Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?

Justine - MN deserve credit for allowing discussion to continue. However, trying to separate sex/gender from the main board doesn’t work. For example, a recent parliamentary survey referred to people suffering menopause symptoms - that is a woman’s health issue but the failure to use the term women is a sex / gender issue. The subsequent debate covered both topics. Perhaps the failure of young women to engage in STEM is influenced by the pernicious rise of regressive gender stereotypes?

Where would these topics sit in the proposed regime?

Thanks both.

Well we got the measure of Pink News' CEO on Radio 4 last week. Of all the people to capitulate to, surely he would be the last?

The right side if the law statement is interesting. Given that it’s the content that makes up the site, then that must mean the users are. So I’m not sure why the reaction now is to siphon off or suggest we’d now use disrespectful language.

There are many posters here who get the nuance and arguments around women’s rights.

Those saying MNHQ approach is appalling, a letdown etc. They have gone above and beyond when they did not have to

That's interesting NiceGerbil, and largely how I used to feel. I have in fact sent MNHQ a letter of thanks in the past. I think my recent posts probably demonstrate that my attitude has changed.

If a woman was living with a man who constantly changed the rules of their relationship (and indeed specifically refused to provide clarification when asked), imposed punitive measures seemingly pretty randomly and told her it was for her own good, but paid the mortgage even though he didn't have to, what would you say to her?

If it wasn't for FWR I'd be the ideal mumsnetter. I read it most days, I buy one of everything that's recommended on style and beauty (although I do draw the line at Roman Originals) and I actively encourage others to use the site because I think the women's voices here are brilliant.

But it's been made very clear to me by the people who run the site that I'm beyond the pale, and the kind of person who is disappointed that they insist on respectful language and inclusivity

quite the headfuck innit?

[If MN wants to withsraw my post, that is up to them].

This has not been an easy position for us to hold - we’ve been frequently labelled as a hate site by a few vocal activists on social media and in outlets such as Pink News and many of our advertisers have been targeted with such accusations, and subsequently withdrawn activity. So it’s a relief that, as of yesterday, our position is very clearly on the right side of the law.

♥️

Justine's post on page 6. But now I can see I havent remembered it correctly, [apologies to anyone concerned] so I repost that part now.

This has not been an easy position for us to hold - we’ve been frequently labelled as a hate site by a few vocal activists on social media and in outlets such as Pink News and many of our advertisers have been targeted with such accusations, and subsequently withdrawn activity. So it’s a relief that, as of yesterday, our position is very clearly on the right side of the law.

Pink News is attacking advertisers? Can you post a link?

I dont think btw, that Pink News attacking advertisers, should be taken lightly.

Sometimes, when we look at things, from someone else's point of view, or a business point of view,we see different things, and in different ways.

" I think we should expect more of female led spaces tbh. It's more painful to feel let down by something female centric than anything predominantly male. It's never a surprise when men are not in our corner.

As mentioned by others MN should feel vindicated by Maya's win especially as Maya has a long time connection to MN not just from her recent case but her co founding of Let Toys Be Toys a decade ago that I believe started life on MN.

I can't really fathom their reaction."

This this this!

Boundaries are important. Where boundaries are unclear people will take advantage and use the lack of clarity to manipulate the situation. When they see that they can get away with their behaviour they will take it further. Punishing regular posters while allowing all sorts of behaviour from visitors on FWR demonstrates a lack of respect for women's boundaries. It cuts them off and leaves them without clear guidelines to point to when someone oversteps the mark. It's gaslighting.

I don't see why the guidelines and moderation practices re FWR aren't essentially the same as on the philosophy, religion and spirituality boards. That's an example where (last time I looked) there are many posters with different strongly held beliefs , there is a range of subjects, there can be very robust criticism and defence of other world views.

MN will employ young women even if some of those of us posting are as old as the hills. I hope it employs people of all views and whatever those people's views it can continue to allow debate of trans issues as they are so important to women and that it reflects the latest court case in tweaking the rules.

No one on MN wants to be launch personal attacks about to trans people and many of us fee sympathetic to them particularly as so many are mentally ill. I read a lot of books in the 1970s about them - it was a teenage interest of mine. However we need to fight against cancel culture. If certain things upset some people put are politely put like men are stronger than women then the posting on whatever topic should be allowed and the person who is upset could just put down their device and go out for a walk.

What is so frustrating is that the Maya judgement was the perfect opportunity for MN to reboot to a policy of the type you've described- thus making their own lives, as well as ours, immeasurably easier.

