Article with sums up where we are now

no thank you

These article responses also delightfully help. Thank you ladies

You're welcome. I can't speak for others but I'm beyond tired of the lack of decent and accessible discussions of the ideological stance with which you seem to sympathise.

My wish for the author of that piece is to acquire skills to write arguments that lay out coherent thoughts and arguments that can be scrutinised for their support for the wholesale abolition of women as a sex class, the extensive revision of legislation, the introduction of compelled speech etc.

It's sweet of OP though, don't you think?

I mean all publicity is good publicity isn't it?

It's great news that the site worries some enough to slander it!

I for one am very happy for the contribution of a thread on this.

Pro-women yay!

find themselves otherwise unable to stick to the rules around language, because they feel they absolutely must call users “cis” or “trf”, or call us Nazis.*

ahh.. but Sophocles remember that the moderation rules that demand civil treatment for all still allow us women to voice opinions! So, you are quite correct, the issue is not the moderation rules per say, it is that the discussion is allowed AT ALL.

And to be fair, from seeing OP's one-liner remonstrating posts, that fits their concept of good moderation as well. No discussion threads are allowed because the only evidence that will get posted will be shown to be poorly constructed studies with major credibility issues or opinion pieces that have NO verified evidence at all.

OP posts one of these opinion pieces as evidence of their biased belief and doesn't engage with any of the discrepancies that are posted that discredit it. Must be a day ending in a 'y'.

When children’s author J. K. Rowling accused the trans rights movement of ‘offering cover to [sexual] predators’ in a June 2020 article,²⁶ for instance, numerous popular threads popped up giving credence to this baseless and ultimately conspiratorial claim

She did. She said just that. And it's probable that the square-bracketed "sexual" in the quote clears up possible confusion for the reader. I think that JKR was definitely not talking about feral carnivores, financial services tricksters, dodgy salesmen or burglars. The rest of the article makes this plain.

Of course the rest of the article also makes plain that "offering cover" means just that. Predators can use it for cover. Not that trans people are inherently predatorial. She goes to considerable lengths to deny that "conspiratorial claim".

You've got to admire the brass neck of the writer. Desperately trying to cobble together an argument out of the leavings at the bottom of the ideas bag, and presenting it with oh-so-correct citations.

#NoThankYou 🕳

You are so welcome, thank you so much for your valued contribution

A classic example of how those who hate women spend so many hours on here frothing over the relentless centring of women's rights and child safeguarding.

The idea that this meaningless word salad of accusations in any way compares to the sheer range of intelligent, insightful, considered, knowledgeable posts on here is

It’s certainly not been my experience that transallies get hounded out. Personally, I welcome the input, because I want to understand their position. I want for it to make sense. I want people to be able to voice their opinions. I rarely report

The issue is that the most prominent critics of the feminist board who show up sooner or later get frustrated and start getting abusive, or find themselves otherwise unable to stick to the rules around language, because they feel they absolutely must call users “cis” or “t*rf”, or call us Nazis.

I understand that it can be overwhelming to come to a place where your point of view is in the minority, and to suddenly come up against posters who will relentlessly analyse what you’re saying, and look for evidence and justifications, and internal coherence, which probably hasn’t happened before. I see transallies get a lot of latitude, probably because users want to have the conversation and don’t report much, so the posts don’t get flagged for removal in nearly the proportion that GC users posts do.

It seems to me that the problem isn’t the lack of moderation, it’s the presence of GC voices at all that’s the issue. There isn’t anything that MN can do to evade the ccusations of transphobia, because the people monitoring the feminism board don’t participate in the rest of the site, have no interest in it, and would be happy to have the whole place taken down, losing a great source of support for women, in the quest to shut down women’s voices.

The reference by "justabunchofcunts" must be invaluable scientifically

Can words identify to have other meanings now op? The word summary is an odd choice. I'd have gone for 'long, rambling and biased' myself.

To summarise, when a platform touts its free speech credentials while permitting one group of users to hound out dissenters, that is a red flag. When a platform begins to attract those banned from better-moderated forums for violating their minimum standards, that is a bellowing claxon.

I don't think the writer realises that this is just the feminist board on MN. They seem to think it is the whole site.

I hope they don't think 'The doghouse' is a stand alone site to discuss anything dog related, whether or not you like dogs.

Archived; archive.is/CRQYE

Women knowing what their sex class is though lived experience are not 'anti trans' or 'transphobic'.

Its bizarre of you to acknowledge that trans activism erases womens rights and ignores us as a discrete sex class and expect us to cheer you on, on a Feminism board.

The writer’s also either missed or ignored that a big part of the awakening on MN was concern about a violent male (without a GRC but with a self-described ‘seven-inch surprise’) being sent to a women’s prison. Maybe that didn’t fit the narrative.

I, for one, would be thrilled if it were activists who are hostile to MN were the ones to persuade MNHQ of the need to upgrade the forum features in such a way. Perhaps there might also be an edit function - with an audit trail, of course.

It’s astonishing that in an article that is a critique of the feminism and women’s rights part of the website, that it studiously manages to avoid ever mentioning feminism and women’s rights

You’d be tempted to conclude that the author either doesn’t think that’s important, or that they have to studiously ignore it to make their point…

Unconvinced, OP! Got anything more persuasive?

Do you think if we all added footnotes in our posts we would be considered more credible? And not just insulting meanies.

Isn’t that literal violence?

Or even a non-crime hate incident? (Except that Miranda would need to perceive it that way and I can think of few people who would be less likely to endorse that perception.)

Still, a lucky escape there. And one of the reasons that I suggested the author would benefit from submitting work to a fact checker and editor. It's a slip-up that might results in a report and an indelible shadow on a DBS with its implications for future education and work prospects.

And then finally.

To summarise, when a platform touts its free speech credentials while permitting one group of users to hound out dissenters, that is a red flag. When a platform begins to attract those banned from better-moderated forums for violating their minimum standards, that is a bellowing claxon.

I am assuming that this writer thinks that the better moderated places are Reddit. And the connection between Reddit and red flags is very obvious when you look at who was recently moderating there. May still be there, I don’t know. Anyone seeing the content allowed on Reddit, will certainly know what ‘standards’ of moderation this writer wants to see and allow.

OP. Great job.

Oh dear. Miranda Yardley identifies as a gay male nowadays & this article misgenders him.

Isn’t that literal violence?

Factual accuracy and accountability!

That was particularly irritating. To be fair, this is in a week where it's taken a strikingly long time for the BBC to acknowledge their egregious defence of the 'suicide' stats while they've been gaslighting the nation in plain sight and dodging meaningful discussions of the encroachment into women's competitions in the Olympics.

As social media platforms have finally begun to understand following the 2020 US Presidential Election debacle, constructive debate requires some basic standards for factual accuracy and accountability, not just specious civility.

I am in stitches. Really. Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy here OP.

Factual accuracy and accountability!