Nicola Williams was FANTASTIC on R4 just now!

I didn't write the letter personally but I am a signatory.

Do you think the letter would have got the same response if it had been sent to the CEO? Of course not. It had impact and was picked up in the press and now a wider audience are aware of the issues.

As a board member and member of the House of Lords, Martha has put herself forward as a senior woman in public life. That comes with responsibilities. Why shouldn't women write to a senior woman member of the board about an issue that is primarily affecting women?

Commenting isn’t “policing”.

Yes of course people can seek change from whomever they want and think are in a position to bring it about.

In this debate, which I care about, I’m concerned about women and children’s needs, am uncomfortable with senior women being publicly asked to take a stand, and not men.

If complaining to a company the norm is to address the CEO and chair.

There aren't any rules. In making a complaint to a company it's always best to send it where it will be most effective. There are very good reasons in this case to see that Lane-Fox is an excellent choice.

But it is well strange to be policing this thread saying that people must make less effective complaints that comply with etiquette rather than effective complaints.

Only just listened to this. What a shame Mishal Hussein completely missed the point of the the penis being the male sex organ, and not just a sex organ. Not the best interview ever, but it's always good that this is getting out there.

If individuals want to write of their own concerns they can contact any member of the House of Lords.
This is Martha Lane Fox's page:
www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-lane-fox-of-soho/4275

If complaining to a company the norm is to address the CEO and chair.

It seems unfair to target a prominent woman on the board because of her sex and public profile on other womens issues. There are too few women on boards and men on boards have the same responsibility for equality matters.

Also, I've noticed in media reports on this story, they've shown a photo of Lane Fox, a face and a name that will be familiar to many readers, so I think it was a shrewd move to address it to her.

Next time she's on TV / radio about some technology issue, an interviewer might now be prompted to ask "ooh, while you're here - those Twitter bans..."

The board members are 'top bods'. She's also British, female, feminist and a member of the House of Lords.
Wiki describes 'Lane Fox is an advocate of causes such as human rights, women's rights and social justice'

But why her, rather than the very top bods?

(extract)
"This is a letter to Martha Lane Fox, the entrepreneur and feminist who sits on the board of Twitter. We write to her in the wake of mass deletions from Twitter of gender critical feminists who in many cases have had their IP addresses and phone numbers blocked so that they cannot re-join Twitter."
fairplayforwomen.com/martha/

Why the letter to Martha Lane Fox and not the CEO or chair of the Twitter board?

Yes, that kind of interview is very difficult, and it’s an important example many listeners won’t be aware of.

I think the Girlguides issues is relevant to the twitter silencing. Women are being hounded out of Girlguiding for stating biological fact - we restate those facts on Twitter then get suspended.

The constant suppression of any viewpoint that doesn't centre the needs of transgirls/women is in part leading us to a place where a parent cannot be confident that their daughter will have single sex accommodation or be cared for by a woman, if that's what they would be prefer.

I thought Nic did well in difficult circumstances. She had a very short time to make her point.

I don’t think the GG example, although important, was relevant when the debate was about Twitter.

I thought that interview was a classic example of coercive control in action:

NW: Has an opinion - women need to talk about biology and sex - banned for saying so

(stating facts)

Other: No you're not right - they were banned for harassment

(Outs themselves and the gas lighting at play - are they there as the official spokesperson of Twitter - no - so how can they assert that unless they are the ones making the harassment complaints in the first place?)

NW: Girl Guides example

Other: ignore GG example and repeat unrelentingly and talk over NW "they were banned for harassment and stalking".

NW: starts to get angry, a normal response to the verbal abuse of talking over, dismissing, ignoring and DARVO

Onlooker (uninformed BBC interviewer) comments "so heated - he said/she said - you're both at fault - disappointing it's come to this)

Daily Mail article:
"Twitter is banning women from speaking out against the 'dangerous dogma of trans ideology', claim a group of angry feminists.

Fair Play for Women published an open letter to Martha Lane Fox, who sits on the company's board, to back their right to 'not be shamed or silenced' for speaking about their views.

The women claim Twitter accounts are being deleted for 'simply stating basic, incontrovertible biological facts', such as men are not women." continues

"Ms Yardley said: 'According to the rules of Twitter it is now hateful conduct to call someone who is a man, a man.

'The implication of this is that the concept of proscribed speech, things we are now not allowed to say, now extends to the truth. This is fundamentally illiberal.'

Trans activist Ashleigh Talbot hit back at the letter, saying it was stoking 'hatred against trans and non-binary people by calling us dangerous'.

She told the BBC that there are often anti-trans attack pieces in the media, and the community is 'small and vulnerable' and their free speech is often diminished."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5787903/Twitter-BANNING-women-speak-against-trans-ideology-feminists-claim.html

Link to thread with discussions about some of the Twitter reports / suspensions/ bans / blocks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3258983-Miranda-Yardley-permanently-banned-from-Twitter

Daimbars and SupermatchGame seem to making similar points.

Over the last few days, as both are likely aware (being regular posters), a number of women and GC people have being suspended and some permanently banned from Twitter.

I am aware of some TRAs who are rather active on Twitter & whose feeds show what might be a 'celebratory tone' alongside their collections of 'blue shields' (which come with successful Twitter reports).

Interestingly I have only seen women and GC people's suspension /ban celebrated in this way. (I don't spend a great deal of time on Twitter so this may be coincidence.)

If you do a twitter search for the pejorative term 'trannie', amongst the porn there is pretty much constant evidence of some truly bigoted, unkind and/ or hateful tweets.
NB please be aware of the explicit nature of the porn

Most of these tweets and hateful comments are made by men (or so it would appear).

As we seem to have established that Twitter suspensions / bans are mostly driven by reports rather algorithms. Where is the outrage about these comments (or even the porn)?

From this recent thread,:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3259650-Lesbian-gets-banned-from-LGBTQ-messaged-board-for-trying-to-talk-about-the-lesbophobia-in-trans-activism

Prawn & Baroquehavoc 's comments about gay men posting on the boards of Datalounge about trans rights ideology contrasts with the OP and other lesbians' experience:

"They are very outspoken and often very funny with it. They are aware that other forums don't allow such free discussion, but TRAs can't get traction there. Gay men on Datalounge reject accusations of transphobia pretty vehemently."

"Partly, also they don't open themselves up for debate or negotiation. They spend little time justifying why they have written something - they don't care if anyone disagrees.
But mainly it's because most TRA don't need or want anything from gay men."

The question has been asked often enough as to why Mumsnet comes under such constant scrutiny when sites such as PetrolHeads and KiwiFarms etc apparently not.

Women recognise sexism. We have experienced a lot of it.

the nonbinary person persistently talked over her and the only unusual thing was that the presenter asked the nonbinary person not to do that.

Valid point though. If she started a crowdfunder for media training, I'd give a few quid.

Shouting hate speech on national radio doesn't usually get a person anywhere.

God forbid women should be angry and uncompromising, eh? Back in your boxes, ladies, and be nice.

Interesting you have highlighted tone.

Ah I see I didn't realise she had been specifically invited on to discuss the Twitter ban.

The tone and sentiment on Mumsnet is pretty strong so she would have sounded normal on here. But compared with lovely, calm, polite Radio 4 presenter and the mild mannered non binary person i thought she came across as rather angry and uncompromising.

Nicola wasn't able to come up with any examples of where women were actually banned for tweeting any of those things. The other person came across as more rational and consistent. Also made the point that people had been banned for misgendering - which is hate speech and has been described as unacceptable by UK parliament and the Human Rights Commission.