Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We've given lots of thought to our moderation policies around trans rights and sex and gender issues and thought it would be a good idea to articulate where we stand in the form of a clear statement, so everyone can be clear about our moderation going forward. You can find it here. Hope it provides a helpful reference point. Thanks.

Agree with Lang, even if letting people know every time they have a post deleted is difficult, I think letting them know when they are on two strikes would be a fair compromise?

Also agree about threads possibly working better than posts. The way I'm thinking about it, anyone in any situation (not just in FWR, but other posts - actually, it's not clear to me, will the three strikes rule apply to all posts/threads/areas?)... anyway... anyone could have posted three deletable posts in one 1000 post thread while it was live, but three days later someone reads it and reports all of the persons posts in one go. So they go from no deleted posts to all three strikes, days later than the offence and without warning, iyswim? Do you already have a plan on how you'll address this?

Thanks mumsnet. 😊

We’ll also be taking a dim view of the continual and persistent reporting of posts that don’t break our guidelines, as each of these need to be investigated, which is a huge waste of the mod team's time and energy. Anyone who repeatedly reports similar types of posts that aren’t worthy of deletion – ie simply to be vexatious – will be suspended.

Hear, hear. It's high time that this type of bullying tactic was called out.

I’m glad to see a very simple system with no convoluted rules. Just my input on a couple of points.

We’ll be introducing a three strikes system whereby users deleted more than three times in any rolling six week period will have their membership automatically suspended and we’ll then take a view as to whether they will have membership reinstated.

This does open up the possibility that TRAs could target attacks on specific posters. Mass reporting of one poster’s posts would be likely to increase the number of deletions they get. We have already seen specific posters be targeted by reports on threads and this will be used as a way of removing individual posters from the site. how will you ensure that mass reporting isn’t used to silence posters from either side of the debate?

Sweeping negative generalisations - if this is something like ‘they’re all xxx’ then that’s fine. What about a true generalisation? Such as ‘AGP is included under the stonewall umbrella?’ We HAVE to be able to talk about AGP. Silencing mention of it is not helpful. What about ‘transwomen are men.’

I disagree totally with disallowing/deleting for TIM or cis. I personally don’t like cis as a term but I don’t care if I’m offended and I think these terms should be allowed.

Overall is this going to be the only area of the boards where we have a three strikes system? I’m already aware that I have to police my language and I’m careful in my postings, but I’m concerned that posters from both sides are going to be deleted for taking part in debate.

I think 'peak transed' is another term that should be looked at carefully.

So can I just clarify this and I'm genuinely asking as i don't want to be suspended. I've been here for 17 years and never been suspended yet (surprisingly):

(1) every post mentioning TiM will be deleted? Can we use "man transitioning to a women" or "man wanting to be a woman" or "man identifying as a woman" - or are we not to menition the term man at all in which case can we say "male person identifying as a woman"? Is "transwoman" the only acceptable term now?

(2) similarly every post using the term "cis" or "TERF" will be deleted?

(3) every poster with three posts deleted in three weeks will be automatically suspended? Does that happen automatically; if so will quoting deleted posts mean deletion and thus suspension?

The threads are going to be a bit holey.

Sounds very fair. Re the three strikes policy - sometimes people have posts deleted for quoting another deleted post. Will there be a mechanism for ensuring posts like that don't get counted in the three strikes tally?

Snap, maryz!

Also meant to say thanks to Justine for sticking with this. It is most appreciated.

Thank you MNHQ.

I really value the opportunity to engage in discussion on trans topics, and I think this is a really positive step towards keeping discussion viable on this board.

I think the three strikes and the vexatious reporting systems are really great for reducing the mod load, and hopefully moving the tone away from hostility and prejudice.

Seems to me that it would be essential to let posters know when they've had a post deleted for this to be effective though. Three strikes can only alter behaviours if you know how many strikes you're on.

Daim
I’m confused. Don’t some people actually identify Transgender rights activists in the same way as TA’s or TRA’s? Banning this would be non sensical, surely?

