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.

Is Kim Jong-un the new Godwin's law do you think? I've seen him cited a few times now.

Westboro Baptist Church getting quite a few mentions.

To be fair, westboro set the awfulness bar high.

‘He’s a Jong ‘un’

(I think you need a Yorkshire accent to make this amusing...)

And you wonder why posters aren't leaping at the thought of a 'debate' with you.

Something that puzzles me is: why are you keen not to learn anything from some of the gravest, most harmful and relevant mistakes of the last century? Godwin's law says nothing about what a discussion about the war might offer, only the likelihood of the subject coming up (not that I was planning to bring it up). I cringe for you that you say this like it's clever and funny. But humanity made some terrible mistakes and there is a great deal we still need to learn to avoid repeating some of them. But no, have an in-joke and miss the point. Again, your attitude doesn't go unnoticed and it's not to your credit.

So ... "You're mean"?

Well argued

What intellect, what reason, what logic.

And you wonder why posters aren't leaping at the thought of a 'debate' with you.

The women here prefer discussion to debate.
It is MNHQ and the transgender advocates that keep insisting we debate woemen's right to say no.

Should I slink away now that it has been revealed that I cannot spell women's? Criminy!

Something that puzzles me is: why are you keen not to learn anything from some of the gravest, most harmful and relevant mistakes of the last century?

Here's the thing.
When people make these galloping assumptions, in the form of an accusation framed as a question, everyone here recognizes what is being done. Very obvious, you are.

There is a difference between the content of a suggested political way forward being based around a 'just be nice' model (which is not what I'm suggesting) and 'just being nice' at the expense of assertively making your point. No one is asking you to do either. But yes, if you're looking for an oppression narrative (and an excuse not to be civil) it is helpful to interpret a suggestion to 'be nice' that way.

I meant there is a way to be civil and respectful towards other women, men, Justine and whoever else you think you're talking to. There's a way to talk that recognises the need to listen to other positions in a way that fosters real debate and increased respect, even if you are not prepared to make compromises. One way you should interact civilly is by not doing something that you are currently doing. You shouldn't silence other women and then pretend you have a larger consensus than you do. Women aren't behind you in the streamlined way your echo chamber would suggest. If I was a radical feminist and genuinely cared about women, I'd want to hear from the ones who didn't agree and work out if there was a genuine difference in perspective or just a misunderstanding for my learning and theirs. You haven't done this. You refuse to allow less extreme views a voice (often through 'low' tactics such as name-calling, troll-hunting, man-hunting, shaming, and teasing).

Yet you wonder why people holding different views privately message posters to say thank you when their views are expressed, rather than expressing those views themselves? I think that's disingenuous. Who would want to get on the wrong side of a group who turns abusive when challenged?

You're often nasty to people who don't agree with you, deliberately missing points because, of course, you're not interested in the debate or the view of any woman who doesn't agree with you. You want a full thread putting forward your own propaganda. No wonder you don't like long posts from people who disagree!

bewilderness

So there is a sneering reference to Godwin's Law. As there is any time the war is mentioned on a feminist thread as evidence for any point. And the point is always ignored. There is simply a rude agreement that oh you knew it, bingo, Godwin's Law has struck again. You use Godwin's law as a way of ignoring whatever point has been made that you don't want to hear. Yet if the point proved Godwin's Law, it must have been referring to the war and some learning opportunity for humanity that is related to that experience.

And yet, despite responding to anything referring to the war in this incredibly irreverent way (or anything to do with war or, bizzarely North Korea, it seems now) it is a 'galloping assumption' to think you are not interested in learning from it.

Disingenuous doesn't begin to describe you.

mogleflop Well yes, you are. And you clearly don't care. Which is what I'm interested in readers of these threads having an opportunity to see.

No one is wondering anything any more at all. They don't know or care what you are blathering about.

Again, your attitude doesn't go unnoticed and it's not to your credit.

"We're very disappointed in you".

FYI, I was describing a classic trolling style, not Godwin's Law.

It actually doesn't change the point thebewilderness.

There are some awesomely condescending, self important and holier than thou commenters tonight.

Yeah, so now you're troll-hunting too.

You illustrated beautifully that extreme feminists are the first to oppress women with less extreme views.

You can't, and shouldn't try, to tell someone else what to say or what to think.

Kitchenrollin

You said this four pages back and yet you've gone on to do this, repeatedly.

Its a significant thread. An important one.

Have you read it?

Do you see how different your style and content is?

You clearly have stongly held beliefs and opinions. Why not start a thread?

Ok thanks for all your comments. Not all of them, I believe, have been entirely fair but with regard to the personal stuff, as someone very rightly said it's not about me, so I think the best thing is to let it pass and not get into any back and forth!

The thing I'd like to say is this. I believe that Mumsnet is taken seriously by those who have real legislative power and does have a voice in agenda setting precisely because of it's perceived civility.

