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?

@dolorsit

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.

Ha, imagine if all this upset about threads always being about "trans" was actually just due to the app glitch (I use the browser version but get the same thing on Active threads)

Several posters whose knowledge and expertise about safeguarding have been removed this way.

Yes we lost Lang but most women may not know that R0wantrees received a weeks suspension that was supposed to end May 18th but she remains without access to her account.

Her third strike/suspension was for quoting from a feminist newsletter despite her not being the only one posting it.

I would very much like to see her reinstated as I'm sure others would.

Also, I'm now worried that all the information that has been posted on these boards will be lost if the whole thing is re-configured?

There are literally hundreds of thousands of hours of women's work here.

@WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis

I'm appalled that after the fight we've just had and are taking a well earned breath, that you would even consider selling us out MNHQ!

Maybe we're not attractive to advertisers because we're spending all our money funding legal actions like ensuring appropriate data are collected for the Cenus, protecting the right to believe in science, safeguarding children etc. etc.

@OvaHere

Several posters whose knowledge and expertise about safeguarding have been removed this way.

Yes we lost Lang but most women may not know that R0wantrees received a weeks suspension that was supposed to end May 18th but she remains without access to her account.

Her third strike/suspension was for quoting from a feminist newsletter despite her not being the only one posting it.

I would very much like to see her reinstated as I'm sure others would.

Fucksake, really?

Funny how it's always the posters who can link time and again to actual policies, laws, academic research - facts, in a nutshell - who are inevitably targeted. But the mods aren't being played by the monitors, ohh no, heaven forfend the very idea.

@StellaAndCrow

"Threads devoted to named individuals to unpick their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle or personal choices constitute a personal attack, so we will continue to delete them along with unfair generalisations" Has there been a lot of this happening? I read this board a lot, and haven't seen any threads that would come under this description, though I appreciate I may have missed them.

I can think of two in the last year or so, they were both criticized and reported by regular users.

What a strange response to an unrelated request. Just leave things as they are.

I see fwr as a daily round-up of women's issues. I don't have time to check multiple forums and don't want to be shielded from different opinions.

Some threads don't get many responses, but it doesn't mean that they go unread. With information sharing threads, sometimes there isn't much to say other than 'noted!'

Perhaps there could be a push towards clearer thread titles instead?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

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?

Agreed, the rules seem broadly ok to me but it's how they're applied that seems to cause the upset.

@OvaHere

Several posters whose knowledge and expertise about safeguarding have been removed this way.

Yes we lost Lang but most women may not know that R0wantrees received a weeks suspension that was supposed to end May 18th but she remains without access to her account.

Her third strike/suspension was for quoting from a feminist newsletter despite her not being the only one posting it.

I would very much like to see her reinstated as I'm sure others would.

No I didn't know that and I don't think that's fair.

I think the infant feeding comparison that a pp mentioned is valid. Some women understandably find any discussion of breastfeeding upsetting. They might want somewhere where they can talk about formula feeding without seeing any reference to breastfeeding. In that situation IMO it would make more sense to set up a formula feeding sub-forum, rather than banishing everyone who wants to talk about breastfeeding, combination feeding etc. from the main infant feeding board to a sub-forum for breastfeeding.

@Datun

Also, I'm now worried that all the information that has been posted on these boards will be lost if the whole thing is re-configured?

There are literally hundreds of thousands of hours of women's work here.

Yes there is a lot of really valuable information that could be lost.
I think if Mumsnet HQ do go ahead with this move that they need to guarantee that this information will be saved. However the better idea would be to keep the boards as is and review the special rules for feminism as the OP asked

Perhaps there could be a push towards clearer thread titles instead?

I agree thread titles aren't always the clearest. I started one myself the other week and on reflection it wasn't hugely informative because a duplicate was started due the subject of mine not being v clear.

I think we could have a thread discussion on FWR about what constitutes a good title but ultimately you can't really police it because it's individual interpretation.

Also some really popular threads have titles like "Radio 4 on now!" because they're posted in urgency. They could perhaps be amended after the fact.

most women may not know that R0wantrees received a weeks suspension that was supposed to end May 18th but she remains without access to her account.

So has R0 been banned?

I thought this thread was to ask HQ to revisit their moderation rules, so why has this reasonable, and lawful request resulted in talk of us being shunted off to a new board?

It doesn’t matter which board it is or what it’s called. The issue is that MN are moderating in a way that creates a hostile environment for people who hold the protected characteristic of having gender critical beliefs, or as I prefer to call it, who believe in science and reality. They can stick that wherever they like, they are still going to run into trouble if they continue to flout the law and discriminate via their moderation policies and behaviour.

It will also be arguable that they are discriminating against women if they prevent women from discussing in the feminism section issues that affect them as a result of their biological sex. Discrimination on the grounds of sex and belief is not a good look.

If HQ have implemented their hostile moderation policies in order to avoid legal action being brought by trans activists, they might be mindful to avoid creating conditions that make the opposite a possibility. Despite what some people appear to think, Mumsnet are duty bound to abide by the equality act, and they might do well to remember that fact.

I really don’t like the idea of shuffling off any thread about women’s sex based rights into another topic and labelling it women’s/trans right is, at best, inflammatory. FWR is, by definition, about women’s sex based rights and struggles, no new topic needed.

I'm peed off to find that @R0wantrees has a) been suspended and b) not reinstated. A very sensible poster.

Haven't the time RTFT but MNHQ, please leave FWR as it is. The whole sex/ gender debate is fundamental... Women are treated as we are because of biology not our 'identity'. The bearing of children has a huge impact on women's rights.

This is not a debate that should be sidelined.

@JustineMumsnet

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

Please don't do that.

We spend an inordinate amount of time explaining that we are trying to discuss women's right, not trans rights.

I assumed you were joking, having your own sarcastic dig and a sniggle, but many won't see it that way?

Rowantrees has gone?
Sure I saw her post recently, when did that happen?

Ignore last post, just seen previous post which I'd missed explaining more

But, as this thread and one of the others has shown, some of the posters saying they have had rude responses or been made to feel unwelcome have never posted on FWR.

You are listening to them but not those who say they recently ventured in to post a very basic question and got a warm reception.

No to a separate sex and gender topic. I don't see how you can separate it from feminism

MN could create a new board where all women’s rights subjects that touch on trans issues are discussed, where there are no special rules breeching the Equality Act, leaving Feminism Chat for those subjects guaranteed to not be affected by male inclusion.

I suggest they call the new board FWR, and that all threads to date that touched on male inclusion or safeguarding are saved and moved over to the new board. As the board will be explicitly about women’s rights, i will be highly inappropriate to have any men on the moderating team and, obviously, no reporting from non-posters should be acted on.

Also, what on earth have they done to R0wan?

R0wantrees?

I thought she hadn't been around, but then she does come and go sometimes.

This is ridiculous. She is one of the most civil posters that exists. She's just all about the information.

some of the posters saying they have had rude responses or been made to feel unwelcome have never posted on FWR

Plus, it is perfectly normal for there to be prevailing views on all sorts of topics, on all the different boards. Try going onto The Doghouse and saying you're thinking of breeding a couple of litters from your new dog, if you want to experience responses of a rudeness that would get FWR posters deleted in seconds! Or tell the Weaning board that you have introduced solids at 4 months, etc etc.

I don't see MN proposing that posters who hold the prevailing view on other boards should be segregated off into a specialist board. It seems an incredibly odd idea to punish posters for the fact that a the majority agree with them.

The fact that R0wantrees was banned for posting something that had been allowed to stand when posted by someone else

good heavens