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?

Monitoring feminist, that is.

The issues - so-called 'feminist ones' and those related to trans, sex and gender, that are, in other words, in some way about the current debate that feminism and feminists have been forced to expend their energy engaging in at the expense of other, pressing, issues are not analytically or practically separate.

The only people who have asked for separate boards are those who disagree with the GC position - in other words, not the core of FWR and indeed those who do not take a GC approach. .

I think the FWR board should be left as it is and the posting guidelines reviewed if necessary.

For people who are easily upset or prefer twee, sanitised conversations, then a different board can be created for them with separate guidelines. FWR is fine the way it is.

@NonnyMouse1337

I think the FWR board should be left as it is and the posting guidelines reviewed if necessary.

For people who are easily upset or prefer twee, sanitised conversations, then a different board can be created for them with separate guidelines. FWR is fine the way it is.

It is rather infantilising to think that adults cannot scroll past titles that they don't agree with or want to engage with.

A little like the push to declare that adults are acutely harmed and need strict protection when the words 'women and ....' is used in communications about women's health.

The response I was expecting was:

If we allow users to use the term "TIM/TIF" then we will need to allow users to also use the term "Cis" (or worse, "terf" which I thank MNHQ profusely for banning, during an era of it being used regularly as a term of abuse on Facebook and Twitter).

I was not expecting this:

"No we won't revisit the forum rules, actually we're going to push all of you to a new unknown part of the website off feminism chat"

Kaay. Interesting. Not comfortable with that myself. Quite surprised in fact.

@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.

It doesn't.

With all respect - even without a court judgement saying I'm protected! - Justine, this is you throwing a dead cat so that we talk about something else.

As I see it, what has happened over the years is that MNHQ has beens subject to a sustained campaign by TRAs to censor feminist voices on this website. They've threatened litigation, they've lobbied advertisers. I'm sure it's been enervating. I sympathise.

In response, MNHQ has placated and placated and placated. Additionally, there have been staffing changes - Kate gone and being as GC as they come over on the Twitter, rogue interns revealing iP addresses and going unsanctioned, a man now in charge of moderating the speech of women. No offence to Michael personally but as we all know, the introduction of men into primarily female space inevitably changes things.

But now we have a court judgement. What, Justine, if the other side becomes as aggressive as the TRAs? Does the development of ever increasingly placatory policies and moderating attitudes and actions in favour of genderism now constitute illegal discrimination against GC women? What if some women start saying they do and invoking lawyers and advertisers in the light of this judgement?

All we're saying is that this is an important and far-reaching judgement as Maya's solicitor Paul Daly has pointed out.

Are you sure you're on the right side of it now that you are more censorious than Twitter? And will you reconsider these policies?

PS: not everyone is going to be like me and just go elsewhere because trying to parse posts into acceptability and make them still make sense. Some really might have at MNHQ in some very uncomfortable ways.

I'll get my coat again now and go where I can speak freely within the law.

It's a bit like having the infant feeding topic but carving off a separate section for breastfeeding only.

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.

This new board is just mn changing the subject.

If they are treating women with 'GC' views differently to women without 'GC' views, I don't see how a new board gets them off the hook?

Justine

"repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men" can be compared to Christians repeatedly saying that god is real. Which IS legal and preventing them saying so is a violation of their rights (and I say that as an atheist)

I appreciate the problems you have with threats from pressure groups, but the solution is not to ignore or workaround human rights as defined by the law of the land

Having a separate area for those who come under a protected characteristic and restricting them to it is also problematic and might be said to hark back to early US civil rights.

Jesus Christ! Mumsnet is literally the only place that I can come to discuss GC views, and now there's people making veiled threats re court cases and 'are you on the right side of the law?' WTAF?! Get over yourselves!

Having separate boards for different kinds of feminism seems a bit ridiculous. Who the hell even knows what kind of feminist they are these days?

