Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?

[ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn]

The belief that transwomen are men and that transmen are women has been accepted as a legitimate and protected belief, yet we are not able to state this on Mumsnet under the current rules.

It has become increasingly difficult to discuss feminist issues on the dedicated feminism boards as a result of the moderation rules.

In light of Maya's success in court, and that 'gender critical' beliefs are considered protected under the Equality Act, would it be possible for the FWR sex/gender mod rules to be re-visited please?

@MarshaBradyo

I’m not sure what liberal feminism means in this context?

Been a while since I’ve thought about it though

When I suggested this I was thinking that the main flash points in fwr are whether transwomen are women, and whether sex work is work. GCs would say no to both, and libfems would say yes...

Because what I imagine happening is this:

Topic: woeful funding of rape crisis centres. Definitely feminist. But what if they lost their funding for not offering gender neutral services? Move to new section or not?

Topic: maternal mortality in Black women. Definitely feminist. But what if the literature refers to them as “black birthing bodies?” (Yes, sadly,this has happeneded). Move or not?

Topic: deficiencies in funding for research into female specific diseases. Definitely feminist. But the Endometriosis Society now says that “10% of people have endometriosis”. Move or not?

Topic: MVAWG. Definitely feminist. But how do you talk about it without defining who is M and who are W & G? Move or not?

Please do take this in the spirit that it’s meant, which is that I’m trying to understand both what’s intended and how it would work.

I agree, this would be virtually impossible to regulate. Hard work indeed for the team to moderate. And it is all about Feminism isn't it?

@WarriorN

I prefer a topic being created for liberal feminism, and perhaps intersectional feminism (there'd be an argument about that that really is however.)

You'd still end up with discussions on sex and gender.

:24WarriorN

I also agree with pp that it could be divided based on libfem, gc fem,

Surely liberal feminists are critical of gender roles in society too?

But you're the one I was agreeing with based on your post I quoted.

There's 2 things here aren't there

1. the original request to MNHQ to rethink the censorship women experience here when they want to talk about the facts of male people using spaces and provisions set aside for women.

2. Justine's suggestion of somehow hiving off discussions around sex and gender into a separate board

I'm interested in 2, but let's not lose sight of 1, I'm not sure MNHQ have addressed that really.

@Thelnebriati

What aspects of feminism dont relate to 'sex and gender'?

This sums it up.

The decision to separate threads out won't work, perhaps unless MNHQ employ someone fulltime (so actual 2 or 3 FTE to cover round the clock) to police it and move threads.

Don't split FWR.

I'm on another board which had a fairly active feminist thread.

Discussion about the implications of self id and related issues were hived off into a different thread because some feminists didn't like the discussion. This happened a few years ago.

The original feminist thread was no where near as active as what became known as the "trans" thread but both bumbled along until this week.

Problem is that people who genuinely disagreed with concerns (rather than just people who enjoy trolling feminists) wouldn't post there. Other posters who didn't really have an opinion were told about the crazy mean bigots so never read it either.

Then just this week the thread was pulled with one of the accusations being that it was one-sided. (It's back now with a better suited name and a new additional website policy)

You create a separate section it will still be targeted, The posters in that section accused of being obsessed.

If there are genuinely feminists who dislike the current focus so much they are afraid to start topics on other matters then give them their own topic. Third wave feminism or intersectional feminists.

Just adding my voice to say that I think separating the boards is a bad idea. It feels particularly odd to separate discussions of sex and gender from feminist chat.
If sex and/or gender isn't relevant to a feminist topic, then how is it a feminist topic at all? You'd have to move everything.
I can see it turning into endless reports from monitors trying to move threads where they don't want them to be seen. I also doubt the various bad faith posters will suddenly decide not to stop posting on trans topics. They'll just follow them wherever they go.

Maybe the new section could be called "The Gulag"? That would be clear enough.

@Helleofabore

It doesn't really bother me the way it is but I can see how it would be useful to not have to wade through so many trans-related threads to get to other feminism issues.

mmm.... like scrolling quickly past them. As you would on AIBU? Or do you actually open each one and read the OP? Could it be that we could be better in our titles to make scrolling easier?

Perhaps but isn't that policing people's titles?

It's the scrolling past that's the wading through, not opening. But as I've said, I'm not exactly campaigning for this - I think it will be useful for some people (I've seen other posters say this many times elsewhere on MN). I really don't mind that much because I don't spend a lot of time on the board, I just come in from time to time to lurk and I only post if I feel there something extra to say that hasn't been said already. If it doesn't happen, that's fine by me.

As PP have said (and have been saying for some time), why don't the posters advocating for this create posts on topics that they want to talk about? It seems to me that they want to create a board that excludes the regularly FWR posters.

In respect of q1 I actually think the current rules aren't too bad as long as saying transwomen are men/male isn't a sweeping negative statement.

