Thread about 50% /50% representation

[Dalyesque]

It appears that many posts have been deleted . Why is this when the topic is clearly a very important one to women , who sáy they have no idea why it happened. Glad at least that it is still there, but the impression it gives is that there is a trigger happy moderator in charge which is regrettable .

Having read the thread when it was ongoing and then coming back to it and noticing it suddenly looks like Emmentaler cheese I am flabbergasted. I can't imagine what exactly was objectionable or against the guidelines in many of the deleted posts.

Hi

We've gone through that thread carefully and deleted things that break our Talk Guidelines for discussions on this topic (please have a look at them if you're not sure about anything). This includes posts that misgender or personally attack other users or identifiable individuals, and posts that seem to us to be uncivil about this very difficult issue.

We're also of a mind to delete pile-ons on individuals, which accounts for a few of the gaps.

We've said in a couple of places recently that we want MN to be a place where opposing viewpoints are welcome. Our rationale for continuing to host this very difficult debate is that we hope dialogue between people who disagree with each other can be fruitful. We're really committed to making sure that diverse viewpoints are welcomed so long as they stick to our Guidelines.

Thanks
MNHQ

Surely the very definition of uncivil is for someone to come along without our experience claiming to represent us, which clearly very many of us rightly took exception to?The posts themselves were not mostly unreasonable and how can we possibly continue to discuss these matters reasonably when the thing we re discussing is not heard by the other side. I think the rules are being unfairly applied .

Would you consider it a 'pile-on' if an individual who'd taken a place on a panel intended for black people showed up to defend that decision on the Black MNers board, and a lot of posters at the same time wanted to respond robustly?

I know MNHQ treads a difficult line and I deeply appreciate it, but it's not exactly surprising to find a lot of feminists on a feminism board, and there's no way of coordinating posts.

I too would like to know what constitutes a pile on when a poster who has an opposing opinion posts on a board where the majority have the other opinion. Where does MN draw the line at what is a pile on and what is simply posters giving an opinion on what the poster has said?

I too would like clarity around the word ‘uncivil’. Coming from a culture where being direct is the norm, I find this to be rather an ambiguous term. And from checking with others (not on MN) about the tone of my deletions, this lack of definition becomes particularly significant when strikes are handed out as well.

I too am interested in the pile on deletions? I have read countless threads on here where one poster is attacked needlessly and MNHQ don’t stop it (current example is the one where a mum gave her toddler a drink, one poster asked about why tantrums are more prevalent these days and was attacked on every page - no deletions there).

What constitutes a pile on? How many posters? Or can we not just think that maybe there are several posters with the same point of view who agree?
Certainly on a forum, which while for all parents and non parents, that has mum in the heading, on the Feminism topic I’d expect most posters to be women and to lean towards similar ideologies.

and posts that seem to us to be uncivil about this very difficult issue.

Which arguably, also applies to the posts from the trans activists on that thread. They don't appear to have much respect for us as feminist women. It's a two way street, at the very least.

I don’t really understand what is difficult about this issue either. It seems amazingly clear to most of us, and we continue to call it out because it is crucial to our lives as women. We actually have been pretty tolerant of those who wish to derail on every thread, and tend not to report...unlike many who must be reporting our post en masse.eg the cis word has been used a lot lately without taking down whole posts.

I agree with posts being deleted if they are felt to be attacking

But i think the ‘pile on’ reason is just ludicrous if im honest

Ive got no idea what the definition even is, someone asks a question on a thread, multiple posters have a view on it and post.....when does the pile on start?

Post 50 saying they dont agree? Post 10? should i not agree with a post, would that be considered me contributing to a pile on

There are extra special thread rules for certain subjects, posters are deleted for rules that didnt exist until after they posted

Pile on...just as much as a guessing game as not in the spirit

Hello - the pile-on is admittedly a non-exact yardstick (if you can have a non-exact yardstick, it probably wouldn't be a very good yardstick) that goes towards civility - essentially it's about whether we think an individual, especially (but not only) someone who's identifiable IRL, is coming in for a focussed shoeing that just feels wrong. It's massively imprecise, admittedly. FWIW I don't think anyone's been issued strikes for it - it's just something we do when we think something has become too personalised and overwhelming - something lots of us have experienced and know how unpleasant it can be.