The tactics are so ham-fisted too. They keep publicly capitulating, which reinforces the pressure from TRAs

This is why one should NEVER PAY KIDNAPPERS, they'll just be back for other children later if you do.

There should have been a statement at the very first silencing attempt saying
"we're the one with the swearing, the hedge shaggers, the sex towel. We'll not drive our users away with baroque unpublished rules. Go well , away with ya"

And even if you personally think publishing biological reality is “crossing the line” it doesn’t explain why advertisers or other companies would give up access to 10 million users who think it’s a perfectly acceptable position to hold and post, on the basis of small number of people like you who think it “crosses a line.” Why aren’t they brainstorming how to advertise to millions of users who believe in biological reality, rather than appeasing a small number of Twitter users who don’t just to get some woke points that no one in real life cares about?

Like I said, these are either the worst advertising companies ever, or there’s more to the story.

Am not a comprise so NO it not tricky. There was a time when people came here bitching MN didn’t do this and that all things fluffy-nice and they got told to pissoff to NM.

Tell me do you cater for everyone else over the transgender forums? I mean there are loads of them but I have never been inclined to use them on them just like don’t use other forums not relevant to me.

Quaggers

I dip in & out of MN sometimes months apart and it been many years since was more of poster than just a reader.

Have only recently breezed back because it’s my go to when I know mumsnetters will have some info! I was actually losing will to live in searching for this particular size blind until chucked in google : Mumsnet wide blind to why I been back here.

I haven’t the foggiest who you are nor have any interest in u being trans, this is not me being rude this is MN not NM which been using on off since first started. When I want to discuss or ask opinions/advice on nappies or weaning I used those subs, when didn’t want to know about feminism or WR I stayed out of those subs, if I don’t want to be told AIBU I don’t post there or bitch that everyone being mean. I don’t go in dadsnet section and bitch about all the feckless fathers.

There are issues which related to myself that are to do with women ie domestic violence I know that FWR is best sub for response, I want to hear from women I don’t want to have Wade through loads of shit because it been derailed by trans stuff or have half posts deleted because it not worded to accommodate everyone else but women.

MN didn’t bow down to anyone before ffs F4J can vouch for that, yet here we are.

Another issue is that we must have accurate language to discuss issafeguarding. This means identifying men, and being allowed to talk about patterns in male behaviour, including when male pattern entitlement and predatory behaviours are observed among those who identify as something other than men.

There is furthermore a massive elephant in the room that constitutes a safeguarding risk for as long as we may not even mention it. We should be allowed to talk about autogynephilia.

MNHQ doesn’t just have a relationship with advertisers, it also has a relationship with its employees.

The intern behind the leak of details of ‘anti-trans’ posters (the intern used a different word which MNHQ has banned) boasted about still having friend inside Mumsnet who shared her views.

That led me to believe that there are Mumsnet moderators who believe very, very strongly that TWAW. Naturally, their views will have been taken into account when drafting the FWR Moderation Rules and may have informed much of it.

The ruling in Maya’s case has confirmed that their beliefs are protected in the same way that Maya’s are.

The ruling is significant enough that Mumsnet should at least review the rules because there is a possibility that they may be unfair to one side the debate. Certainly, they have been told enough times that it is unfair to the GC views.

I understand that the principles of the equality act apply to more than just employers and include service providers etc. but a chat forum is still the Wild West in many respects. Perhaps someone could clarify for me - could a user sue Mumsnet for deletions and bans if they thought Mumsnet was doing so based on GC views?

With evidence from other sites of posters having been targeted fir deletion, Mumsnet should either close FWR down (which posters don’t want, and given the recent increase in traffic driven by FWR, MNHQ won’t want either) or reconsider the moderation principles. One option would be to return to the same principles of the rest of the site - hands off moderation and deletions only if there are personal attacks. Given that philosophy seeks general principles, theoretical chats should be acceptable. Specific comments about people are not attacks if they are truthful and evidence based. If something crosses the line, it would be quickly reported (it always is!) for moderators to review…in accordance with the principles applied to the rest of the site.

but as a woman & a mother I fail to understand why you cater more to haters that your users.

I'm not a hater, probably get thought of as one though (seeing as I usually post for trans rights)
Users can be a woman and a mother too who can see other women being afraid even if they're not afraid themselves.
As I said earlier, tricky line to host both sides

Skill *don’t have