The Times is Changing its Comment policy

So true @Ameadowwalk, it is startling how the vast majority of the commentators' names are now male names. Women have, literally, been silenced.

I think I had been through about three or four six month discounts by phoning and trying to cancel over the last five years for various reasons. The change in policy gave me a reason to be a bit more assertive in my desire to cancel. I am a single parent and I have better things to do with the subscription money (and my time). I also found an anti-woman tone in many of the comments, particularly around some things like the pay gap where you found yourself stating the obvious to people (men) who really didn’t care about the systematic disadvantage women face, including those without children.
What will happen is more of these types of comments will proliferate as there are fewer women to put the alternative views forward.

I saw a comment online that someone rang up to cancel based on this, and got a huge discount on their next six months subscription if they stayed.

I don't know what decision they made in the end.

Like you, I’m not prepared to jump through hoops, to prevent the Times removing the anonymity on which my freedom of expression depends. They have shown that they don’t give a toss about retaining my custom - so be it.

A woman I know who has a very unusual name phoned The Times customer help line and had a chat to them about all the reasons (as cited by PP) that she should not use her real name and why women should not be forced to use their real names. For her they did not include stalking but she explained that this can become an issue at some point so it is important to be anonymous from the start.

She said that she had a long conversation with what sounded like a young man who was very sympathetic. They ended up agreeing an alternative "real name" that was a woman's name made up of a common first name and last name.

It's not an ideal outcome because they very likely landed on a name shared by many women, one or more of whom might be misidentified as the author of her comments. This could cause problems for any such misidentified women.

It could also cause problems for the subscriber if she is misidentified as someone else.

This made me wonder about another unintended outcome of forcing people to use their real names.

The more common a real name then the more likely it is to be duplicated and also shared with women who are not subscribers.

The dual purpose of a Pseudonym is to be both anonymous and also, if possible, unique, so as to avoid confusion between actual subscribers. If there is more than one "Anne Smith" commenting, for example.

At the moment I really can't be arsed phoning The Times Customer Service to walk them through all this. If anyone else feels like doing it then you could add these issues to the list of things they really should have thought about if they wanted to get and keep women subscribers.

Yes.
It’s not only outing to GC people but discriminates against those who want anonymity having been victims of domestic abuse. If you are going through court proceedings or have a stalkerish ex, it’s better to have a level of anonymity to comment.

I've always felt having a system with your real name then a pseudonym was a bit dicey. It's very hard for them to justify. The The Telegraph has always had something closer to what the Times has brought it. That's how I understood it when I signed up to both.

You used to always have to write it with your real name to a paper, and you could always ask for them to remove it if published.

I feel really mixed about their policy but it is their platform and their decision. And you could always write in properly and ask to be kept anonymous if published.

Yeah. Up until a week ago I was able to post but they have come down hard now and nobody is allowed to post comments without outing themselves.

I checked. Your last name must be the one you registered with and it is the name on the bank card you subscribe with. You are allowed to use the initial of your first name, but it must spell out your full name correctly.
For those with a distinct and unusual surname this is outing. And is discrimination of people with gender critical beliefs.

I have always commented under my real name, but as title, initial and surname, so
it isn’t obvious I’m female. Misogynist bias usually assumes Dr F Bloggs to be male!

I've stopped paying. I can live without the paper, not very interesting when I knew I couldn't comment on stories.

Has anyone else now had their commenting rights revoked? I emailed them but got a shirty response.

Yeah - good to know that if you are discriminated against at work and have to take it to an Employment Tribunal you would win but that's a bundle of laughs isn't it?

Union won't support you? Never mind, hope for crowd-funding to take the union to court for discrimination too.

Great fun!

What a stupid woman!

It is very interesting (and not at all surprising) to note how many of the commentators now appear to be men.

My surname is relatively common but I will still take care in what I post now.

I don't get why it can't be moderated in a normal way.

I commented on articles twice today under my pseudonym and it didn't stop me, not sure how they are enforcing this?

This. Women lose freedom of expression (more so than men, because they are more penalised for GC comments) because of male abusive behaviour.

I agree, it's very frustrating to realise that there are so few places that women can talk openly about this. And by talking openly, I don't mean posting hateful content like name calling and slurs, I mean accurately describing male sex offenders and crossdressers as male.
Apparently, to some people that is deemed hateful. So ridiculous.

It's a bit more than a shame.

It effectively silences women from defending their rights while creating the impression that women are happy to hand their rights over to a bunch of misogynist nutjobs.

It is enabling the subordination of females to males on the basis of sex, but to happen very naicely under the illusion of it all being so very modern and progressive.

Moderation is a minefield. You can't moderate for a slow drip drip of thinly disguised bile. The Times comments are toxic on anything to do with race/teenagers/schools/benefits so I think using your real name is a good thing. I cancelled my membership because the comments were so relentlessly unpleasant. It's a shame that women might feel unable to comment on trans issues but there it is.

I think I may have to stand up and be counted.

What I believe is not hateful. It does not deny trans women feel what they feel.

It is simply this.

That regardless of how one defines Woman, the thing trans women feel, which they name Womanhood, and the fact of having a female body and the physical and social consequences that has, are not the same thing

That our culture has been shaped by patriarchy and that gives advantages to male people

That female people have right and need to speak of the physical and social consequences of being female in this society, share our experiences, find common cause and work together as female people to have our voices heard, to make visible and challenge cultural biases and to support each other against those cultural threats and limitations

That those who assert the words TWAW are a material fact that gives trans women the right to anything designated "women only" are taking resources and support that were put in place to mitigate those consequences from the female people who need them and giving to male people who do not

If I say nothing, if I accept being silenced, my silence about what I believe leaves a space that those who have silenced me can fill with lies about what I believe to justify what they do.

I can, if it comes to it, lose my job and be OK. Many others are not so lucky. So I have to speak because these things need to be said.

Although I've a very common name so probably wouldn't be identified by it, I am going to cancel my Times' subscription I think this is a terrible idea.

Rachel Meade posted moderate comments on a private Facebook group. Didn’t stop another member reporting her to her employer and professional body.