In this case we also know one of the people concerned appears to be particularly vulnerable and however much MNers may disagree strongly with someone we're sure nobody wants to contribute to someone's genuine distress and we at MNHQ definitely don't want to.

(Please don't resurrect discussion of that individual on this thread)

FWIW if you see this happening on other threads please DO report them to us - this isn't a special rule for FWR, it goes across the piece. If you're seeing something that you think is brutal and has just become a self-generating pile on, please report.

Opposing viewpoints are welcome - as in we are perfectly aware anyone can sign up and post their opinion. We are not obliged to agree though especially when posters belittle feminist concerns. Describing this as a 'pile on' is extremely disingenuous. Are we expected to have some kind of rota where only so many women can have their say at once?

There are lots of other boards on here which if I went onto to belittle the core nature of the board I would fully expect a 'pile on' too. You do that kind of thing at your own peril knowing what the score is.

I would also add that this issue is not as 'difficult' as you make it out to be if you consider it from the perspective of your core demographic and the entirely reasonable notion that a website largely aimed at women of child bearing age should have a strong stance on misogyny.

Which brings us back to the point Barracker made so eloquently in that thread about who is granted power in these discussions. It doesn't matter if 999 women respond with a similar point of view to a singular male poster if those 999 women are prevented from speaking with clarity and only the male poster is allowed to speak freely to make whatever claims they wish.

I realise the above is in part due to institutional misogyny which is much larger than just this site. The whole notion that women can no longer correctly sex male people or point out male behaviours that are detrimental to women is dystopian and totalitarian in the extreme.

I accept you have your hands tied to a point but I think it's a mistake to try and pretend you can have a neutral stance in this debate. All this trying to appease everyone whilst trying to be Switzerland isn't working. I think it's possible to be firmly pro- woman and moderate sensibly with that in mind. I realise a level of deletion is always going to happen when arguments ensue and posters get their buttons pushed but the level at which it happens now, particularly in targeted threads, is absurd.

The fact you haven't ever fully committed to a pro-woman stance and that a feminist board sometimes feels like a hostile environment for feminists is ultimately what stops me signing up for premium.

Pile on also sounds like bullying behaviour and that someone is being picked on

Bunfight suggests that posters are having a really heated discussion thats got a bit over the top

that goes towards civility - essentially it's about whether we think an individual, especially (but not only) someone who's identifiable IRL, is coming in for a focussed shoeing that just feels wrong. It's massively imprecise, admittedly. FWIW I don't think anyone's been issued strikes for it - it's just something we do when we think something has become too personalised and overwhelming

I received two strikes for 'uncivil' posts on that thread. I know others who received two strikes as well from that thread.

Can I suggest that with something that is so imprecise such as this, that it does make it hard to stay within the rules.

(Please don't resurrect discussion of that individual on this thread)

How are we supposed to do that if you won't say who it is...?

@RowanMumsnet

Hello - the pile-on is admittedly a non-exact yardstick (if you can have a non-exact yardstick, it probably wouldn't be a very good yardstick) that goes towards civility - essentially it's about whether we think an individual, especially (but not only) someone who's identifiable IRL, is coming in for a focussed shoeing that just feels wrong. It's massively imprecise, admittedly. FWIW I don't think anyone's been issued strikes for it - it's just something we do when we think something has become too personalised and overwhelming - something lots of us have experienced and know how unpleasant it can be.

In this case we also know one of the people concerned appears to be particularly vulnerable and however much MNers may disagree strongly with someone we're sure nobody wants to contribute to someone's genuine distress and we at MNHQ definitely don't want to.

