TRAs try to ruin Mumsnet survey

Women having rights is transphobic. It's that simple.

LM gave that one away years ago in pretty much exactly those terms.

Will MN be taking into account the impact from the self-defined TRA 'monitoring group?

'How an Online Forum for Moms Became a Toxic Hotbed of Transphobia'
(extract)
Since 2016, Mumsnet—specifically its Feminism board—has increasingly found itself on the receiving end of criticism from trans people and their allies. “When I started using Twitter and engaging in the trans sphere in mid-2017, Mumsnet was constantly referenced both on my timeline and in DMs,” says Joss Prior, a trans woman who is part of a sizable trans community that monitors and discusses Mumsnet regularly. “The whole of the Feminism board was like a spectre hanging over the daily trans discourse.” (continues)

“It’s a core group of a few hundred hardcore trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), a tiny percentage of overall users,” says Christine, the mother of a trans child and also part of the network that regularly monitors Mumsnet. (Christine’s name has been changed for privacy reasons.) “Yet the Feminism board is just 90 percent discussions about trans people on any given day.” (continues)

broadly.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

The discussions are about Women's Rights & Safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children. This being the Feminism & Women's Rights Board of a parenting website.

Can you send that information to HQ

Done

I would have thought the 12 fold increase in one year would provide that info.

I'd also imagine that since the business model relies on generated content, produced by registered, posting members, its more important to sustain the current membership than chase after potential new ones.

So anything from @MNHQ on why the survey was open to non-users? Seems a bit strange to do that

Interesting if some of the 'non-users' were actually PBP or their proxies?

I'd imagine they are trying to gauge if the number of people put off joining MN by the Brexit and FWR boards is greater or less than the number these boards bring to the site.

The Brexit board is 'hidden' in a similar way from the rest of the site. Its easy to avoid if you so wish.

Seriously. Women trying to defend their threatened rights is seen as messing up surveys maliciously to harm trans people. Wtf are these people on?

Women are not allowed to have their own opinions on politics. Women who do are a magnet for proportionately more abuse than any man saying the same thing.

I'd imagine they are trying to gauge if the number of people put off joining MN by the Brexit and FWR boards is greater or less than the number these boards bring to the site.

I would have thought the 12 fold increase in one year would provide that info.

Have done so. Was unsurprised to see Helen Islan suggesting people fill it in.

Can you send that information to HQ. They are asking for evidence.

Apparently they emailed people on the insight panel only.

I'd imagine they are trying to gauge if the number of people put off joining MN by the Brexit and FWR boards is greater or less than the number these boards bring to the site.

So anything from @MNHQ on why the survey was open to non-users? Seems a bit strange to do that.

Fascinated by the tweet saying MNetters have intentionally messed up surveys regarding trans rights.

I presume they mean by honestly taking part in government consultations and explaining the conflicts with women's rights, safeguarding and freedom of belief/religion?

Seriously. Women trying to defend their threatened rights is seen as messing up surveys maliciously to harm trans people. Wtf are these people on?

Can you send the actual tweet to HQ.

Have done so. Was unsurprised to see Helen Islan suggesting people fill it in.

Presumably they can match up IP addresses to user IP addresses?

How unfair.

Also, they say they sent an email members about the survey. I didn't get one. I don't know if everyone else did?

I have a dormant email for MN its not checked reguarly but will go and look.
I was aware the survey had opened but had no idea such a short window to respond.
I was thinking on Saturday there were specific meaningful issues to raise about this subject & its a shame if the opportunity lost.

I have asked MN to confirm my recollection that it was not necessary to be a member in order to complete the survey

It wasn't necessary to be a member to complete the survey.

It seemed to be an opportunity for people to influence the modding policy of a site they have no interest in joining or contributing to.

twitter.com/LirvaC/status/1110638535328055296

twitter.com/nuffield_girl/status/1110391444467052544

That's all I could see on a quick look.

This is hardly a surprise. I made a post in the original thread pointing out that the way the survey was structured meant it could be gamed very easily.

I have asked MN to confirm my recollection that it was not necessary to be a member in order to complete the survey, one question being on moderation of trans threads.

This is correct. You did not have to be a member of the site or give any identifying details. A person could identify as any demographic they wished for the purpose of the survey.

It definitely wasn't necessary to be a member as several of the early questions asked if you were a registered member and if not, why not.

Oh dear. There was a thread on FWR encouraging us to complete this at the end of last week, I think. I did it.

I didn't but to be fair I probably turned all the emails off at some point...

2019StandingforWomen

Can you send the actual tweet to HQ. I've emailed them and they responded saying any direct evidence would be very useful. Although they are aware at what point an influx of nonmembers might be responding.

Also, they say they sent an email members about the survey. I didn't get one. I don't know if everyone else did?

Oh, sorry. I see I quoted a deleted post.

Not my intention.

The saboteurs are tossers. They can't help but toss over women's rights. In the end, their actions always come back to that.