Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Follow on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3276551-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues?pg=40&order=

beach

Are you sure that you didn't accidentally call someone a cunt on your deleted thread

Im just think that coukd make a difference...

Well I would really like HQ to let me know why my comment broke the guidelines.

I suppose they could say "it was transphobic" in a general "it's the sort of statement that genderists don't like and which could hurt the feelings of people invested in transgender ideology".

But you could say that about most of the posts on FWR about transgenderism as an ideology.

Perhaps HQ would be good enough to explain on this thread why the comment was considered beyond the pale. I think it would be helpful to all of us to understand what we can and can't say by using some actual examples.

I didn't think for one second that I would be deleted. No acronym, no mention of a specific person, no mention of even the word male or any pronouns.

I criticised an ideology and said what type of movement I take it to be.

But critique of an ideology is NOT phobic.

Religious discrimination applies to people either individuals or groups. The ideologyvitself is up for as much criticism as you can chuck at it. The only way you can argue harm to a person is if the criticism is done in a way that either makes it discriminatory against an individual or inciting hatred against a group.

So for example tommy Robinson’s comments on Muslims recently outside a trial - wrong, incoteful etc.
Someone giving critique of Islam as a religion in a context like ‘I feel this is a patriarchal religion with disturbing views on x and y’ is NOT wrong.

Ditto Christianity. If I abuse someone for being Christian I’m wrong. If o talk about how Christianity over history has become a patriarchal religion, criticise bits of bible etc I am NOT in the wrong.

One of the points rowan Atkinson made to get Blair’s blasphemy laws torpedoed was that the vicar of bloody dibley would have fallen foul of the law. Since that’s about as gentle as comedy gets, he had a point.

Again - PEOPLE are protected, rightly.
IDEOLOGY is not.

This is very, very important

Report your most recent post and ask them to reinstate the deleted post Beachcomber.

They'll probably do it. Or they will tell you why they won't reinstate it.

They tend to take the line of least resistance in my experience. Particularly at weekends.

Rufus, we will never get straightforward answers.

Even the original guidelines from mnhq used the words "probably", "probably not", "likely", "not too often" etc etc.

And that's before you even get into people reporting others for "intent" or "tone" or "attitude".

Beachcomber, if you remember the sentence mayby try using it with the words changed to "organised religion" or "Scientology" or "Creationism" or "Flat Earth Society" or some such. See what happens.

I do hope you called someone a cunt. I'm not even particular who

OK I've reported the post above and asked HQ to comment.

I'm willing to repost what I said here although I will be deleted and it would be my second strike in one day...

No, don't risk reposting it Beachcomber

The mods are all getting used to the new rules too. When it comes to having to make a judgement call it's to be expected that they will not all make the same decision every time. Because they are human.

Couple that with the fact that they will have been deluged with reports from TRAs hunched over their screens just looking to take offence.

Ask in what way the post contravened the guidelines as you are honestly making an effort not to do so. Ask them to reconsider their decision.

I remember what I said and HQ were good enough to quote the sentence that made them delete me.

I genuinely don't understand why it merited deletion because as I said it was a comment about the ideology / movement of transgenderism. It wasn't a comment about people or maleness and didn't contain any acronyms.

Rufus, you're not alone in your confusion about the guidelines.

I am utterly befuddled by the last 48 hrs of 'clarification'. I think part of my brain has shut down in self-defence. I've just watched all three ad breaks in a recorded programme. Also occurred to me earlier that I'd been feeling cold for quite a while, but hadn't registered that I'm sat next to a open window.

Which is why it makes sense for it to be reviewed. I think you might need to wait until,after the weekend for a response though, they will probably need to pass it up the line to the Head Mod.

Like I said, they'll be learning how to apply/interpret the new rules too.

weezol

I dont think i have a brain anymore

And i really wanted to post something mean on another thread and i havent...AND ITS KILLING ME

I think you would all like my RL alter ego...im a complete cow

bore

I really think this is a steep learning curse for MNHQ

It would just be good if they could pop on with the occasional 'we are working on it' type comment

Tra,s hunched over their screens. Made me laugh. The feckers should be out and about on a Saturday nigh5 enjoying themselves ffs

Yy rufus. The radio silence is peculiar - they usually discuss changes a lot more than this, don't they?

That's why I wondered what was going on behind the scenes, whether they'd been advised legally that these were the best guidelines, or whether all decisions have come straight from HQ. I have a sneaking suspicion (though a bit of a tendency towards paranoia) that these changes have been pressured legally from TRAs (it was confirmed "TRA" is fine to post wasn't it? If not HQ, can you just edit it out of the post rather than delete it?) and the guidelines issued on advice from MNs legal bods. Which would explain the lack of interaction here, if they don't feel able to comment, iyswim?

There aren't many of them on at the weekend though Rufus and I really do think they are deluged at the moment.

I agree with both of you

Still wouldnt have killed them to say they wouldnt get back to anyone til monday

I know im being a bit unreasonable...BUT IM NOYYED as my 5 year old used to say

I actually think they must work through reports in time order. If there's a huge pile they may not even have reached Beachcomber's queries yet.

bore

Yeah i get that

I stupidly posted comments as i read on a thread recently

You could tell exactly where i had reached in the thread

I've taking to typing "transactivists, and by that I mean the aggressive in your face trans supporter, not the ordinary trans people who just want to live their lives in peace" type sentences to try to avoid deletion offending anyone.

it makes posts a bit long.

Would someone mind summarising what the HQ position actually is?

MNHQ wants the Mumsnet members who post on FWR to signal submission to the transgender advocates by no longer using the terms that transgender people use to talk about themselves. Specifically "idenetify" appears to be banned and any terms that indicate the sex of a person.
This seems to apply only to what they call "trans threads", which I take to mean the many threads that the MRAs and transgender advocates post here to goad Feminists into saying something they can screencap and post to twitter to support their position that Mumsnet is transphobic and should be shut down.
I think we are seeing the thin edge of the wedge because it is the "breeders" that transgender advocates seem to hate the most. I expect once HQ accedes to these damands the next thing on the agenda is women shutting up about breastfeeding or giving birth.

That's good Maryz. Unfortunately my ipad is screwing up my C&P function again (only on Mumsnet though!) so I can't nick it from you.

Well, if nothing else the confusion has finally driven me to learn how to take a screen shot on the device I've had for two years.

I'm feeling old. I remember moving from key commands to mouses.

MNHQ wants the Mumsnet members who post on FWR to signal submission to the transgender advocates by no longer using the terms that transgender people use to talk about themselves. Specifically "idenetify" appears to be banned and any terms that indicate the sex of a person

I still don't understand :(. (Thanks anyway) We can't say "identifies as a sex" or "is" a sex? We have to be ompletely abstract?

Can offensive terms like cis and Terf still be used?

TRA (or tea as I autocorrect to - it knows me) is fine. I had an email confirming it. MNHQ agree that it is good to differentiate between the people pushing these things through and the old school type.

It also said that mentioning AGP is fine but not things saying the majority of trans suffer (would suffer be the right word when it seems to be enjoyed?!) from it. Although according to some stats I've seen (up to 80%) do. So that one is tricky ground.

I've asked if I can post the email here. I don't want to do so without permission as it was sent privately but I would be surprised if they said no.