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

One upside is posters who are on these threads they find boring and unnecessary won’t have an excuse anymore to tell us all about it so much. They can avoid them and stick to the other section.

True. The loud ragey men are a clear scary threat, so it's easy to think of them as the main issue. Actually, a big problem is the women who enable their behaviour and even support it, and genuinely do not seem to see the collateral damage in the process.

This group is so much more baffling to me than the men who don't understand the damage they might cause by trying to remove all single-sex facilities and any conversations or challenges to that.

Some men literally can't understand the value of women-only spaces (how could they after all? They only ever had glimpses into them when they were young children and part of the women-children contingent).

But women should know why we need refuges and prisons and changing rooms and (yes I know some will eye-roll) toilets too - all without non-staff men being allowed in.

Even if they don't need them themselves, most women know what it's like to be terrified of a man at least momentarily, even if they don't live in terror generally, even if they've never been raped or abused - they can usually "get it". That's why mumsnet has become known for this conversation after all: so many mums and women online in a group who could talk freely together. I literally can't think of another space like it.

And that's probably why it hurts that yet more restrictions are coming, because it feels like this tiny window online where men and male priorities don't rule feels like it's narrowing. And some women cheerlead about it as though its a good thing.

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language

Pow! In a nutshell.

I wouldn’t go to a trans-supportive space and demand to be allowed to express my thoughts as I pleased regardless of the differences of opinion. Common decency prevents it. It’s not my space.

I go to feminist chat to discuss feminism, but the rules for doing so are expressed in a way that demands I suppose that there is a trans person present who may dislike how I express my beliefs, and find it harassing.

It is acceptable for me to hold and manifest those beliefs. There is a power imbalance here, as beautifully illustrated by Barracker a while back, when she asked for a trans board member to allow her to express herself in the terms she preferred by laying down their privilege to make her speak as they preferred, so they could meet on a level playing field.

It was declined. Ignored, rather. Spoke volumes.

Everyone is so terrified of the ragey men.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Not everyone who disagrees with the gender critical position is a "ragey man."

There's people out there who are women and are fed up with it too.
(Biological women before someone starts defiiiine)

Just think how hard you're having to work MNHQ to appease a minority of people who get angry when women talk about biological facts. It's totally batshit. You just need to say no.

Technical note: the PC of religion or belief is not included in the prohibition of harassment in the EA. However EHRC's statutory codes of practice say:

The definition of harassment as described below does not apply to the protected characteristics of sexual orientation or religion or belief in the provision of services, the exercise of public functions or the acts of associations. However, where unwanted conduct related to either of these protected characteristics results in a person suffering a detriment, that person could bring a claim of direct discrimination

And of course the PC of sex is covered by harassment in the EA. It's shocking that Maya could not rely on the PC of sex and instead had to rely on the PC of belief in sex. We need to bring harassment claims because of the PC of sex, but that's another thread.

Conversely, it would seem far more reasonable in the surrounding circumstances for fwr posters to feel harassed, because of our protected belief, by the special rules and the way they're applied.

I have frequently found fwr to be an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment because of these rules, the way they are applied and the effect that has had on the overall tone of discussion.

I don't think anyone here wants to engage you in a legal battle. We'd just like a proper conversation around the special rules and their application and how they could and should be amended in light of this judgment. It's quite normal for organisations to review their policies and practices when there has been a landmark ruling.

It's not an attack or a threat of litigation to ask you to do this, or to ask for a discussion around it. It's a sign that we think you're decent enough to want to do the right thing.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Everyone is so terrified of the ragey men.

I'm with you *LangClegsInSpace'.

It's more accurate to say we are harassed and they are the harassers anyway.

Thats all I’m gonna say

On moderation

We completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users. If anything we tend to spend much more time explaining why things have been deleted on FWR than elsewhere and trying to help users avoid deletions and strikes.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Could it be that you're having to spend a lot of time explaining deletions on FWR because these extra rules are so difficult to understand and comply with?

We know what we want to say, we know how to say it clearly, we have no wish to be deliberately offensive or to harass anybody. Yet we are prevented from expressing our views in clear, ordinary language.

We have to tiptoe through what feels like a minefield (e.g. too generalising - BLAM! too specific - BLAM!) avoiding all the Bad Words, including some which are not mentioned anywhere in the special rules - what's the deal with 'TRA'? What's the deal with ? I know you don't want to make a simple list of banned words, I understand why and I think that's wise, but can you not understand that the current special rules and the way they are applied leave a lot of us feeling like we're treading on eggshells?

If Maya's case means anything it means that we should be allowed to express our belief - that sex is immutable and important - in clear, ordinary language. It doesn't give us a licence to harass anyone, everyone is clear on that, and IMO that should be the bottom line - does this post amount to harassment?

Does it violate someone's dignity, or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, based on their protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Unlike non-crime hate incidents, the threshold for unlawful harassment is not subjective. The perception of the complainant is important but it's also necessary to take into account all the surrounding circumstances and whether it's reasonable for the unwanted conduct to cause the complainant to feel harassed.

As you say, Mumsnet is an inherently female-centred and feminist space and we have an honourable history of supporting and promoting feminist viewpoints.

