"Mumsnet statement on moderation with regard to..."

We can see that Lang and others are concerned about the reasons for a deletion earlier in the thread

As a general rule, we don't discuss posters' deletions on threads. We just feel it's not fair to do that in public

Thanks for popping in, Hebe.

But I think you've missed the point. I was concerned that MichaelMumsnet decided to break your general rule about discussing individual deletions on threads to tell us what the deletion wasn't for but not what it was for. That's called making it worse, not better. I am now concerned that Michael sowed further confusion which Creepster attempted to clear up (note she only posted after Michael and also after further enquiry by me) and has been deleted once again for her pains.

This is not a productive or constructive way to deal with users who are already telling you that the guidelines are impossible to follow in good faith. It's beyond infuriating.

Hope that helps.

@HebeMumsnet I was just wondering if MNHQ could consider my request on the previous page. I do really feel that it is important that Mumsnet clearly states that it stands with all vulnerable and oppressed people. I don't think that my proposed slight wording change would actually alter your moderation policy, which I know that you don't want to do at present, I just think that it will provide some balance and protection for all.

I promise not to keep asking for changes and I do really appreciate the change in the title of the moderation policy and MNHQ generally.

I meant keeping track of what MNHQ have done, not you Lang.

I know, darling! I was being cheeky but perhaps had better not elaborate for fear of Bad Lang Mod Discipline!

Ingrate

I meant keeping track of what MNHQ have done, not you Lang.

MumsnetMNHQ, thank you for changing the sticky. That is refreshing to wake up to. It's more accurate, and fairer.

Why have you done this to Creepster @MNHQ? It's really shitty.

Couldn't you have just told us so that others don't get deleted or possibly banned for wrongspeak?

Jeez this is hard work.

Ingrate.

Ah yes. I remember now.

Jeez this is hard work.

As far as I can see, Creepster’s latest post has been deleted for expressing bafflement at the original deletion

No, it contained the reason MNHQ gave her for the deletion. MichaelMumsnet posted saying it wasn't for correctly sexing but didn't come back with the reason it was when asked, so Creepster provided it.

I am positive the original post mentioned Karen White: a person so vile they are mentioned in the newly titled special rules. The only speculation was whether it was for use of the word man, male or he. As far as I can see, Creepster’s latest post has been deleted for expressing bafflement at the original deletion.

Wait, what?

Creepster got a post deleted.
Users speculated as to why.
MichaelMumsnet said users got the speculation wrong.
Users asked what was the correct reason for deletion.
MichaelMumsnet did not explain, so Creepster did.
Creepster's explanation was deleted.

Why are we not allowed to know?

I mean, come on Justine - this is beyond ridiculous now.

Great, thanks!
Changing the url to match would be good.

And thank you for starting this thread @RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling

Thank you MNHQ. It does make a real difference to me to have it acknowledged that we are discussing women's rights, sex and gender here.

Getting tired of the lying and controlling of speech from HQ.

Is it properl, fire extinguishing rain, Girl?

I'm so glad it's raining Girl!

Thanks for the change MNHQ - I'm hoping you'll also change the sticky at the top of the Feminism board too?

Thanks for listening to us

Thanks GirlDownUnder

It's a bit silly to change just the policy title and not the sticky and URL title.

It looks like the sticky and URL read ‘trans rights moderation policy’

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

But if you open the policy, the title reads ‘Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex’

I’m hoping @JustineMumsnet / @mnhq change the sticky and URL title to match the policy title.

Where has the title of the moderation statement been amended ?

I read on a laptop, due to vision issues, and when I arrive at FWR I'm still greeted with the 'trans rights' statement.

Agree with you, ChickenonaMug !

Thank you to RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling for suggesting the title change and JustineMumsnet agreeing to:

"Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex"

I hope that the change helps Mods to respond more even-handedly to complaints which, from the deletions discussed in this thread, seem to be staggeringly far-fetched excuses to censor thoughtful contributions rather than any evidence of anyone being "abusive".

In an earlier comment I mentioned that we do not seem to see as many constructive contributions from trans people as we used to. Is that decline despite or because of the "Moderation Principles"?

We all know that "the Monitors" take screenshots of comments (or parts of them) and post them on Twitter etc. to critique and mock them. There are self-confessed sock-puppets who plant abusive comments here and bad actors who goad genuine members to try to get an angry reaction - all in the cause of getting "screenshot receipts" that "prove" Mumsnet FWR is inhabited by rabid bigots.

Trans people who post here in good faith have come in for a lot of abuse on other platforms from the trans activists who monitor Mumsnet FWR. It is not beyond the bounds of reason to think that that might account for a drop-off in the engagement of trans people who are interested in discussion, ie. rather than people posting tedious variations on the theme of, "You're all just nasty women so STFU !"

The stated aim of the "Moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex" are:

"We do not want Mumsnet to be a place that feels inherently hostile to any group, be that trans people, gender-critical feminists or anyone else (except perhaps trolls). If you can abide by our rules – the spirit and not just the letter – we want you to feel you can be a part of the community."

That statement, well intentioned though it is, sets up a "trans" vs "gender-critical feminists" dichotomy that does not reflect reality. There are trans people who are gender-critical and we used to see them engaging in FWR threads.

How many of them have drifted away vs how many have fallen foul of "three strikes and you are out" deletions initiated by same trans activists who target gender-critical feminists?

One of the most toxic aspects of the "Moderation principles" is the way that they have been abused by trans activists to censor trans people who do not fall in lock-step with transgender orthodoxy.

On the odd occasion in the last 12 months when a "newbie" trans person has introduced themselves and initiated genuinely constructive dialogue from a gender-critical viewpoint they have been welcomed and the conversations have been mutually respectful and rewarding. Nothing like the sniping and accusatory comments from trans activists (who may not even be trans) peppering this thread.

It would be really helpful if the "Moderation principles" used a form of words that did not set up FWR as a battle-ground between "trans" vs "gender-critical feminists".

The gad flies and goaders who have no interest in dialogue and abuse the "Moderation principles" to shut down discussion and get members banned, they are not interested in being "part of the community". We do not even know if all of them are trans.

What we do know is that they are at least as determined to deter gender-critical trans people from engaging with discussions on FWR as they are to generally disrupt and censor any gender-critical conversations here.