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

You may be delighted with yesterday's judgment but it doesn't appear that you have understood it, or its implications for you as a service provider.

This thread was a good faith request to review your moderation policies in light of this judgment, to ensure you are not discriminating against or harassing posters who believe sex is importantt and posters who do not believe in gender identity.

You have ignored this request and instead you are proposing plans which will make it even more difficult for women who believe that sex is important, and who don't believe in gender identity, to discuss our rights.

So it’s a relief that, as of yesterday, our position is very clearly on the right side of the law.

Are you sure about that?

Maya's case wasn't about you, it was about us. The EA gives rights to individuals. It imposes obligations on service providers. Are you meeting your obligations?

Your portrayal of FWR posters here is extremely offensive and inaccurate:

'deliberately misgendering individuals'

'repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’'

'Threads devoted to named individuals to unpick their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle or personal choices'

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

That's what you think of us is it?

This 'reshuffle' you are proposing -

The general rule is that new topics are created in response to demand from the people who want to use them.

It never, ever goes well if a new topic is created in response to demand from people who want other people to use it because the basic message is 'fuck off over there where I don't have to engage with you'.

You know this.

You know that those rarely used topics under the FRW 'umbrella' (), which you want to 'streamline', are just the sad, dusty detritus left over from last time you tried to send the wrong sort of feminist somewhere else out of the way.

So in summary -

• you have failed to address the issue of whether the special rules unlawfully discriminate against posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity

• you have failed to address the issue of whether posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity are being moderated fairly, to the same standard as other posters

• you have said some very offensive things about posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity

• you want posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity to go away and post somewhere else so that some other posters don't have to see or engage with us.

'Please be assured ...'

No.

And I don't think the moral high ground is quite where you think it is.

Mumsnet - please please don't use what is a valid request (the original op) as an excuse to shunt off gender critical feminists / debate from the feminism board. It's a shocking idea.

Also :

It is rather infantilising to think that adults cannot scroll past titles that they don't agree with or want to engage with. A little like the push to declare that adults are acutely harmed and need strict protection when the words 'women and ....' is used in communications about women's health

I haven't posted for a couple years now (have NC), but still lurk. I also want FWR to remain as is and for the moderation to become more sensible. R0 and Lang should be reinstated. Haven't seen TheBewilderness or AAK for a while. Though I may have missed their posts, hoping they haven't been banned.

I always found FWR to be the least nasty board. The women defend their points of view with finesse and intelligence. They are constantly under attack. I believe it was on MN FWR some years ago that they were even slammed for talking about baking or animals to avoid the continual goady posts by a plopper. I think the thread was taken down for not being inclusive or something along those lines. It was incredibly frustrating that they couldn't answer back without risking deletion, but were trashed for being off topic. The lack of fair play has been staggering.

Better thread from Adam Wagner (Human Rights lawyer) about the Forstater judgment that I'd have expected:

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1402936358658883584

Interesting comment from an insurance silk:

Beyond the principal issue, para 108 of the Forstater judgment strikes me as also being potentially significant

twitter.com/GreatStrides65/status/1402942274519060480?s=20

I started reading FWR because of the continual comments elsewhere about how awful it was. I stayed because the discussion about the clash between women’s rights and what was being demanded by the trans lobby was interesting. And because all the topics are together, I then clicked on others and thus learned about other important feminist topics. So had there been a separate section, I would almost certainly have learned less about the wider feminist debate.

I also suspect this might have come up because those extra rules are never going to be removed, and the staff want women to stop asking. If that is the case, I would much prefer to hear it directly, along with a polite but determined request to stop asking.

but it is illegal to express them if it was to discriminate against a protected characteristic?

Which includes people with protected beliefs like religions or gender critical feminism. There is no hierarchy of protected characteristics, each case would stand on its own merits. So sometimes the TRAs would have a case against an individual and sometimes it would be the other way round. Read some of the neutral legal interpretations.

I too feel upset that MNHQ's reaction here. It feels as if we're being punished - 'oh and by the way, we keep getting asked to put you lot somewhere you can't be seen by decent people, so that's what we're going to do.'

And I still miss Lang.

There is no need to shunt us off the feminism board and I find it pretty offensive that MNHQ think this is their preferred option. I cannot see any justification. What we are asking for is that the rules are changed in the light of the Maya judgement, and applied equally. Sex and gender discussions are absolutely fundamental to women’s rights and to our feminism. So it’s a NO from me too. We are all able to see or not see posts that interest us.

If it is true Packit then I cannot comprehend it at all.

This is Mumsnet, and yes, it's open to everyone, male or female, parents and not. There are so many, many boards that are inclusive and accessible to anyone and everyone. But there are some that are not. Would you have a man mod the childbirth and pregnancy, or abortion threads? No, that wouldn't be appropriate. Relationships? Again, no, that would not be appropriate (given the sensitive and almost-always gendered nature of those threads and the particular vulnerabilities of women in abusive relationships). There are dozens of boards where one's sex is not relevant, where disagreement is rife and needs significant moderation: Politics, AIBU, celeb guff, the Royals, Money etc etc etc - loads of places where men could work with absolutely no issues.

