Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

915 replies

ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn · 10/06/2021 13:02

The belief that transwomen are men and that transmen are women has been accepted as a legitimate and protected belief, yet we are not able to state this on Mumsnet under the current rules.

It has become increasingly difficult to discuss feminist issues on the dedicated feminism boards as a result of the moderation rules.

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
TinselAngel · 10/06/2021 18:12

Adding my support for this as the current talk guidelines are particularly difficult for trans widows to follow.

WhereYouLeftIt · 10/06/2021 18:12

@DelilahDingleberry

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

Maybe you should have included that thinking in your post?

Your post of Thu 10-Jun-21 14:30:53 -

The High Court judge also said “ This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'mis-gender' trans persons with impunity.”

Sounds like reading the full judgement will be worthwhile.

Nope, still reads to me that you think people want to 'mis-gender with impunity'.

adviceseekingnamechanger · 10/06/2021 18:09

@DelilahDingleberry

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

Understood, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. Although I think if several people interpreted your post in the way they did, your wording should be clearer. It certainly came across as patronising, hence the defensive posts.
Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 10/06/2021 18:08

Thanks OP thoroughly agree

DelilahDingleberry · 10/06/2021 17:48

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

adviceseekingnamechanger · 10/06/2021 17:35

[quote DelilahDingleberry]@adviceseekingnamechanger You interpreted my words as something I neither said or implied.[/quote]
*DelilahDingleberry
The High Court judge also said “ This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'mis-gender' trans persons with impunity.”

Sounds like reading the full judgement will be worthwhile.*

It seems quite clear you're implying people have misunderstood the judgement, and should read it properly. If that's not what you meant, you should take more care with your words, as that's certainly how I and other posters read it.

DelilahDingleberry · 10/06/2021 17:30

@adviceseekingnamechanger You interpreted my words as something I neither said or implied.

lightand · 10/06/2021 17:23

They will need to discuss it with their sponsors/advertisers/legal/other sources of income etc, op. Nothing works in a bubble nowadays.

adviceseekingnamechanger · 10/06/2021 17:20

@DelilahDingleberry

Confused by the slightly defensive replies to my comment. I wasn’t implying anyone hadn’t read it.
Because the implication behind your words was that people on here want to misgender with impunity. We do not.
MorbidMuch · 10/06/2021 17:18

Agreed!!

Vargas · 10/06/2021 17:17

Adding my support too, thanks OP.

SciFiScream · 10/06/2021 17:13

Yes. Please review the moderation rules. Please.

CallMeCleo · 10/06/2021 17:12

yes please

OvaHere · 10/06/2021 16:42

@Stealhsquirrelnutkin

Thank you for raising this Viper, the moderation rules need a thorough going over, and rewriting. After which no strikes should be handed out for "crimes" that are not specifically listed in those rules.

It's tragic that so many brilliant women have been targeted, and picked off one by one, in response to complaints made by people who are not even registered with mumsnet, and who have learnt to game the reporting system to attack women whose ideas they are unable to oppose using rational arguments and discussion.

This!
Stealhsquirrelnutkin · 10/06/2021 16:40

Thank you for raising this Viper, the moderation rules need a thorough going over, and rewriting. After which no strikes should be handed out for "crimes" that are not specifically listed in those rules.

It's tragic that so many brilliant women have been targeted, and picked off one by one, in response to complaints made by people who are not even registered with mumsnet, and who have learnt to game the reporting system to attack women whose ideas they are unable to oppose using rational arguments and discussion.

CardinalLolzy · 10/06/2021 16:39

@Crispychillibeef

Whilst we're on the topic, can we also have a separate board for discussing trans issues? I have had to unfollow FWR because it's literally all that's talked about over there and it's a shame because I care about other aspects of feminism.

Prepares to be flamed.

If you'd popped over to the FWR board recently you'd see a long discussion about this very topic! Please can I request you change your username because it's making me incredibly hungry!
Bonheurdupasse · 10/06/2021 16:37

Agreed!

Crispychillibeef · 10/06/2021 16:37

Whilst we're on the topic, can we also have a separate board for discussing trans issues? I have had to unfollow FWR because it's literally all that's talked about over there and it's a shame because I care about other aspects of feminism.

Prepares to be flamed.

OvaHere · 10/06/2021 16:34

Adding my agreement with the OP.

Packitupwillya · 10/06/2021 16:27

I support OP’s call. I won’t say please however because @MNHQ should be respecting the law of the land.

WotgunShedding · 10/06/2021 16:16

Agreed!

It seems to me that mis-gendering and mis-sexing are two different things and the conflation of both leads to much confusion

Pickersgill · 10/06/2021 16:15

Agree

CardinalLolzy · 10/06/2021 16:15

I suspect the problem is, no-onec wants to misgender, yet sometimes needs to refer to biological sex to avoid confusion (eg some ppl think that trans men are males who transition to women, etc) but no-one can specify what terms refer to gender and which to sex. Generally male/female were accepted as sex-based terms and man/woman as identities (with a lot of disagreement about that) but the lines are so blurred now no-one can tell how to get it right while being accurate.

A clear and accurate definition of "gender" as opposed to sex would be welcome, but it seems to mean different things to different ppl.

IBelieveInAThingCalledScience · 10/06/2021 16:13

Totally agree.

GiantToadstool · 10/06/2021 16:11

Yes please.

Swipe left for the next trending thread