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

Very well put, Prion. Why are my feelings of hurt and frustration in response to "TWAW" not valid or of value, yet the emotional reaction of others to "TWAM" is sufficiently important that the world must be rewritten?

Maybe it would be best to avoid "Transwomen are men" unless in response to someone asserting that "transwomen are women" but I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

For me it comes down to the difference in treatment between the two groups. That difference starkly represents the inequality in the way the rules are currently applied.

If it comes down to “transwomen are men” is offensive and potentially off-putting to posters, then I would say I personally feel the regular repetition of the phrase “transwomen are women” is equally offensive, especially if we are not able to respond with our belief (aka fact) that they are men.

I have had to take breaks from the board because the offensiveness of that repetition and other similar “arguments” becomes so unpleasant. And of course those with the belief that “transwomen are women” have hundreds of other places they can post on the internet, if they feel the conversation in FWR is too robust. FWR is only welcoming to tough minded women, even if they are gender critical. I found that out quite quickly.

I feel there is far more tolerance extended towards “not in the spirit” posts from transactivist posters than towards women, in my opinion, but that is difficult to quantify. But the inequality is 100% clear when you look at the difference in tolerance to these two opposing statements. It absolutely demonstrates how one group are credited with being super-sensitive, while the other is expected to show patience and tolerance in the face of something that is, at the very least, deeply frustrating, at worst, a genuine challenge to women’s mental health.

I don't have the knowledge or confidence to post frequently but do read Feminism Chat a lot and have mumsnet to thank for being made aware of the issues. I would like to add my voice to the many who have said that having a separate forum would be a bad idea and I feel quite shocked and disappointed by the tone of the MNHQ post on this thread. It almost seems purposefully worded to get a strong reaction from us, and somewhat contradictory to Justine's usual stance. Perhaps there are differing opinions within MNHQ itself and I like to think Justine might be trying to "put this one to bed" so it's not on the agenda of every management meeting for the rest of eternity. She can then declare the idea officially rejected. Maybe I'm being too optimistic and reading too much between the lines!

@yoursexnotgenderisonfire very well put. We must be able to state facts if it is relevant to the conversation. That is not saying we are going to stifle conversations by repeating mantras but means that we no longer have to ludicrously mangle language in order to make a point.

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

I know some at MNHQ will be disappointed that we shut all the workhouses 😔

I know some at MNHQ will be disappointed that we don’t eat dogs in this country 😔

Not nice is it....

Some excellent posts on here, ive only read so far so I’ll continue

There’s an important difference - hinted at in yesterday’s judgement - between stating a view in principle and stating it in an aggressive and offensive way - such as deliberately misgendering individuals or repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’.

Maybe it would be best to avoid "Transwomen are men" unless in response to someone asserting that "transwomen are women" but I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

Such statements should not be taken personally. Being overweight is not protected under the Equality Act 2010 (except in extreme cases where it results in disability) but I still think it's helpful to use an analogy: it would be inappropriate to start calling other Mumsnetters "fatties" but statements such as "being obese is unhealthy" ought to be acceptable even though some would strongly disagree.

We also have to bear in mind the context of Maya's case. There are things that you wouldn't say in a work context but you could say on a message board. Ethical veganism is protected under the Equality Act 2010 as a belief but I still think it should be fine for people to express on Mumsnet and other forums that eg they don't think that vegan diets are healthy, but if you had a vegan colleague you wouldn't keep telling your vegan colleague every morning that she is risking her health.

I hope Mumsnet can keep taking a nuanced approach to these issues and not split the feminism board.

Superb post langcleginspace. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 I don't have anything further to add really except to say that changing a suspension into a ban without warning is a pretty poor way to treat any poster, particularly a long standing valued member of the community.

I was targeted last year - someone was trawling through old threads and reported posts from months earlier in an attempt to get me banned. Women are subject to targeted harassment on FWR and it's enormously frustrating that isn't acknowledged

Honestly, I can't get over the fact that we have to fight for the right to just call ourselves 'women' without having to qualify what it is that we mean. It's utterly insane that a tiny group of people have, in the last decade or so, taken control of a word that is centuries old with an obvious meaning, and decided it means something else without consulting the people to whom it applies. Allowing the use of 'cis' is pandering to people who don't give a shit about women.

Adult human females. Those ones.

I very much agree with this - it does make me angry to read it. It's beyond insane that this happened/happens.

Apparently she was banned for posting too much text and talking about abusive dynamics. Some people do not like that, and yes, r0’s name was on the aforementioned list of posters to be targeted.

How pathetic.

LangCleg, you're on fire.

What a terrible response.

Yep. Very disappointing but not surprising.

LangClegsInSpace 👏

Exactly. It's not personal that I don't believe TWAW and don't believe it's possible to change sex. It's my strongly held positive belief and also my lack of belief in the gender identity ideology. Both are protected under the Equality Act. I do not have to lie and say I believe something I do not.

This.

I don't think the structure of the board needs to change at this juncture.

Review moderation rules first, in line with Maya's case.

Then consider a board structure change later.

It seems like a distraction from the real issue, which is reviewing moderation rules to ensure they are up to date.

I agree - TWAW is, biologically speaking, just a philosophical belief, whereas TWAM is brutal biology as well as, as Maya's verdict says, a philosophical belief protected in law.

I also agree that MN has done a huge amount to publicise the GC viewpoint (and I am grateful), which is of course why the monitors lurk about and get posters deleted for 'misgendering' unidentifiable people. But at the same time, the term 'cis' which a lot of us find deeply offensive (because it makes us a subset of our sex in a manner contrary to our protected belief that biology matters) can be used. It's not a level playing field.