WHY would anyone ever think a man modding the Feminism and women's rights board was appropriate?!

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.

I think I've always seen MN (and healthy social media) as reflecting the principles of journalism and that posters all have the potential to be effectively 'citizen journalists' as well as also being the equivalent of modern 'newspaper readers' when it works well. It has the power to highlight the reality of experience and to hold power to account.

For me this has always been the greatest power of MN and its done it better than many other online mediums.

That relies on cross pollination of views.

I do appeal to retaining that.

I want constructive debate and it recognised when people have gone to trouble to highlight problems or express the often emotional and difficult nature of their life experience and how things have impacted on them.

MN often is an avenue for women to do this, when everywhere else is largely hostile to this as its dominated by men.

I ultimately came to MN because of problems elsewhere online which featured constant abuse and sexual harassment of women. I had long used male user names to avoid a huge amount of this and to be taken seriously. I do look at the world of teenage girls seeing to take this to another level and wonder about whats going on. The irony isn't lost on me.

Justine has a lot to think about for sure!

In the end it's MN decision. And that's aok.. They never had to host these conversations. The amount and type of communications asking them to choose discussions, I dread to think some of the content. And they're not anonymous.

They've had loads of targeting of their sponsors etc so affecting revenue potentially.

And the site has been repeatedly smeared as a hate site.

So whatever @JustineMumsnet and the team decide is fine by me. I'll still post

Anyway I've put down a few thoughts and arguments that might go into the mix as have plenty of others.

Sorry to tag you again Justine. Thanks again. This site and esp feminist posters and the FWR board have been really important to me. When I first joined when pregnant, I came across Dittany. And others. And the thoughts and feelings and opinions that I had had from a child as just knowing something wasn't right but no one else seemed to notice or understand, there they were writing them down. It was incredible.

So I care a lot about the site and the topic, in general, and not just over this issue.

unless what you actually mean is that you wan’t to section of conversations about gender identity. If those with an interest in spiritual and innate gendered stereotype alignments want their own board to discuss these issues I am ok with that.

Yes I think this would be a very good idea. There are a lot of MNers who don't want to see any discussion about or relating to women as a sex class, and find it exclusionary of those with beliefs in Gender Identity Theory, so I think it would be an excellent idea for there to be a separate board which is a safe space for them to post about this, where they wouldn't be triggered by seeing feminist views.

Brilliant idea, fallin.

the many requests we've had for a reorganisation from those who are keen to discuss, for example, inequality and stereotyping but want to avoid discussions around the trans vs women's rights debate

I am now very confused. If you send discussions of sex and gender off to some other section, would discussion of “inequality and stereotyping” go there, or were you thinking such a topic could remain on the current board?

I can’t really see how you could avoid talking about biological sex or socially constructed gender if you were trying to address inequality between the sexes and gendered stereotyping.

Did you mean gender identity when you said gender? Part of the problem, and it is one that affects all discussions of women’s issues, is that the word “gender” is often used to mean either sex, which is biological, gender identity, which is faith based/spiritual, or the correct meaning of the word, social gender.

Given this confusion I cannot see how it could work in practice to section off conversations involving sex and gender, unless what you actually mean is that you wan’t to section of conversations about gender identity. If those with an interest in spiritual and innate gendered stereotype alignments want their own board to discuss these issues I am ok with that.

Bottomline, one way or another people have tried repeatedly to get certain posters to stfu because they didn't like what they had to say.

Other bottomline, where we are now in terms of highlighting the law and conflicts of interest between charities and organisations, was also about that.

And its not holding up in law. And I suspect we will see more legal cases highlighting the problem.

In other words, its being demonstrated that these posters often had a very valid point.

Its been difficult and frustrating to argue in the face of that. People have lost tempers, they have been tripped up and in some cases I do very much think have been treated inconsistently.

We all see our own sex. Whether we choose to admit this is the only difference.

Glad to hear it littlebrowndog and I have always enjoyed and appreciated your posts.

The intellectual wankery years were terrible.

One of the things about being challenged about your views is it gives you the opportunity to reassess what you think. Its healthy.

Sometimes it helps you to understand opposing positions better even if you disagree. Other times it helps you to develop your view further and gain information which backs up your position. Other times it helps you change your mind.

Liberal democracy and healthy debate operate based on this.

The suggestion of formulated echochambers on this subject are only are for the benefit of MNHQ imho. They don't improve the quality of women's lives. They don't get to the crux of problems.

Given that the tide is starting to recognise there are very real problems with the enforcement of the law and that a certain charity is proving to be a concern, which only has occurred due to increased awareness and people gradually changing their minds - due to debates and conversation - which in many cases was initially challenging previous views is this something MN want to lose?

There are so many posters who have said they saw conversations which changed their minds or made them question certain issues due to FWR.

On the issue of single sex protection and other women's rights issues.

And Rowan wtaf was she been banned for

She’s great and always linking to resources

Sums it up for me

I was never going to go on old feminist board. They spoke in language I didn’t understand
But now I can join in and also learn stuff