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

Lol, I do agree with people sometimes you know

Can't believe we have found something to agree on Quaggars

Yoursexnotgenderfire said it much better than me, that's basically what I was trying to say lol

may not know that R0wantrees received a weeks suspension that was supposed to end May 18th but she remains without access to her account

If anything shows posters are being picked off one by one by monitors this is it. For the avoidance of doubt anyone reporting posters who discuss safeguarding you raise more red flags 🚩than you can imagine

may not know that R0wantrees received a weeks suspension that was supposed to end May 18th but she remains without access to her account

I didn't know that.

R0hardly ever got deleted. And yet certain posters I know of will have a string of deletions within one thread on one day and remain.

No, that is not what the ruling said.

Cross posted with YourSexNotGender there

[quote Alternista]@JustineMumsnet, I would like to ask you to confirm whether or not you intend to illegally discriminate against posters who wish to express legally protected gender critical beliefs (that do not break the Talk Guidelines with regard to personal attacks etc) on these boards please.[/quote]
I'm no legal bod, but from what I can gather from the ruling is that it is not illegal to hold the beliefs, but it is illegal to express them if it was to discriminate against a protected characteristic?
So MN wouldn't be acting illegally if they upheld the guidelines as they are now.

Can we just be clear that the appeal that Maya won was about her right to hold gender critical belief - the question of how she manifested her beliefs has still to be judged.

The courts have also previously held that believing gay sex is a sin is a protected belief, but Mumsnet would still be within their rights to delete inflammatory posts which says that all gay people will burn in hell.

I am gender critical but just wanted to clarify this as it seems to me that lots of posters are misunderstanding the judgment. It doesn't mean that we have absolute free reign to say what we like and that we must be given a platform to do so. I actually think Mumsnet have been doing a good job of striking a balance so far in terms of moderation.

I do massively oppose sex/gender issues being hived off though and would probably leave the site if that happens.

Is there a tally on the numbers of women who have ended up banned or hounded off MN for expressing legitimate opinions? I can't imagine it's a small number. This has been going on years, often via co-ordinated & targeted attacks, in some cases dredging up posts that predate rule changes etc. I can't imagine it's been a breeze for MN but the Maya judgement does give some clarify & solid arguments for not deleting women's posts & not banning them for expressing genuinely held (and protected) beliefs, just because some people don't like women having & expressing 'unapproved' opinions.

I mean this sincerely. This is a moment to actually reflect & amend unfair & potentially discriminatory moderation policies that, let's face it, have only ever been adopted because of the excessive harassment this site & its members have been subjected to for years. Maya's judgement confirming that women's opinions on sex, its relevance to women's lives & to our day to day experiences isn't hate/hate speech/akin to is the clarity that's needed. No longer having to micromanage women's opinions is surely an attractive outcome?

I've no idea how many women banned know each other or are in a position to compare their experiences of the extreme moderation that results in deletions & bans for protected reasonable and widely held beliefs. But if I was MN, I wouldn't bet against there being 'receipts' for a pattern of what in effect has been discriminatory moderation practices. I hate saying that, because I get why some choices & decisions were likely made. But honestly, it's not sustainable & it's not losing any face or standing to rethink moderation policies that are at the core, unfair.

So I guess I'm asking, again, if MN will confirm they will review their specific moderation policies that disproportionately & unfairly focus on women with GC beliefs? I genuinely hope so.

@JustineMumsnet, I would like to ask you to confirm whether or not you intend to illegally discriminate against posters who wish to express legally protected gender critical beliefs (that do not break the Talk Guidelines with regard to personal attacks etc) on these boards please.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

I’ve seen the special rules for FWR follow FWR regulars to other parts of the site. And conversely, I’ve seen newbies to FWR inadvertently step on language land mines they had no idea existed, and run off with their tails between their legs, terrified to post again, because there has been a presumption of bad faith on their part.

I've seen this too. It's not fair.

They could call it ‘feminism lite’. Or perhaps ‘diet feminism’. Or even, to take a lead from Coca-Cola, ‘feminism zero’?

Rather than obsessively reporting and trying to get women banned because you don't like them posting about women's rights and safeguarding.

Of course humans cannot change sex. If MNHQ must create a separate section, maybe it should be where people go to discuss topics that affect women but no sex and gender get mentioned. Something akin WEP’s or Fawcett Society’s version of feminism.

Massive slap in the face from mumsnet there.

While I respect you may have lost some advertisers for your stance on allowing women to discuss feminist issues I’m also aware of a number of women who have joined the board for the feminist section.

And let’s face it we’re the product here. The reason you have advertisers is because you have however many regular page views, unique posters, comments, etc.

Now it’s been confirmed in a court of law I have a right to believe you can’t change sex, I would like to be free to discuss around this belief with less censorship.

But this thread has drifted.

Can we please reconsider the moderation on the FWR board in light of yesterday’s decision?

I’m delighted to know that my beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society and that I have the right to express them.

I promise that I will not subject people to personal attacks or harassment for their beliefs but request that I received the same treatment in return.

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

Wow. Did you mean to be so rude?

head tilt

Way to read the room...

100% disagree with MNHQ idea for changes to this board.

Yes to re writing the "rules" for FWR, though, in light of Maya's victory yesterday.

The main issue is the thread title.

Yes please 🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️

I 100% disagree with MNHQ suggestion here. It’s like exiling us for talking about our own rights.