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

I want them to carefully and thoroughly review their moderation rules, policies and practices to ensure that they are operating within the law.

So they don't get sued.

I'd be startled if anybody did that and wonder what they were attempting to achieve. I can not think whom it would benefit other than bad faith actors. I'd be interested to see an argument otherwise.

After all, is disparity in the moderation a reflection of who reports posts and their agenda? Many established posters are resolute in their commitment not to report posts, not least because of a belief in the importance of, and necessity to discuss, matters that influence contemporary society. However, that's not a shared agenda, and there are people who may well be opposed to any such discussion and they might choose to avail themselves of appeals to the moderators.

The women posting on certain threads are small in number compared to the whole site.

The idea that they will fold if those posters leave is ridiculous.

All I'm seeing here is arrogance.

You’re completely right OP. No reason they couldn’t have put this announcement on another thread on a different day. Still not addressed your key question. Annoying.

Maya lost her job!

What is the tangible impact of not being able to say a word or whatever on a chat forum?

Jesus.

Yes of course it's cost them.

They are referenced all over the internet as a site for homophobes etc.

They have had to explain over and over why they are doing it.

I have no doubt that they have received God only knows what personally.

I have never heard of a chat site being sued for breaching the equalities act in deleting posts that go against it's started terms. They have in their terms total control.

I think this stance is pathetic. I'm really annoyed.

If it wasn't for the fact I recognise some posters names I would think this toys out the pram stuff was an attempt to get MNHQ to say fuck it then. We're not doing this any more and shut those conversations down. Which of course they are entitled to do.

Will their actions hold up in court? Fucking hell.

So they're getting it in the neck from both sides now. Great.

Of course it's to do with the Equality Act!

Maya Forstater brought a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. And won (at least on this legal point). That's why this thread was started.

The OP says:

In light of Maya's success in court, and that 'gender critical' beliefs are considered protected under the Equality Act, would it be possible for the FWR sex/gender mod rules to be re-visited please?

It's fine to be grateful to MN for allowing this discussion when almost nowhere else did. I'm grateful for that too

If you are so grateful to an organisation that you don't care if they behave unlawfully then you don't have a healthy relationship with them. Are there any other laws you think MN should be exempt from because they did a good thing?

I don't want MN to get sued!

I want them to carefully and thoroughly review their moderation rules, policies and practices to ensure that they are operating within the law.

So they don't get sued.

which you soon see when posts end up on the main board and out of the echo chamber
In fact whenever feminist topics come up on other boards , single sex prisons, Maya Forstater etc the agreement with the main FWR ideas are about 95%. There is often more disagreement on FWR as that is the forum that attracts anti woman activists and anti feminist trolls.
Funny that.

MNHQ did not have to host these conversations.
In fact it costs them to do so. Has it cost them, though?

I'd say yes, as in the whole site has a reputation for being transphobic for hosting the conversations, (which I find a bit unfair because the whole site isn't - which you soon see when posts end up on the main board and out of the echo chamber - any transphobia is called out a lot more.)
Also I'd say it'd cost in losing some advertising deals as well.

The relationships board. The fact that whether women ID as feminists or not. When a poster says is this ok in a relationship, and it's not. She is told that. Women did not used to have that type of forum in real life or online

Yes, this is where MN is great, just because I disagree with a lot of posters on trans issues on here, I can see its good points as in it's somewhere we can come and talk and get advice - when my teens were toddlers it was somewhere I came and read about others in the same situation/parenting issues, and stuck around and I'm still here lol.
I don't get all the attacking the mods either from "GC'' posters - it must be incredibly hard to try and make a space where both women and trans people can speak.
Would be much easier for them to just go "fuck it, can't be arsed" but they haven't.

That's for employees

The Equality Act doesn't only apply to employees. It applies to all companies including in their dealings with their service-users, customers, potential customers, etc.

I think the anger on this thread is an entirely predictable response to the absurd suggestion that we should now be shunted off the feminism board all together.

MNHQ did not have to host these conversations.

In fact it costs them to do so.

Has it cost them, though?

MN is very keen to trot out that it is “hosting the debate”, while in fact it has not been doing so since the special rules came in. Not really. Women arguing for women’s rights have been very stifled and restricted in what we could say.

I think MN is cashing in on a false reputation. When the FWR posters find each other elsewhere, the scale of the stifling of women’s voices becomes clear.

MN has to now make the decision one way or another. Do they want to appease advertisers by promising to clamp down on so-called “transphobia”, or do they want to keep the reputation that they are “hosting the debate”?

Now that we can speak more freely elsewhere, gender critical media will pick up on the discrimination going on on MN.

That's for employees.

The guardian deletes all sorts of posts left right and centre. Are people going after them?

