Mumsnet moderation - response to yesterday's feedback

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,

I’ve had lots of contact about about yesterday’s thread which has now maxed out so thought I’d put a response here.

First of all our guidelines absolutely do allow people to discuss biology and science. And we absolutely see why some of Penny Mordaunt’s words yesterday would raise concerns amongst those with a gender critical POV - so maybe it wasn’t, in retrospect, the best moment to make a point. Nonetheless we do believe that as a rule Spartacus-type threads are not conducive to a constructive debate and that trans people would be likely to feel attacked and/or excluded by them.

To state the obvious and as I’ve said before, this is an extremely polarised debate in which even the most basic terms are disputed, so if we’re going to have it here we’re in danger of being attacked from all sides (which we are in actual fact). Nonetheless, we think it’s important, so we’ll keep at it and we’ll keep trying to moderate it to make it as open and civil as we possibly can.

You should also know that I’m due to meet soon with Penny Mordaunt to discuss “any ideas you may have on the women and equalities agenda’' and I will of course reflect the strong opinion of many Mumsnetters wrt to this issue and ask her to do a webchat too.

Thanks, as ever, for your input.

I’d take Datun because she wouldn’t even let the homeopathy thing rile her. 😀

If I was Justine I'd take you with me, bowl. Though as Mordaunt is a philosophy grad who supports homeopathy you might have your work cut out. So I'd take littlbrowndog too. And Rowan to provide references and supporting information as and when required.

I agree with you Errol. And I'd take Lang, Datun and Barraker too - just in case.....

Also Justine since this directly affects Mumsnet it may be worth having a copy of Trans Media Watch's briefing to Westminster Home Affairs Committee on Hate Crime ('A charity registered in 2010 with the express aim of encouraging the British media to report on trans and intersex issues with accuracy, dignity and respect')

It references Mumsnet specifically and posters on the FWR board:

"Of particular current concern is Mumsnet. Originally set up to be a support group for mothers, the website has expanded to have a variety of “boards".

The feminist activism board seems to have become an area for those opposed to trans rights to organise. 18 out of the latest 26 threads are conversations on trans rights, with a large number of posts alleging variations of “trans women are men”. The feminist chat board also has a number of threads on the “trans agenda”, containing posts such as “I have no hatred for transwomen, I just don't want to be anywhere near humans who were born with a penis” While concern is current, this does not seem to be a new phenomenon (continues)

The Home Affairs Committe on Hate Speech was discussed by James Kirkup in his article, Why are some MPs trying to shut down the transgender debate? it's an important article raising a number of points.

As this 'evidence' contains a number of flaws as well as falsely characterising Mumsnet members, it seems appropriate to interrogate the rest of the document and the influence of the charity.

thread

I am also aware of many with the intersex community who are unhappy with being represented by this charity and the briefing paper is also highlighted as being problematic here

(extract)
'The problem in the UK is that Trans Media Watch have been allowed to become voice of the intersex community, for example, in this report to the hate crimes committee which was submitted by them..

The document says intersex all over it but represents very little from intersex community. In fact, if this is supposed to be looking at accurate reporting and media representation in order to fight prejudice, why didn’t they pick up on this?

@NUJofficial why does your LGBT+ advice say that intersex people are transgender and reduce complex medical conditions to one wildly inaccurate statement? This is ignorant and offensive, and explains why our representation is so poor in the media. Can you please fix this?

Quick note: The head of NUJ ethics council has said they will review this at their next meeting since being made aware
Gender radical trans organisations can’t represent intersex people as their beliefs are interphobic. I witness this all the time. The gender radical view that chromosomes have nothing to do with sex and my inability to conform means I am called a man a lot by trans activists"

A few people have picked up on Justine's 'zillion times...' comment. To be fair to her, I thought she was making a personal statement, not a sweeping one comparing trans people generally to women. There are a variety of reasons why one person might be ok with something while another says 'I don't think I could cope with that'.

Great points R0wantrees about the change sex lobby co-opting intersex as well as those transsexuals who don't believe they have changed sex

I also want to add my voice to Datun's comment - well said.
There's no point being represented by someone who seems not to be across, nor empathise with, the systemic issues many women face and why the legislative proposals put women and children in harm's way.

My thx to all the other, concerned, articulate, women on here who feel a responsibility towards those women and girls who don't have a voice, nor even access to the net in some cases.

I agree it was a personal comment, but she felt it relevant to say in the context of how MN weigh all this up, so I think this was a comment relating to a viewpoint that is informing her approach to FWR.

The issue is there are lots of issues that could be additional challenges to being a woman, but it's important we distinguish between oppression - which is systemic and cultural and does not hinge on feelings - and hardship, which can be rooted in anything that can make our lives more difficult at all, like mental illness/suchlike.