To quote from a recent email from MNHQ (signed, as ever, anonymously)

We consider the phrase, "males who identify as women" to be uncivil and a breach of the Talk guidelines so we deleted the post

Why? in the context of a thread about an article called 'Transwomen aren't women', what was uncivil about that phrase?

For the 90 millionth time. How can you have a feminism board if you can't define what a woman is?

The topic is Feminism and Women's Rights. Centred on women.

Naturally, I would have no objection to a trans rights section, but may I suggest it sits separately to feminism?

The thing is that those posters who complain that trans issues have swamped FWR are, as has been repeatedly said, free to post topics on anything they choose, and anyone can join in the resulting discussion. Each thread is separate, after all. The interest self-regulates, so that topics nothing to do with GC/trans issues will have as many posts in them as there is interest in that topic. Which seems fine to me - I don't understand why there is a need for a split?

I'd like 'Feminism Chat' to go back to being FWR 'Feminism and Women's Rights'.

Women's rights (Rather than necessarily 'feminism' )are at the core of these discussions. If a new board is created then at least recognise that - 'Sex, gender and Women's Rights' might possibly work. (And it would become commonly known as FWR).

People don't really think trans issues swamp FWR. They think that GC views are transphobic and should not be allowed at all.

I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, GC posters are not the ones complaining about the discussion of the impact of the TRA ideology on women.

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.

Especially as the current rules do make it a hostile environment for women wanting to discuss their sex based rights and could be considered discrimination following that judgement

And especially as the modding rules are different from other Mumsnet boards.

I can't see how you can possibly separate out sex, gender and feminism. I cannot think of a topic that isn't impacted by the issues of the definition of woman. To have to discuss a topic like how to encourage girls in sport without mentioning the trans issue would be stifling. Women would be biting their tongues and end up just starting the same conversation on the other board without the restrictions. No one actually wants this. After after a little flurry of interest the people who complain about trans issues taking over will melt away and there won't be enough people to justify the conversation. Please don't do this. If you must then create a separate board for them not for the regular users. What we discuss is feminism and all the issues that impact women and girls we don't discuss 'trans rights' except where they impact feminism.

@JustineMumsnet @soniamumsnet

can you estimate what the impact on site traffic will be? for example the cognitive dissonance? the usability issues of users forgetting that there are different sections? what will the experience be like on mobile? Moderation challenges where a single post belongs in a different section? Moderation when disruptors post deliberately to move it to a different section? what drop in traffic have you seen on FWR related petitions now that you've moved all petitions to a separate board?

could you post a screenshot of the user experience you are thinking of?

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

To quote from a recent email from MNHQ (signed, as ever, anonymously)

We consider the phrase, "males who identify as women" to be uncivil and a breach of the Talk guidelines so we deleted the post

Why? in the context of a thread about an article called 'Transwomen aren't women', what was uncivil about that phrase?

What? So what's the alternative?

What were you supposed to say, was there a suggestion?

I can understand how criticising an individual for, say, their appearance is uncivil. But being able to collectively referred to a cohort who are male, because it's them being male that's the problem?

I did ask for clarification Datun, and it was suggested by my anonymous correspondent that I use the word 'transwoman'.

I said I wasn't comfortable with that and got the following reply

We're asking for civil debate in what can be heated and controversial discussions.

so none the wiser really. I considered starting a thread here to ask if the use of 'transwoman' is now mandated but just couldn't be arsed

the rules will be different tomorrow innit?

(ps am I the only one who finds receiving anonymous emails to be titanically uncivil ? Ironic, no?)

@JustineMumsnet

We could just call the topic women's/trans rights I suppose...

Did you mean to sound so rude?

@SeaShoreGalore

Having separate boards for different kinds of feminism seems a bit ridiculous. Who the hell even knows what kind of feminist they are these days?

And we do have threads debating the differences between liberal feminism and 2nd wave, women's lib etc, so yes, won't work.