Honestly, I can't get over the fact that we have to fight for the right to just call ourselves 'women' without having to qualify what it is that we mean. It's utterly insane that a tiny group of people have, in the last decade or so, taken control of a word that is centuries old with an obvious meaning, and decided it means something else without consulting the people to whom it applies. Allowing the use of 'cis' is pandering to people who don't give a shit about women*.

• Adult human females. Those ones.

Surely saying transwomen are men is exactly what this judgment protects. It's the cornerstone of the gender critical viewpoint in terms of disagreeing with trans ideology. It's also the foundation of a disbelief in gender ideology.

It's the whole point of going to court.

It's not to be mean. And it's not personal.

Exactly. It's not personal that I don't believe TWAW and don't believe it's possible to change sex. It's my strongly held positive belief and also my lack of belief in the gender identity ideology. Both are protected under the Equality Act. I do not have to lie and say I believe something I do not.

[quote WotgunShedding]@JustineMumsnet

I can’t imagine how much grief you and your team have received over the years for allowing women to speak about their material reality and yet in the face of it all, you’ve nevertheless persisted. The cost (personal, emotional, financial) must have been large, like that borne by so many other women who are targeted for refusing to submit, and I’d like to thank you for being brave enough to do what no other site did.

I think you’re absolutely right to feel vindicated by the verdict in Maya’s case but please don’t abandon ship now - Mumsnet has played such an important part in shifting this from no debate to “actually perhaps these women have a point”.

You previously wrote this for the index for censorship and tbh, I don’t think I can say it any better.

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. Mumsnet didn’t set out necessarily to to give women a voice, but however it came about, it may turn out to be the site’s most significant achievement.

You’ve facilitated such an enormous amount in the fight for women’s rights but women still need to be heard, still need a voice. Maya’s victory allows you to be braver [/quote]
All of this.

It's the whole point of going to court.

It's not to be mean. And it's not personal.

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

@LangClegsInSpace is right that this is insulting and disappointing from @JustineMumsnet - compounded by the wince-making 'patronising 6th former addressing a 14 year old' tone of all pronouncements from MNHQ.

What MN and Justine have done, in giving women a space to speak - even with constraints - is important. Really important. Without MN, I doubt that the grassroots movement to defend sex-based rights in the UK could have got off the ground. That is why many people hate FWR. Where MNHQ repeatedly make their own lives harder is in making concessions to people who want to silence GC women. Haven't you learnt yet that capitulation only fuels the demands for more capitulation? You have just handed the people who want to silence us a huge victory and made a rod for your own backs. Why?

Fuck me this is a bloody nonsense-what the heck are mumsnet towers thinking.

@JustineMumsnet

I can’t imagine how much grief you and your team have received over the years for allowing women to speak about their material reality and yet in the face of it all, you’ve nevertheless persisted. The cost (personal, emotional, financial) must have been large, like that borne by so many other women who are targeted for refusing to submit, and I’d like to thank you for being brave enough to do what no other site did.

I think you’re absolutely right to feel vindicated by the verdict in Maya’s case but please don’t abandon ship now - Mumsnet has played such an important part in shifting this from no debate to “actually perhaps these women have a point”.

You previously wrote this for the index for censorship and tbh, I don’t think I can say it any better.

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. Mumsnet didn’t set out necessarily to to give women a voice, but however it came about, it may turn out to be the site’s most significant achievement.

You’ve facilitated such an enormous amount in the fight for women’s rights but women still need to be heard, still need a voice. Maya’s victory allows you to be braver

The more I think about that, the more incomprehensible it gets. Women, talking about their own movement, on a board specifically for their movement against men's oppression, having their opinions on feminism assessed for approval by a man.

Welcome to 21st century patriarchy, same old, but make it pink and sparkly with a rainbow flag on top.

This is really shocking.

There’s an important difference - hinted at in yesterday’s judgement - between stating a view in principle and stating it in an aggressive and offensive way - such as deliberately misgendering individuals or repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’.

Having reread Justine’s post, this section struck me as an area where there is a serious case of discrimination on the gender critical view.

If stating that transwomen are men is banned, then equality would dictate that the equivalent gender positive version transwomen are women should equally be banned.

Given that the latter is used incessantly, it means that much of the discussion allowed is inherently discriminatory against those of us who disagree.

Surely if people don't want to see gender critical topics dominating the board, they can just hide those threads? @JustineMumsnet is there not some way that the board can be recoded so it's possible to add a tag to threads when you create them, and give people the option to hide all threads with that tag? (I know some reddit subs do something similar). That way people who aren't interested in the Gender Critical stuff could avoid seeing it with the aid of a few clicks. And while it may be a bit of technical effort, it'd also be useful for other boards, such as the breastfeeding v bottlefeeding example given earlier.

However, this is all a bit of a derailment from the thread topic about clarification of the additional rules on FWR in the light of the Maya Forstater judgment. As a reasonably new poster, I still don't entirely understand what some of the rules are, and sympathise with the autistic PPs who find the lack of clarity confusing. What counts as being "not in the spirit", as I've frequently seen goady posts stay up, despite long thoughtful posts getting deleted? And generally the tone of discussion seems much more civil than AIBU and the coronavirus boards to name but two. "Talking about a thread" also seems to get posts deleted, but I can't see anything about that in the FWR guidelines or the general Talk guidelines either, and there's occasional mutterings about not using the word "peak" too. While I appreciate that you can't rule out every single little thing, the apparent arbitrary nature of deletions at present sometimes gets in the way of clarity in discussions as we have to throw in a load of circumlocutions to be on the safe side.

Maya's case wasn't about you, it was about us.

And the rest of it. Fantastic post, LangClegsinSpace