If someone has dysphoria they have to deal with that distress, that is a hardship. Non-conformity is not particular to trans people, so this is not an additional challenge specific to being trans.

Whereas women are oppressed due to our sex. Some women are very privileged and don't experience much of what tends to come with being a woman under patriarchy. But most women are not and do. Justine should approach this board with that in mind imo. And a man who identifies as a woman will always have more power on the basis of sex than women, no matter what else is going on. Only race and class intersect with that. Cos again, feelings do not oppression make.

I should say that being otherwise privileged does not protect women from patriarchy, it just sometimes* functions to isolate enough that it becomes difficult to see sexism and misogyny in many ways...

Though as Mordaunt is a philosophy grad who supports homeopathy you might have your work cut out.

[tangent] I'd hope (perhaps wrongly) that Mordaunt is aware of critical thinking even if she doesn't practise it. However, the lack of basic science understanding among Ministers, MPs etc. is a running gripe of Ben Goldacre's, and he attributes a lot of weird governmental/political/policy decisions to this. [/tangent]

Also Justine with regards Mumsnet, it might also be worth giving Penny Mordant a heads up with regards Pink News. Its clear that seem to have a great deal of influence given that The Prime Minister gave an important speech in front of their backdrop.

The editors have been on BBC quite a bit in the last few of days too, largely unchallenged.

THere have been quite a few articles published by Pink News that have been incedury and innaccurate (the article Anti-trans activists hit out at ‘parasitic’ trans people at event in Parliament would have been incredibly distressing to those in the transgender community)

I recall your interview with Julia Hartley Brewer and India Willoughby and was very concerned to see that Pink News had subsequently published this article:

'India Willoughby: Britain’s rampant transphobia has me worried for my life: We’re heading for a modern day Stonewall riot – unless the government and media clamp down on what has become rampant transphobia.'

(extract)
"The Sunday Times, Daily Mail and – wait for it – Mumsnet – are hounding trans women in the same way Hitler went about stigmatising Jewish people.

Seriously. That’s no exaggeration.

The tabloids are no surprise, but Mumsnet?

Yeah, what is supposed to be a family-friendly parenting site has it’s claws out for the trans community.

And it all feels very orchestrated. (continues)

I defy anyone to visit Mumsnet right now, look up transgender, and tell me that the vicious and mocking threads about trans people would be allowed about any other demographic. It’s the stuff of pitchforks and lanterns. The same rhetoric about race, religion on sexuality would lead to prosecutions and official condemnation.

Mumsnet CEO Justine Roberts squeals that trans people highlighting the content – including threads which out trans people – to some of the site’s main advertisers is out of order. She describes it as an attack on free speech. This might be a shock to Justine, but trans people have free speech, too.

There’s even a debate about introducing a new trans Section 28, clamping down on educating the public about what transgender is.

Justine is adamant there’s nothing transphobic on Mumsnet. Only reasoned debate. She wants transgender visitors to Mumsnet to be “happy and supported.” It feels reminiscent of when Cruella de Vil opens a home for stray dogs in 101 Dalmatians.

Mumsnet’s reputation for transphobia is fully deserved. Hardliners openly strategise ways to make life tougher for trans people: Passengers warned not to travel on sleeper trains because they might end up in the same sleeping berth as a woman who’s trans. Support gathered to stop trans women being allowed on Labour’s all-women shortlists. National meeting organised where they can clap and cheer their hatred.

It’s all very similar to the way the National Front used to operate.

I’m sure most people who use the site are decent folk. They want nothing to do with the rabid mouth-frothing going on by so-called “feminists.”"

I do of course recognise this is an opinion piece and India Willoughby is entitled to her opinion (she has a great deal of media power it seems) but there is also responsibility with any journalistic website for the content of what is published there.

The claim that Mumsnetters are calling for a 'new section 28' is factually innacurate. Many here actively opposed it and/or were affected by it.

This claim comes from that blog post by the MN intern. Its a shame that people don't look further at the thread as belief in it being accurate has spread widely now.

There are of course a number of other obvious concerns with the article.

Perhaps this falsity has contributed to people feeling unwelcome on the board?

Oh lord. Homeopathy?? 🤦🏻‍♀️ Ffs.

We’re doomed, Cap’n Mainwearing....

There should be a basic level of sense required for our elected officials. A belief in homeopathy shows the believer to be gullible and lacking even the very basics of science literacy.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ben Goldacre - the level of scientific literacy is far too low.

We are back to the issue of critical thinking eh Bowl?