If we lose our ability to have civilised conversations without insulting language or hyperbole then we become just another ranty social media space that no one needs to take seriously.

I suspect that we've been singled out by e.g. Pink News not so much because we're largely female but because they know that Mumsnet/ Mumsnetters have that influence and so yes, they'd love to have the world (and in particular the lawmakers) believe we're a haven for shouty transphobes and will do their best to discredit our forums.

So there's a very practical reason to ask people to post in a way that accommodates others (opinions not facts) and to avoid personal attacks.

That's not about succumbing to the patriarchy, rather I think it's about maximising Mumsnetters' voices.

I apologize for letting myself be drawn in, again. And yet again.
I am still struggling to resist saying what I see.

I suspect that we've been singled out by e.g. Pink News not so much because we're largely female but because they know that Mumsnet/ Mumsnetters have that influence and so yes, they'd love to have the world (and in particular the lawmakers) believe we're a haven for shouty transphobes and will do their best to discredit our forums.

I'm so pleased to see you say that, JustineMumsnet. One key virtue of maintaining Mumsnet standards in discussion is that it prevents TRA from doing what they do in every other forum. Elsewhere they silence debate because they can't afford to debate.

Because when you compare gender ideology to gender critical feminism coolly and in detail, it's clear that gender ideology appears to be faith based; a belief that people can change sex through wishful thinking. That wouldn't matter if the ideology wasn't the biggest threat to women's rights for a hundred years.

And then there's the kids ..

Pink News attacks us because our civilised, measured argument threatens to reveal that the Emperor has no clothes.

Agree and I think FWR adds hugely to mn's usp

there's a very practical reason to ask people to post in a way that accommodates others (opinions not facts) and to avoid personal attacks.

That's not about succumbing to the patriarchy, rather I think it's about maximising Mumsnetters' voices.

I think FWR is very civil. There are relentless trolls on a permanent wind-up but it is civil. Yes we take this piss out of muppets in the public eye, especially if they are misogynists, but overall the self-policing works pretty well.

The problem is delusional narcissists. They actively want to suppress reality and have the world walking on eggshells because the lies they live are so fragile that one truthful word could set them off in a rage.

They aren't really 'Mumsnetters voices', they are in fact people using this space as part of their desire to assert control. The very female user group attracts controlling misogynists like a moth to a flame.

I really don't think making this space more welcoming to people who are on a mission to control other people's ability to speak about what is real is 'maximising Mumsnetters' voices'.

I remember when it was MRAs rather than TRAs on Mumsnet and antifeminist trolls were often complaining they felt intimidated by all the clever informed women on FWR and to make it more welcoming such clever, informed women should be penned into their own 'radical feminist' forum.

That was a total failure wasn't it?

This is just more of the same. Trying to control what, where and how clever and informed women can discuss reality. And Mumsnet falling for the doe-eyed harmless looking little Eve's (from all about Eve) who find all these clever incisive women too intimidating and can't add their harmless little voice unless all those clever, informed women are bound and gagged given rules to be a bit more civil which prevent them naming reality and having a platform for their voices.

Seriously, JustineMumsnet don't fall for it again. Watch All About Eve - it is a great warning about falling for those well-rehearsed in manipulating pity.

I think the difference is when it comes to minority groups which have suffered considerable oppression/discrimination. Trans people fall into that category (even if certain activists seem to be more likely to be oppressors than oppressed), hence our moderation is more interventionist than it might be otherwise.

Where are the figures for this?

Women as a group are statistically more likely to be raped than men.
Women as a group are paid less than men.
Women as a group are guilty of much less violent crime than men.
Two women a week are murdered by a partner/ex partner.
All women have had some form of abuse whether it be wolf whistles, fat shaming, comments about looks or groping.

A number of serial killers have targeted women because they are women.

How many trans women have been murdered? Paid less? Told they cannot do certain subjects at school?

Please point me in the direction of some actual figures.

There was a recent twitter converstaion that went something like

A: transwomen are not women
B: I hope you are raped with a chainsaw
A: trans women are still not women
B: how dare you misgender me, you have caused my PTSD

I am Spartacus, an adult human with a vagina

But humanity made some terrible mistakes and there is a great deal we still need to learn to avoid repeating some of them. But no, have an in-joke

Years back, in the late Jurassic when I was an undergraduate, I had the great privilege of attending a talk by a woman who had survived Auschwitz.

Two of the many insightful points she made were as follows:

1. It’s very easy for what appears to be a civilised society to slip into utter horror. Never think you’re safe, never be complacent, always stand up if you think something is wrong. Things can go wrong very fast. Learn from the past.

1. Any ideology, person, religion, group, dogma or movement that cannot take the piss out of itself or cracks down on humour with violence is to be feared.

There are a few reasons some groups/religions/people can’t take mockery. Or debate, or questioning. None of those reasons are good.