Calling people something or other Nazi should also be banned

As an aside daimbars insistence that there is no connection between transpeople and autogynephila (AGP) and her requests to delete all references to the latter is bonkers.

Even Stonewall accepts crossdressers (and so by implication transvestites) as trans and insists they should have the same rights as all trans people. AGPs are crossdressers (or transvestites) by definition, so they are transpeople .

Oh, sorry, another question...

Will TERF count as a deletable post for a "plopper", or only when used in a conversation? I'm thinking of people who join threads on Aibu (for eg) with little idea of what the GC argument is, so may not have seen this statement.

Is ignorance of the law a possible defence on mn?

I think 'peak transed' is another term that should be looked at carefully

daim - you are attempting to list a series of things / phrases you don’t want discussed. AGP must be able to be discussed. If a poster is saying ‘they’re all pervs’ then that’s a deletion issue. To discuss AGP as a phenomenon is vital within the context of the debate. To disallow it is censorship.

We need to be able to discuss EVERYTHING. What the rules and the mods have to do is put a framework in place that allows that discussion without it descending into abuse.

That's a very good point about mass reporting, Bowl. On Twitter, where most moderation seems to be automated and done by algorithm, transactivists have targeted certain gender critical people and simply by hitting a certain threshold of reports have managed to get accounts suspended or closed, without a human being looking carefully at what has actually been said or at the accounts of those doing the reporting. This included recently getting someone suspended for referring to Ian Huntley by that name.

It must be very expensive for Mumsnet to continue with real people moderating, but I can't tell you how glad I am that you do it. Artificial intelligence has a long, long way to go before it can pick up on the nuances of this sort of stuff.

collude

Maryz
Agreed. Looks as if daim is going to make a few appearances on this thread...

"every post mentioning TiM will be deleted? Can we use "man transitioning to a women" or "man wanting to be a woman" etc

TIM is offensive not because it is an acronym but because it denies the identity of trans women. Swapping to new terms which have the same effect won't improve the debate or reduce the offence

Daim
I've never called anyone a TRA as an insult. I use the term TA for precision, to make clear I'm not talking about trans ppl in general, but, well, trans activists at the extreme end of the debate.

Honest q, what would be an acceptable term? I won't say "pro trans rights" bc I think that creates a false dichotomy (most GC women I know, aren't against trans rights). I am however very critical of the kind of activism I see from this group of ppl and will likely want to discuss this in debates on here.

Daim, how would the rule for allowing discussion of scientific theories be squared with never ever ever mentioning AGP?

Personally I think after x number of deletions you could look at a persons posts, their posting history and the patterns of the reports against them - this is where coercive control training for mods would be useful.

If you see that someone is clearly being a arse or a goady fucker or a troll then go ahead. But I think you may see that specific posters are targeted for deletion to stifle debate. There needs to be a mechanism to weed out malicious and high volume reporting.

And I assume it's 3 strikes starting from today, and 3 naughty posts yesterday won't get suspension.

Is that just for socially acceptable transpeople or for rapists and murderers and paedophiles too? If the person was black would you refer to them as an offensive racial term? I don't thinks it's possible to say that if a person is bad that all gloves are off with regards to how you treat them.

Maryz what about feminine/masculine presenting trans person?

Then you don't have to acknowledge that individual as a man or woman if you don't believe they are, and similarly you need not associate the only with their biological sex and not with what they believe to be their gender.

I know you think what you think, but surely this is a term that would hopefully offend no-one, although of course it isn't a statement of anyone's particular views either.

Thanks HQ - seems pretty reasonable.

I like hard and fast rules personally, but I understand why you’ve gone with a more contextual approach on moderating language. It’s also really heartening to see ‘cis’ included - despite all the insistence from gender activists that it’s a neutral descriptive term. I’m one of the many women who find it offensive, and I am glad the mod policy now reflects that.

Thanks for all your hard work moderating this place and enabling the conversation to happen.