(Please don't resurrect discussion of that individual on this thread)

FWIW if you see this happening on other threads please DO report them to us - this isn't a special rule for FWR, it goes across the piece. If you're seeing something that you think is brutal and has just become a self-generating pile on, please report.

Hi @RowanMumsnet, I got a strike on that thread for being ‘uncivil’ although I honestly can’t see how I was being uncivil - I was just refuting a rather contentious point made by one of the posters and honestly didn’t mean it to come across negatively. It was noted as a ‘second strike’ because I had a deletion back in January which wasn’t flagged as a strike at all so I feel like the rules are being applied rather harshly to me even though I try really hard to keep to the rules and be very polite to everyone even the posters who are rude to me or just repeatedly post lies. Is there any way of getting this reviewed as but I daren’t say anything for fear of getting deleted permanently

@MNHQ I believe you when you say you want Feminist Chat to be a board that welcomes civil discussion so I hope you will think about gardenbird48's comment above about not daring to say anything. There have been countless other posts just like it recently on the feminist board.

When reasonable, thoughtful women who have every wish to be civil are afraid to express their point of view for fear of breaking rules then I put it to you that this is not welcoming.

I think it would be really sad if the feminist board became a place where the only people who dared post were experts in public debate or cryptic word games. I think you would be saddened by that too but quite honestly, that seems to be where we're heading right now.

I think it would be really sad if the feminist board became a place where the only people who dared post were experts in public debate or cryptic word games. I think you would be saddened by that too but quite honestly, that seems to be where we're heading

I only post about generalities, i dont like being deleted, its only happened a handful of times but it makes me feel like ive done something wrong...which is stupid

Hi @gardenbird48 the bit of your post we thought really crossed a line was 'I would love nothing more to never have to give transgender people another thought ever again' - it read harshly to us.

We think civility means recognising the people who make up minority groups and not talking about them as though they were 'other' or somehow inherently unwelcome. It also means not allowing negative feelings about specific individuals or campaign objectives to leak into the way the entire group is spoken about.

We know getting strikes can bring people up short, but - broken record time - this is an incredibly costly and difficult issue for us and we need users to be thoughtful and civil when it comes to addressing trans people as a demographic group or collective.

Some MNers are trans, some MNers' children are trans. MN forums mustn't be a place that feels systematically hostile to them. And of course hostility to or distaste for trans people as a group just isn't OK on Mumsnet anyway, as laid out in our Guidelines on this.

So we have to be thoughtful and civil when addressing trans people but they can be as hostile and misleading as they like.
The invaders on the feminism forum are being systematically hostile to women and yet they get no strikes and no bans while we get told off and banned for defending our rights.
Hostility and distaste for women as a group seems to be fine with Mumsnet HQ

@dragoncheeselady

So we have to be thoughtful and civil when addressing trans people but they can be as hostile and misleading as they like. The invaders on the feminism forum are being systematically hostile to women and yet they get no strikes and no bans while we get told off and banned for defending our rights. Hostility and distaste for women as a group seems to be fine with Mumsnet HQ

Nobody on MN can be 'as hostile as they like' if they break our Guidelines about personal attacks and civility, and we've mailed and suspended plenty of users from the 'other side' of the argument when they seem unable to stick to our rules. People posting within TG aren't 'invaders', though - they're MNers.

how do uncivil and being direct because of having a communication disability interact? is there a possibility that you may be discrimintaing on the grounds of disability, or race as some cultrures are more direct than British?

That's an interesting question which deserves some consideration I think.

Rules about personal attacks and general civility in our Talk Guidelines are our bottom line, although our approach is always to look at the context and consider things in the round.

The bottom line for me is that a trans poster can make a statement about themselves that, however sincerely believed, is biologically incorrect, and the comment will stand. But if I were to challenge that statement I would have to find a fiendishly clever form of wording in order to avoid a deletion and probably a strike for incivility.

Or I would have to write it in code, a bit like this post.

This does not feel equitable.