I think it's fair to not "misgender" named individuals.

I think it's fair to say all TW (as a class) pose a potential risk in the same way as all men (as a class pose a risk).

However, I'm not entirely sure that the mods always apply the current rules correctly?

I also think mods should ignore complaints from people who are either not members or who are non-contributory members (except in the case that a non-anonymous complaint is made by a person who is mentioned by name in a post).

Personally, I also think offensive posts from TRAs should be left to stand unless the people who are actively participating on the relevant thread request removal.

This is a bit of thinking aloud, but I think the issue is more with the moderation than the rules?

Actually I think the best thing would be to fix the app so you can scroll through all the thread titles instead of seeing only 10-15 before they start being repeated.

In respect of q1 I actually think the current rules aren't too bad as long as saying transwomen are men/male isn't a sweeping negative statement

yeah. Sometimes posts that state this are OK and sometimes they get deleted

I suspect that when MNHQ have a fresh batch of interns or similar the rules shift.

I would have no objection to the creation of a separate intersectional feminism board, but I do not like the spund of this proposal.

One of the things that brought me into this debate was finding elsewhere that I could never ever discuss feminist issues that I thought had nothing to do with trans issues (FGM, violence against women, sexual harassment) without the discussion being disrupted with accusations of cisprivilege, and language policing.

The proposal as is will be a disruptor's charter.

Separating the boards, whether in what seems like an illogical manner, or an as yet to be proposed logical manner, does not address the question asked of MNHQ to re-visit the moderation rules in light of Maya's judgement.

I don't think expecting 'gender critical' debate to happen on a specific board is in the spirit of the judgement.

The Sex & Gender question is relevant to all of feminism and shouldn't be hived off somewhere.

Feminism topics, including those mainly or only about Sex & Gender, need to be visible in 'Active Threads' and 'Trending' so that people who are unaware of the issues can come across them.

An unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless, response from MNHQ. Again.

I'm grateful that Mumsnet has allowed us to discuss sex/gender issues where others won't. I think the sex/gender question is so critical to feminism and interlinked with the issues that you cannot separate it out of the general forum.

If what is needed is some kind of sanitised sub-topic for those who don't want to engage with these issues, then I think that's fine but they really ought to be the new sub-forum, and sex/gender issues should be discussed on FWR.

@ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn

Separating the boards, whether in what seems like an illogical manner, or an as yet to be proposed logical manner, does not address the question asked of MNHQ to re-visit the moderation rules in light of Maya's judgement.

I don't think expecting 'gender critical' debate to happen on a specific board is in the spirit of the judgement.

That's what I thought and was confused by MNHQ's response.

Perhaps but isn't that policing people's titles?

yes. But isn't asking for topics pertinent to feminism to be hived off to a separate board policing people's feminism? (not aimed at you personally, but merely using your phrase as bouncing the idea).

Well the aim here is to facilitate the many requests we've had for a reorganisation from those who are keen to discuss, for example, inequality and stereotyping but want to avoid discussions around the trans vs women's rights debate. So yes we'd ask you to post accordingly.

I often wonder about how people who can't start a thread on a board that might have another thread on it that they don't want to contribute to.

Life must be very difficult for them.

This is a really bad idea and would be unworkable, as well as allowing trolls to police the site.
What are women's rights?
The right to organise as a discrete group ? The right to be consulted on issues which affect us? The right to be able to participate in public life without fearing for our safety?
The right to access appropriate medical care and our needs to be monitored and taken into account by health authorities? The right to a work environment which is not hostile to women? The right to not be discriminated against because of our sex? Etc etc etc....

Would Mumsnet consider all of these topics to have a place on the FWR boards or will they be hidden away because all of them have the potential to clash with the wishes of transwomen to be seen as members of the female sex?
There would be no topics left on the FWR board.

Inever

Yep, just thinking it through further (multi tasking with a 3 yr old.) that was my point about "you'd still have conversations about sex and gender."

This is a really bad idea and would be unworkable, as well as allowing trolls to police the site.

To be fair, they already do. And they are still going to have to monitor all the site in case a nasty feminist posts something unacceptable in 'self catering holidays' board.

Monitoring is, and always will be a full time job.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

Well the aim here is to facilitate the many requests we've had for a reorganisation from those who are keen to discuss, for example, inequality and stereotyping but want to avoid discussions around the trans vs women's rights debate. So yes we'd ask you to post accordingly.

I often wonder about how people who can't start a thread on a board that might have another thread on it that they don't want to contribute to.

Life must be very difficult for them.

or who worry that people with views different to their own might come and talk to them.

Just thinking more about the Black Mumsnetters board. I don't think the women who campaigned for that wanted other posters to relinquish an existing board did they?

They wanted somewhere to discuss issues that affect them uniquely and that they have a special interest in, so that's what they campaigned for.

Could the people who don't want to post on FWR for what ever reason do that?