is as Big Brother a position as they come. Justine should be deeply ashamed at such blatant hypocrisy.

But we have to talk about biology.

Why not ban any mention of trans at all and just allow biology?

After all I do not care how the people who share female only space, identity as.

I only care that they are biologically female from birth and have xx chromosomes.

Those people who don't meet this criteria need a different space.

Can we say this and just explain why female spaces have to remain for female from birth, xx chromosomes people only.

User I can’t tell if you’re saying what I’m saying

That there may be more people who feel this is inherently hostile and unwelcoming on here - just from the reaction it feels it could be so

And if so at what point do Mnhq listen to that

It’s a very difficult position

But it makes me glad I learnt a lot about the power of language at one point - words do matter

Marsha - asking MN not to be hostile towards a group that is itself intrinsically hostile, in its very essence, towards the vast majority of MN users is nonsensical. Women must not be denied their legitimate rights to self-defence. Not all positions are reconcilable.

But yeah, if transwomen are men is not allowed to stand then neither should transwomen are women...is that right, because its hinging everything on natal sex

Absolutely

I agree user.

I think the idea of individual mods using their names to try to keep the moderation personal and friendly is all very well, but when it comes to really contentious and divisive issues it's not fair to put a single person up to face the wrath of mumsnetters wronged!

I see that you’d like Mn not to be inherently hostile to any group

Could it be that the effect of the term transwoman is being underestimated at Mnhq

Just wondering if there becomes a tipping point where the number of posters feeling unwelcome due to the term is considered too?

Can I ask a question (okay, another question)?

Have the specific lines in the sand that are given been put there on the advice of a legal bod? Or are they what MNHQ have decided is a fair compromise?

Rufus was the below meant for me? I haven’t called anyone rude I don’t think?

fortunate

Is that what echt said?

We really have a different definition of rude if thats the case

And im always calling people rude!!

Rufus - we need to start calling a spade a spade

I also think it's fair to say that this new guideline is bonkers, unfair, sexist and impossible to moderate.

This! MNHQ, I could say you have sadly fallen into the trap of trying to be nice like a lot of companies have after being attacked by transrights activists, but as you seemed to have been surviving I do not think yiu are doing this on good faith and are actually against gender critical voices. You have drunk the Koolaid

Yes i thought that ally but now I'm totally lost

I like that idea user

So, we're no longer allowed to refer to someone's biological sex? Is that correct?
This appears to completely contradict what Justine said in her statement...
We are allowed to discuss biology and science but not make any reference to the fact that transwomen are biologically male?

My understanding was that we are allowed to discuss the fact that transwomen are biologically male and therefore there may be differences in terms of eg behaviour/sporting ability/other physical abilities etc when compared to women and how this could impact on women.

It's just that the term that we use to refer to transwomen cannot refer to the fact that they were born biologically male.

Is that right? I could live with that personally. It's not really different from what I have been doing so far.

What maryz said

All my dealings with the mods are very pleasant

But people should be allowed to complain about the moderation policy

Maryz - when MN moderators post under their username according to the MN party line, they will get shouted at. If the username could just be changed to BigSisterMumsnet, the personal aspect could be avoided and we would all benefit from the clarity

Mumsnet, now that it's so particular as to the naming of folk needs to reconsider its title as it is no longer a valid place for people who have not pushed/had human babies pulled out of their bodies.

Hang on......

Over to you Justine.

fortunate

Is that what echt said?

We really have a different definition of rude if thats the case

And im always calling people rude!!

So, we're no longer allowed to refer to someone's biological sex? Is that correct?
This appears to completely contradict what Justine said in her statement...
We are allowed to discuss biology and science but not make any reference to the fact that transwomen are biologically male?

This is madness. Utter stupidity and madness. Your demographic is largely made up of biological women (many of them gender critical). Yet, you're flinging us under the bus to appease a tiny minority of angry male Twitter users?
Very sad to see this happening.

I think it's unfair to view complaints about moderation as being complaints about the moderating team, or particular individuals.

I also think it's fair to say that this new guideline is bonkers, unfair, sexist and impossible to moderate.

That doesn't imply I'm being rude about Kate, personally, AT ALL. Or about any other mn hq-ers. I respect they are doing a difficult job, but on this thread I think Kate, while trying to be reasonable, is being forced to defend the indefensible which is bound to draw a lot of flak.

I expect it feels like personal abuse, where it isn't meant that way.

Same here ally

I dont often refer to natal sex and I usually use transwomen and transmen but i am honestly confused by these 'guidelines'

But yeah, if transwomen are men is not allowed to stand then neither should transwomen are women...is that right, because its hinging everything on natal sex

And I'm happy to be told im wrong

But its not clear at all.....and there are snippets of information all over the bloody board!!

This is the gender critical position. You just banned it.

I agree.

Referring to myself as a woman refers to my natal sex just as much as any acronym.

And to be plain - I do want this clarified. I want to be able to continue posting, I don’t want to be banned and I want to be able to discuss. While I’m like a dog with a bone about science, I don’t think I’m ever rude or derogatory but I am struggling to think how I would frame what I want to say with no terms referring to natal sex. If the concept of referring to natal sex at all (deadsexing..?) is out then I honestly don’t see how debate or discussion is possible at all.

I post in good faith. I’m struggling with this new climate. I know you mean well and there have been hints in other threads of the specific pressure that may have triggered this, but I feel this solution is unworkable.

Hatred, incitement, threats, malicious posting, malicious mass reporting, goady fuckers, personal attacks etc - all these are reasonable measures and ones you do well with modding. Measures like not discussing specific children I am on board with totally.

Restriction of themes and concepts and language is going to be an absolute nightmare for you to mod effectively, and very difficult for posters to adhere to.

I honestly don’t think the rules need to be more complicated than how you deal with racism or religious abuse.

What is an acceptable collective noun for trans people of the male sex that does not appropriate the terminology of the female sex?

Tell me one. I'll use it.

If there isn't one, just say it: articulating GC views using collective nouns where necessary is banned by Mumsnet.

Maybe MNHQ could provide us with an acceptable definition of "woman"?

If you don't believe that "transwomen are women" then why are you allowing that lie to be broadcast as if its a fact?

If you do, then that's going to take a fair bit of explaining to the millions of MN members who I expect will vehemently disagree with that stance.