MNHQ now email posters with how to "get around" the talk guidelines.

[GoshAnneGorilla]

There is yet another thread on FWR about trans people. Like nearly every other thread on there about trans people, it's a load of transphobia dressed up as gender analysis.

Nothing new, sadly.

What is new, is that MNHQ have now sent an email to a poster whose post was deleted, telling them how their post could be within the guidelines, even including a copy of their original post to make editing all the easier. This is because "discussion is important".

So, a few questions for MNHQ.

Are GLBT rights at all important to you?

Will you be extending this " How to bend the talk guidelines" services to racist, homophobic, or disabilist posts too, or is it only trans people who deserve to be discussed in a manner which is extremely offensive?

...and I say that as someone who is open-minded about the possibility of different definitions of 'woman'.... I wouldn't go around telling transwomen they are wrong because who am I to determine which definition of womanhood makes sense for them? But the idea that this is now the only valid version of truth is hugely problematic and dangerous.

But that's my point. I don't think anything sinister is going on. I think MNHQ have a tough enough time modding FWR because of all the crap that DOES go down on there. Which is not the fault of regular posters and activists but dickhead twactivists with their own crappy agenda.

Rather than continue an discussion that's clearly from another thread I would like to know how the op is justifying accusations of MNHQ being transphobic on the basis if a site wide system?

It seems unfair and misleading.

The topic is site stuff. Yet mostly this is an argument about definitions of gender and defining, not whether MNHQ should allow people to edit their posts to remove PAs.

One person's being told how to 'get around guidelines' is another person's 'help to stay within guidelines'.

I don't really see anything wrong with it.

OK HoneyDragon, I understood that you thought the issue was trolling. Thanks for your clarification.

MN has just had a very successful campaign around miscarriage care. I am very grateful for that as miscarriage has been a major issue in my own life, in that of other family members and I don't want it to be an issue for DD.

What is sad is that no mainstream feminist site could run that campaign anymore, because any issue of the female body gets closed down for transphobia.

I think the reason there are fewer liberal voices is because trans activism is radicalising many feminists and they have changed their minds. Many posters on the thread have said that is what has happened to them.

We are lucky to have MN. It is one of the few places leftonline that cares about females.

We are lucky that we can say what we want all MNHQ as is that we are mindful how we say it.

And I wholeheartedly agree with what Tiggy just said.

*ask

I agree with GoshAnne. I think overall the FWR section is terrific but I find the trans threads really depressing (not to mention, as a social scientist/constructivist myself, theoretically incoherent).

Because of that, I find HQ's decision in this case to be a bit incoherent as well. By deleting the post, they appeared to be agreeing it could be seen as transphobic. In which case, 'here's some advice to make it non-objectionable' is a bit creepy. Imagine someone wrote a long and thoughtful post about immigration policy, but with a few bits that were borderline xenophobic, let's say. Would we expect HQ to give some editing advice? I don't think so. The xenophobic bits colour the argument as a whole.

And if the response to that is: well, but the bits that were removed weren't really transphobic or objectionable, then why did HQ delete it at all?

I find the lack of transparency in the process troubling. If HQ had something to say about that post, they should have posted openly on the thread.

I would assume MN is attempting to stay within the law, and that is how it decides what is and is not racist, transphobic etc.

It has never deleted posts just because they are prejudiced against women, Christians etc.

Buffy, you can be straw post structuralist if you want! You might need a new thread to explain it all though.

The problem is that what is or is not transphobic is massively controversial.

It isn't like racism or homophobia where there is a general agreement on what is offensive. (And I think comparing MN/FWR to Stormfront, a white supremacist neo-Nazi organisation, is disingenuous, disgusting and basically a veiled Godwinning.)

I think what happened is that someone argued to MN that two aspects of my stated opinion were what they would consider transphobic/offensive.

And MNHQ listened to them. Which I think is to be appreciated (even though it resulted in my being deleted).

In trying to be fair and balanced, MNHQ also contacted me to explain what the problem raised was with my post (which was helpful as I think all of us are unsure as to what constitutes transphobia because it varies so enormously from site to site and person to person).

Rather than just zap an entire post they suggested that I remove two specific parts that would be considered transphobic by some people but not by others.

I think MNHQ was trying to be fair, to listen to and respond to the poster who reported me, to not stifle discussion and to be mindful of the fact that my post was a considered opinion on a very very controversial subject.

They are never going to please all of the people all of the time (understatement!) but AFAICS what has happened here is that HQ have tried very hard to be both fair to me and to the person who reported me.

