Moderation principles of discussion around gender identity and sex

'useful language for the trans community'

Happy for it to be used to refer to people who actively identify as ‘Cis’, but for everyone else how is it not misgendering?

Yes rowan. Why don’t they mention posts which are derogatory towards women.

Are we not worthy or special enough

Just ordinary women. Not special

I had a post deleted recently which was not at all offensive and contravened none of the "talk guidelines"; I've seen this happen to others all over this board in recent days, and not when posters are saying something against the guidelines, but when posters are pointing out some actual fact that activists might not like, but it's not either offensive or inaccurate. This seems to go well beyond the guidelines and into "someone has reported this so it gets automatically deleted", no matter the content. This is starting to really annoy me, and these kinds of things just look like deliberately trying to skew or stifle "debate".

We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

There is no commitment to not allowing posts that are derogatory or agressive to other members eg women.

Shame on you, Mumsnet. This is supposed to be a site for women, and transwomen (men) should not be placed above us.

And it's a very clear statement. Not women's rights, not discussion about women's rights and trans rights not even sex and gender debate.

It's starting off with the premise that trans rights are being attacked. Ignoring the issues around women's rights being dismantled. As a pp said, I care about women's rights. I would be happy not to have to discuss issues around trans people ever again.

MNHQ are sending out a very clear message.

It's not 'as a result of' making other changes though. It's not like a bit of buggy code accidentally rewrote the title. A human being has decided to change the wording.

Earliest archived version 13/06/2018:

'Mumsnet statement on moderation in particular with regard to trans rights'

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180613133516/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20180613133516/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

This stays the same until at least 11/10/2019:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191011173341/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20191011173341/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

The next archived version from 14/02/2020 has the new title, 'Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex':

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200214042959/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200214042959/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

This stays the same until the last available archived page from 15/06/2021:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210615125010/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210615125010/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Had a quick look in Site Stuff and people are complaining about other changes on the site (haven't particularly notice any myself) so may be a result of making other changes?

I think it was originally called 'trans rights moderation policy' which is why it's in the URL even on the archived page.

Lots of us said it wasn't a great title because it suggested the discussion was about trans rights, when in fact it's about women's rights - so they changed it to 'Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex'.

And now they've changed it back

Yes, it's weird the title has changed. Maybe to be easier to google??
But on first glance everything else is the same.

That's interesting CardinalLolzy because it shows that the title has changed - the one from June has

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

Where does this leave trans widow's rights?

This is from June: <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210615125010/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210615125010/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

It does use the 'affronted' text but I haven't looked further back.

@DifficultBloodyWoman but apparently saying that is 'tin hat conspiracy theory'!

To be clear, the term used as an experiment was factual rather than offensive, just one that trans people don't like used (like 'cis' for GC feminists).

Yes Quarantine it was the "affronted" that stood out to me. Maybe it was always there and I just hadn't noticed.

I reported someone who was repeatedly using the term 'cis' on various threads, despite the vast majority of the posters asking them not to. I reported it to MNHQ and was told that it was 'useful language for the trans community'. Someone else on that thread (as an experiment) used a term to refer to trans people and it was deleted almost instantaneously (I.e. less than a minute).

One rule for some....

Hang on, if many feminists are 'affronted' by terms such as cis and terf, shouldn't their feelings be given equal weight to those of trans people? No misgendering - quite rightly, imo, as it is good manners towards people with gender dysphoria to use preferred pronouns - but equally it should also be 'no use of cis/terf' if those are deemed offensive terms too. Not just 'you might get some angry feminists if you use them, but your call'.

@Waitwhat23 I've reported it for using dodgy suicide stats in a manipulative way, and for being a thread about a thread as well. Last time I checked it was still up but hoping mumsnet take it down yet. They said they 'understand my reservations and will have a look'. I don't report many things, but (mis)using suicide stats to manipulate worried parents into medical pathways is a red line for me, and even if done in good faith it shouldn't be allowed to stand.
I've also given mumsnet the reference for an extensive, peer reviewed paper that counters said suicide stats should that help.

I'm fairly sure that sentence 'Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely' read like that previously but I'm certain that introductory paragraph has been changed. There was a lot more reference to women and the discussion about clashes of rights, rather than just how trans people feel about the 'debate'. It's been rewritten with a very specific slant.

Does anyone have an archived copy of what the special guidelines originally said? Looking at them again now this sentence made me wonder if it had always said that:

"Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely."

OP, would this be noticed by MNHQ more if it was also posted on Site Stuff or should we all email our views to them (as we have seen, that seems to be the only way that major site changes are implemented).

The most extraordinary threads seem to be allowed to stand as long as the poster is stating TRA views. There is currently a thread on LGBT Children board where the OP is accusing parents of children who are questioning their gender identity of being transphobic if they do not validate this medically and using false suicide stats to back this up.