We areROwan

It’s in bloody short supply.

Sorry not been around much, bit unwell and have been told to rest and avoid all stress. So here’s some light relief, for anyone who has to deal with an elected official who believes in homeopathy...

m.youtube.com/watch?v=fUFrKqEwqYs

Do take very good care of you.

We can c&p your excellent factual science-based posts if needs be and will of course reference them.

The section 28 claim is outrageously inaccurate. It was a transally Mumsnet regular (ie genuinely discussing, no hint that they were stirring) saying something along the lines of 'what do you want, a new Section 28?'
It was taken deliberately out of context in a way that puts me in mind of Morningpaper and rockets to Lebanon.

Section 28?

FFS.

Apart from that coming from a quote said sarcastically from a trans ally, that's not what I want, nor do I get the impression anyone on MN wants.

Just bloody representation and to be taken seriously rather than constantly smeared as I'll informed bigots would be a nice start.

All the propaganda is disgusting. Including the love bombing of those with influence and power whilst shitting all over those who don't have it with abusive comments.

The section 28 claim is outrageously inaccurate.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Indeed, yet it is a belief that has been absorbed and recirculated by many in political positions including the chair of the recent Westminster Social Policy forum, Baroness Liz Barker, the admins of the LibDemLGBT+ twitter account and was perhaps alluded to by Dawn Butler in her speech about homophobia, transphobia and biphobia in parliament

there are other important issues raised in response to the WSPFE event on the thread below and by Dr Nicola Williams (Fairplay for Women) who attended:

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1012723801715560448

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

Justine: there are transgender people on FWR that are against self ID. Ask yourself why if it supposed to be so helpful to transgender people?

Ask yourself also why half the population are at risk of losing their hard won rights in order that 0.6% have the dubious 'advantage' of a self ID legislation that not even all transgender people agree is helpful or necessary.

The things that are talked about on FWR often include the safeguarding of children. I really find it difficult to believe that a website for mothers, no less, would be this accommodating to a political movement attempting to undermine safeguarding for children. Mixed sex overnight accommodations for tweens and teens. Attempts to prevent parental involvement and multi-agency working with SEND children. Off label medications with lifelong effects.

Is anybody at HQ actually reading what is being said here?

Justine you might ask Penny Mordant to speak with some of the signatories of the letter in the Guardian

'Transsexuals are worried about their rights being challenged under new legislation'

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/04/standing-up-for-transsexual-rights

RoseofDawn has important analysis about the dangers of some transactivists. I know she was very disappointed not to have had an opportunity to speak at the GenderQuake debate.
Her video highlights someimportant issues within NUS and Action for Trans Health:

Also, please would you draw Penny Mordant's attention to the statement by Amanda Dee following the actions of trans activists at the WPUK meeting in Oxford. She is a trans woman and founded TransOxford. It can be seen in full on this
thread

She is also quoted in the article by Professor Michael Briggs (Oxford)

He concludes:
I have entered this debate not because I am a feminist but because freedom of speech is one of the highest values of a democratic society, and the basic foundation of university life.
Transgender activism poses a grave threat to freedom of speech. I think of the young MPhil student who had to disguise herself to attend this meeting because she feared the reaction of fellow students. This is the generation that we have educated."
users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/FreeSpeechOxford.pdf

Is anybody at HQ actually reading what is being said here?

They must be, otherwise how would they know threads are being "weaponised"? still can't believe that word was used

Is anybody at HQ actually reading what is being said here?

I'm not sure actually, I do wonder whether mods respond to the posts that are reported. Its one of the issues when a poster has goaded over a period of time and made contradictory comments. Regular posters may well be aware but a moderator will respond to a particular post and its immediate context.

A lot of people will have formed opinions about Mumsnet because of certain posts, taken out of context and reposted elsewhere with a narrative.

Its one of the issues when a poster has goaded over a period of time and made contradictory comments. Regular posters may well be aware but a moderator will respond to a particular post and its immediate context.

I must say that I wonder when the Midnight Misogynist and other MRAs get immediately banned, but extremist transactivists saying and doing exactly the same things (Duluth wheel again) are treated with kid gloves.

Is anybody at HQ actually reading what is being said here?

I'm skeptical. Very skeptical.

Perhaps this falsity has contributed to people feeling unwelcome on the board?

You do not think it is what people write?

If you were legally and biologically a woman - as thousands of trans women are - and had people telling you daily that you are a deluded man and that they will campaign to prevent you from using women's spaces, would you feel welcome?

If you were the parent of a trans child receiving treatment from the Portman, would you feel welcome if you were told that was tantamount to child abuse?

The falsity is that mumsnetters are calling for a new section 28.