Those are the surrounding circumstances.

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language?

I don't think that's reasonable, I don't think that amounts to harassment and I don't think such posts should be deleted.

Obviously personal attacks are different and may amount to harassment but that's already well covered in the general talk guidelines.

Why you’ve answered your own question there Lang.

Merge the issues to make them more difficult to discuss and to distract people from the lack of answers.

I really wish you had started a separate thread to announce your intention to split fwr. That's not what the OP is about, it's a massive derail. You appear to have no intention of changing the special rules as part of this reshuffle so I don't understand why you have smerged the two issues together. It makes both issues more difficult to discuss.

@JustineMumsnet I appreciate you are under pressure and I have no doubt you have received many complaints about feminist chat from people claiming to be women. What I doubt is that most of those complaints are from people born the female sex, and/or people who genuinely want to talk about topics from a´libfem’ perspective on feminist chat. I think if the people who made these complaints really wanted to discuss things from a ‘libfem’ perspective, but also didn’t want an echo chamber, they would simply post on feminist chat as it is. Indeed, I’ve seen many posters argue from a ‘libfem’ perspective, with posters on feminist chat being more than happy to debate them. If people who have ‘libfem’ views genuinely believe there is problem on feminist chat, I think it is because they cannot effectively counter the arguments by other posters on feminist chat who view women a sex class, this results in those with a ‘libfem’ perspective experiencing cognitive dissonance. I understand this may be uncomfortable for them, and understand why it leads them to desire to create an echo chamber, where they don’t have to experience cognitive dissonance. However, it is not reasonable in my opinion to try and create a echo chamber from existing boards for their benefit, so they don’t have to defend their position(s), as it functions to stifle debate rather than opening it up. If they desire an echo chamber, I would suggest they be directed to one of the many ‘libfem’ sites that currently exist, or as other PP have suggested why not create one for them on this site that doesn’t interfere with posters on existing boards who do not desire an echo chamber and do wish to debate?

Feminist chat is popular because people talk about how gender ideology is harmful to females, homosexuals and children, I think it is precisely because of this that there is a concerted effort to split it, those complaining under the pretext that they are ‘libfems’ who can’t post as they can get a word in, are being disingenuous in my opinion. I think even if you split the feminist section so that ‘libfems’ don’t have to debate with anyone with an opposing view, before long you would again be inundated with messages urging you to silence discussions on the area dedicated to discussing the harms of gender ideology, as the real aim is to shutdown discussions on this issue in my opinion.

I have seen this sort of thing play out before on previous women’s and lesbian’s sites, men flood the site (claiming to be ‘inclusive’ women) they complain about women on the site being mean to men when they discuss the harms of genderism. They try and get the rules of the site changed, in order to get women on the site removed, if they talk about the harms of men claiming to be women. Mods usually decide there are certain places on the site where women are restricted to discussing this issue. However, the issue obviously comes up in many contexts so women continue to post outside the designated areas, the men complain again that women are posting outside of the allotted areas, the mods then start vigorously deleting women for this infraction. From what I have seen this has invariably led to women leaving the site and it becoming deserted, or men take-over the site turning it into an echo chamber for genderists. (The only sites I haven’t seen go this way are sites with little to no moderation but they have other issues, e.g. excessive trolls who are free to run wild.) In short I think this is simply a tactic to closedown debate, and results in a type of colonisation of women’s online spaces, as the women who were originally there are pushed out by men, who then are free to claim the space as theirs. I see a similar tactic being used here.

If I understand correctly you are saying you are not going to delete posts that mention gender ideology outside the allotted area if it relates to the subject of the thread? Even if posts raising the harms of gender ideology are restricted to a designated area, if that area then becomes as popular as feminist chat, it will inevitably be targeted. Moreover, as the dangers of gender ideology become more widely reported, more people will end up looking for a place to discuss it, and likely will end up on the designated board. It is clear to me that when this happens, you will again be inundated with requests to close that board down, or restrict speech on it even further. I sympathise that you are under pressure, but if you keep trying to placate authoritarian bullies, they will never stop. My question is what will you do when they inevitably try to close the dedicated board down or restrict speech on it even further?

I suspect I need to fish out my old laptop and log in on that, @vanishun because I got nowhere trying to navigate the desktop browser on my phone screen.

You can Google how to hide topics, it can be done on a desktop (or desktop view on a mobile). I have several sections hidden, including coronavirus and possibly feminism as at key points I need to take a mental break from them. I then have these as favourites in the app so I can dip into them when needed.

Echo chamber behaviour is getting stronger all the time, and its why these people become even more surprised and upset when people in real life challenge ideas.

I can't see how the proposed changes can keep anyone happy with the suggestion that discussion related to the long term consequences of pinkification on women's rights be somehow parked in the naughty corner when, quite rightly, that discussion will not stay away from the feminist chat board.

And for the record, I'm one of those thousands who hid the feminism topic, many many years ago when I always felt like I had put my foot in my mouth after posting there and now I can't unhide it, which is annoying as there is another topic I would very much like to hide.

I have never really understood why trans people get to upset. If I get upset about anything on line I just move away from a thread or go out for a walk. Why censor things?

Perfect.