Giving them a hard time for it seems rather rude to me.

Just to reiterate, here are my points.

1. Do MNHQ email posters who have had posts deleted for other forms of bigotry such as racism, homophobia or disabilism and tell them how they can express their prejudices without breaking talk guidelines?

Because if that is happening, I think MNHQ need to be very open about this.

You cannot delete threads for being unsupportive to parents, as MNHQ are increasingly doing, yet actively assist posters to promote views which are prejudiced and hurtful to many parents and posters on here.

If this is happening, I think posters have a right to know, particularly in the light of discussions about "goadyiness" across the boards.

2)If MNHQ has never emailed posters who have had posts deleted for other forms of prejudice telling them how to express their prejudices within talk guidelines, then why are posts deemed transphobic being singled out for this treatment?

Either MNHQ deems transphobia a prejudice akin to racism, homophobia, disabilism and therefore in breach of talk guidelines, or it doesn't.

Also, according to Rowan's post, MNHQ will be working with Pride, who unlike Stonewall, described themselves as "serving the LGBT+" community, so I do think this makes it an even more relevant question to ask.

Imagine someone wrote a long and thoughtful post about immigration policy, but with a few bits that were borderline xenophobic, let's say. Would we expect HQ to give some editing advice? I don't think so. The xenophobic bits colour the argument as a whole.

Off topic, but... I have seen many threads about immigration policy, especially those around the time of the election where both borderline and actual xenophobic statements have been made and allowed to stand. So, why would HQ email those posters anyway?

MNHQ were completely transparent, as was Beachcomber. This might have been the problem in fact and hence the TAAT. If MNHQ had just deleted and Beach had had a look and reposted her own edited post with no discussion, I'm assuming that would have been ok? Or if MNHQ had deleted and then quietly told Beach which bits were offensive, but told her not to say anything about it?

AFAIA, this thread was started because GAG felt aggrieved because she believes that MNHQ had helped a poster 'get around' the talk guidelines. This has been shown not to be the case. If people feel that the thread on FWR is going a way they don't like, then they are free to post on it, however, it's been good to see debate about a subject that usually gets shut down in minutes by people screaming bigot at anyone with a differing opinion.

I agree with that Buffy but I'm not sure that explains what happened here.

This seems less a case of engaging with someone and explaining how their words might be offensive, everyone moves on in more enlightened fashion, etc etc.... and more like HQ being a copyeditor. Eh, scrub these two paragraphs so no one complains.

I do find this unsettling. I would really hope this doesn't happen on the UKIP threads for example, where yes there are people writing very thoughtfully and not being goady and yet still being bigoted. Simply telling someone 'these are the sentences to take out' doesn't necessarily mean thinking evolves, it's just telling someone how to present the same ideas a little differently.

GoshAnne, the issues around trans are being discussed within the LGBT community as well, and many of the posters on that thread are LGBT themselves and discussing it from that perspective.

Most of the people targeted by trans activism seem to be lesbians or gay men.

I hope it does happen on UKIP threads, despite being opposed to UKIP. Most of what I have learnt from MN has been from posters being allowed to express arguments so others can argue against them, as long as those arguments stay within the law.

The problem is that what is or is not transphobic is massively controversial. It isn't like racism or homophobia where there is a general agreement on what is offensive.

I disagree with this enormously, and I actually think perhaps this is the root of our different takes on this (perhaps for GoshAnne as well).

Racism and homophobia are still incredibly contested. At a crude level, how many threads do you see on here where people debate whether certain things are racist or not? You will see incredibly varied interpretations of what is racist depending on who you ask. It will vary enormously across different countries, generations -- think of what wasn't considered racist just a few decades ago.

These are not static concepts, they are highly normative and shift constantly.

So I strongly disagree with placing transphobia apart from these, and implying it's okay to say objectionable things because 'it's controversial', because no one agrees what transphobia is.

As a more recent concept, transphobia is perhaps more contested, but if MN has included it within their talk guidelines then it should be taken seriously.

DB, it is okay to say racist things on MN, as long as it stays within the law. There have been large thread where almost everyone agrees a certain poster's perspective is racist, but the posts in question are not deleted.

The difference on the trans thread is that there are not lots of posters who think the posts are transphobic. Should a lack of people who disagree be a reason for MN to delete?

almond I think often, site guidelines are not compatible with democracy. MN needs to be consistent with its guidelines regardless of whether the majority of posters agree or not, and of course then we are free to say what we think about that.