The obvious answer to this bizarre threat is that they stop hosting this conversation and ban all the posters on the topic.

They won't fail.

I can't believe people are attacking mn I'm really taken aback.

Appeasing advertisers who are pressuring the providers of a service into discriminatory treatment of people with a protected belief, is not a defence in court if providers go on to treat people with a protected belief in a discriminatory way.

This.

If you can't make a profit while operating within the law then your business is not viable.

Everyone (almost) knows and accepts this when it comes to equal pay, pregnancy and maternity rights, minimum wage, health and safety, bla bla bla. This is no different.

The EA says that discrimination or harassment because of a protected characteristic is prohibited conduct.

That's the bottom line.

This isn't to do with the equality act.

It's to do with the fact MNHQ don't and haven't had to allow this conversation.

The posters saying MNHQ are behaving illegally and saying what if it goes to court wtf.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

This is not a public service.

MNHQ did not have to host these conversations.

In fact it costs them to do so.

Their names and everything are public. Many women are worried about posting in their own names. Because of threats, workplaces being contacted, being seen as 'bigots', and all that.

As this is the ones place afaik where women can discuss this without being banned etc. Where women's voices outweigh men's, and it is open and public. That's rare really rare. Unique.

MNHQ run a chat board. That's it. It's very successful. It's always been contraversial and viewed with suspicion and trolled and subject to DDOS attacks. Always. The relationships board. The fact that whether women ID as feminists or not. When a poster says is this ok in a relationship, and it's not. She is told that. Women did not used to have that type of forum in real life or online. That is why it's so disliked. The very fact the site exists and is so strongly female mean men who come to 'give balance', if they're an arsehole the fact it's mainly women means they get told that.

The site is by definition feminist whether anyone thinks so or not because it is a rare predominantly female place.

So many women have learned and been helped with so much by other women. Who don't tend to dismiss etc but say yes. Menopause can be crap. Childbirth can be traumatising. No you shouldn't be bleeding like that see another doctor.

All that stuff.

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

The idea if the trans conversations go then the exodus of women will be such that the site fails is nonsense.

They did not have to do this.

Attacking MNHQ is baffling to me tbh.

In Justine’s own words from the Index on Censorship quote above

There are still so few places where women’s voices are prioritised and respected, and where women of all backgrounds and ages feel they can express themselves, without activating the conversational filters that we so often employ in mixed company

And the person in charge of moderating those women’s voices is a man. Someone who is used to those conversational filters, and may well feel threatened when they’re not applied. It was a strange decision

So posters have been banned for

Posting long text (facts & evidence)

Posting about the reality of enforced language use (safeguarding)

Posting about coercive control (facts again)

But we mustn't upset advertisers?

I honestly think we are very very close to a tipping point here. Soon there will be a rapid slide downwards as commercial organisations can't get away from views that are no longer convenient to hold, fast enough.

I don't for a moment believe that women will be winners in the new world, but confidently predict that some of those covered by the trans umbrella currently, are going to find themselves out in the rain.

If FWR wasn't here on MN, the anti woman activists would be targeting the women on TTC , breastfeeding etc. They would still target advertiser's saying that MNers are using trans exclusive language.

We are frontline soldiers here protecting the mods and other site users.

I'm not saying this to try and argue with individual mod decision on a single poster.

Am saying this to inform MN to that women are targeted for posting here, we could also be posting under different names about escaping a violent relationship and being banned or put off posting altogether could be a life or death decision. MN were just (rightfully) proud of the support system it provides for women leaving domestic violence. Allowing yourself to be played by those who hate women is never a good look.

I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language

Really? Wow!

CardinalLolzy

There’s loads still here. Other Beckham threads, comments about Ed Sheeran, Jamie Oliver and other various celebs about their appearance, lifestyle choices etc. The moderating and deletions are a joke. As long as you’re a bloke who feels like a woman though, it all deleted.

I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

Transwomen are male. It's a scientific fact and we should be able to say this whenever we like, not just under certain restrictions.

Well yes it's obviously going to be very relevant to a lot of discussions on FWR, so IMO we ought to be able to say it there very frequently. There might be situations when it uncalled for especially elsewhere on the site.

For example:
Imaginary post on FWR: [Famous celebrity] has come out as gender fluid. [Famous celebrity] is biologically male but is saying that they are a woman on some days of the week when they like to do cooking and cleaning. This seems terribly sexist to me and I'm worried it reinforces gender stereotypes. They are also seeking removal of single sex spaces but, because they are male, I don't believe they understand why women need them.
This ought to be allowed IMO.

Imaginary post on AIBU: AIBU to think that [famous celebrity] looks weird since they got all that surgery done? They are a MAN and should just accept it!
I can see why MN would prefer we avoid posts like this and may want to delete them.