Justine Mumsnet, her husband and Channel 4

Oh I get it.

(It was always the case)

Any how who watches channel 4? (It's next to 5)

OMG you can't diss Justine. She's treading a fine line and doing her best for us. Besides it's like dissing, I dunno, Gandhi or Jesus or the Pankhursts or MY MOTHER or something!!!

This thread is just nuts. As I wrote on the other thread where there's a similar insinuation Justine being married to Ian Katz has been known for, like, forever and his high profile media career likewise.

If one deliberately set out to alienate Justine, whose support we need, making content-free smears about her family members has got to be a sure-fire winning approach.

I am really, really not looking forward to the forthcoming 'Genderquake' series on CH4, looking at the heavily trailed ads for it. I doubt very much we will find anything a/new or b/reassuring in it. I fear it will be fawning and uncritical and the concerns of women will be dismissed, if they are addressed at all. I hope I'm wrong.
However I think it is most unlikely to have any connection with Justine, her husband or recent events on here (not least because the programme was probably made many months ago, possibly even last year)
Perhaps we were getting a bit complacent on here -- there were, up until recently, quite a few posts saying it looked like the tide was turning for women, ordinary people were 'getting' the trans issue etc etc.
Then the next thing we knew the TRAs doubled down, or so it seemed. And we're now in the middle of a shitstorm.

Still not seeing this as anything to do with Mr Justine. Or as a change in standards on MN.

So, not a change in policy in terms of what constitutes a breach of talk guidelines. A change in how a potential breach can be reported?

More like whoever was running the Twitter account made the wrong judgement call.

We have this thing called 'Conflict of Interest'.

I have to declare all work outside of the day job I am doing in case it conflicts with work that I am doing in the day job.

If I was asked to work with a competitor, or with a client, or even with my partner's firm - I'd have to declare it. And I wouldn't do something that could be see to enhance their job, in my job. And I wouldn't get my partner to do something in their job that would enhance mine.

What change in policy?

I've screenshot it for you.

A couple of days ago the MN Twitter account said it was happy to receive reports of posts to be referred to the moderation team from non-members who would just tweet a link or a screenshot. There is a very long thread in Site Stuff that explains at length why this is an absolutely asinine policy.

Has Justine peak-transed? I'm not trying to be dense but I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion simply because she gave an interview to The Times about advertisers. Or has there been some other statement from Justine about her views on trans issues that I missed?

Does anyone know why she picked that time to give that interview?

Not seen policy change. Inconsistent and more trigger happy mods. Noticed today the red button has been used sparingly and where it was used previously. I think.

What change in policy?

twitter.com/bindelj/status/992360553636122624

“Caitlin Jenner is going to give some sort of Diversity lecture sponsored by Channel 4. Julie Bindel is very unhappy about this. “

Me too.

Julie Bindel, link please?

Erm, what change of policy?

Channel 4's recent or forthcoming output:
--Genderquake
--Drama celebrating transing of child, inspired by Mermaids
--How to be a Woman [sic] by Munroe Bergdorf

It just invited Caitlyn Jenner to lecture Parliament on "Diversity" [sic]

What's OP proposing..

LTB?!

I'd be surprised if there has been a policy change. Justine has nailed her colours very firmly to the mast.

More like whoever was running the Twitter account made the wrong judgement call.

I was going to post the same thing.
Weird how the announcements about the 'How to be a woman' AND Caitlyn Jenner's invite come out the same week as a policy change here

What you're seeing is a correlation but not cause-and-effect.

So we've had high profile documentaries surrounding TWAW and Transgender ideology around the same time that we've seen an attack on Mumsnet resulting in a more hardline deletion culture at MNHQ.

We've also seen two males elected into women only positions at the Labour party in 6 months (LM, HP) There's been an art exhibition celebration trans violence against women last month. We've seen 2 women being called in by the police for tweeting GC opinions. TRAs are gaining ground.

A lot more has happened in 6 months.

The MRAs and TRAs are upping their game. They are making headway and are targeting MN for being the only reliable platform for GC voices.

The increase in deletions is down to the increase in attacks and increase in genuine traffic and I seriously doubt any of this has anything to do with Justine's husband.

Nope. Not seeing it. Whatever it is.

What is the policy change? Is it to do with the twitter reports?

I do think it is an interesting connection.

I don't think it has influenced policy here, I think the TRAs behaviour has done that. MN has a difficult line to tread.

I think there is potential for a lot of conflict in Justine's house, but then again isn't there always.

Brexit.

It will be interesting to see where Channel 4 goes next, under his watch.

It's been well known he took up the Channel 4 job many months ago. He won't be the only person making decisions there etc anyway.

What is the point of this thread? It is bizarre.

Mumsnet has allowed women's voices to be heard in law proposals about removing their rights.

There's been slightly more media coverage of this as people have realised everyone missed a massive piece of the puzzle. Hopefully this will eventually be reflected in places that haven't so much covered this llike even the Guardian and channel 4

I don't see why who is married to who is all that relevant? What dots?

If someone tried to insinuate that my husband's job was having a profound influence on how I did my job (to the extent that I was instituting a complete turn-around from a very public statement only a week or so prior), I would be furious.