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?

They could call it ‘feminism lite’. Or perhaps ‘diet feminism’. Or even, to take a lead from Coca-Cola, ‘feminism zero’?

I’ve seen the special rules for FWR follow FWR regulars to other parts of the site. And conversely, I’ve seen newbies to FWR inadvertently step on language land mines they had no idea existed, and run off with their tails between their legs, terrified to post again, because there has been a presumption of bad faith on their part.

I've seen this too. It's not fair.

@SimonedeBeauvoirscat

They could call it ‘feminism lite’. Or perhaps ‘diet feminism’. Or even, to take a lead from Coca-Cola, ‘feminism zero’?

Feminism zero!

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

@JustineMumsnet, I would like to ask you to confirm whether or not you intend to illegally discriminate against posters who wish to express legally protected gender critical beliefs (that do not break the Talk Guidelines with regard to personal attacks etc) on these boards please.

Is there a tally on the numbers of women who have ended up banned or hounded off MN for expressing legitimate opinions? I can't imagine it's a small number. This has been going on years, often via co-ordinated & targeted attacks, in some cases dredging up posts that predate rule changes etc. I can't imagine it's been a breeze for MN but the Maya judgement does give some clarify & solid arguments for not deleting women's posts & not banning them for expressing genuinely held (and protected) beliefs, just because some people don't like women having & expressing 'unapproved' opinions.

I mean this sincerely. This is a moment to actually reflect & amend unfair & potentially discriminatory moderation policies that, let's face it, have only ever been adopted because of the excessive harassment this site & its members have been subjected to for years. Maya's judgement confirming that women's opinions on sex, its relevance to women's lives & to our day to day experiences isn't hate/hate speech/akin to is the clarity that's needed. No longer having to micromanage women's opinions is surely an attractive outcome?

I've no idea how many women banned know each other or are in a position to compare their experiences of the extreme moderation that results in deletions & bans for protected reasonable and widely held beliefs. But if I was MN, I wouldn't bet against there being 'receipts' for a pattern of what in effect has been discriminatory moderation practices. I hate saying that, because I get why some choices & decisions were likely made. But honestly, it's not sustainable & it's not losing any face or standing to rethink moderation policies that are at the core, unfair.

So I guess I'm asking, again, if MN will confirm they will review their specific moderation policies that disproportionately & unfairly focus on women with GC beliefs? I genuinely hope so.

Can we just be clear that the appeal that Maya won was about her right to hold gender critical belief - the question of how she manifested her beliefs has still to be judged.

The courts have also previously held that believing gay sex is a sin is a protected belief, but Mumsnet would still be within their rights to delete inflammatory posts which says that all gay people will burn in hell.

I am gender critical but just wanted to clarify this as it seems to me that lots of posters are misunderstanding the judgment. It doesn't mean that we have absolute free reign to say what we like and that we must be given a platform to do so. I actually think Mumsnet have been doing a good job of striking a balance so far in terms of moderation.

I do massively oppose sex/gender issues being hived off though and would probably leave the site if that happens.

[quote Alternista]@JustineMumsnet, I would like to ask you to confirm whether or not you intend to illegally discriminate against posters who wish to express legally protected gender critical beliefs (that do not break the Talk Guidelines with regard to personal attacks etc) on these boards please.[/quote]
I'm no legal bod, but from what I can gather from the ruling is that it is not illegal to hold the beliefs, but it is illegal to express them if it was to discriminate against a protected characteristic?
So MN wouldn't be acting illegally if they upheld the guidelines as they are now.

Cross posted with YourSexNotGender there

No, that is not what the ruling said.

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

I didn't know that.

R0hardly ever got deleted. And yet certain posters I know of will have a string of deletions within one thread on one day and remain.

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

If anything shows posters are being picked off one by one by monitors this is it. For the avoidance of doubt anyone reporting posters who discuss safeguarding you raise more red flags 🚩than you can imagine

Yoursexnotgenderfire said it much better than me, that's basically what I was trying to say lol

Can't believe we have found something to agree on Quaggars

Lol, I do agree with people sometimes you know

Expressing beliefs and using those beliefs to present an analysis of a given situation or concept, or even another persons belief, is a long way from manifesting those beliefs as harassment, discrimination or victimisation.

Disagreement is not harassment.

Personal attacks have always been removed across topics. Nobody is asking for special dispensation for 'gender critical feminists' to have the standard rules relaxed.

But as it stands there is an imbalance here. Non-'gender critical feminists' are able to, mostly, use the terms of their choosing, whereas 'gender critical feminists' have had to resort to considerably contorted language to comply with the rules. They can call men 'women' in accordance with their beliefs, yet we cannot call those same men 'men' in accordance with our beliefs.

Surely posting to a thread with that name, in the feminist section, would suggest that:

feminists are particularly responsible for protecting trans rights - why?
or
feminists are in some way opposed to trans rights - that's a provocative generalisation

If the aim is to discuss trans issues without feminist perspectives - put it outside the feminist board

If the aim is to discuss feminist issues which aren't linked to sex and gender separately from those that are ... that doesn't seem very well thought out at all. They'll intersect and one board will wither.

I hope this won't in any way affect the historic threads in the FWR / chat section - will they be wiped in any reorganization?

If anything shows posters are being picked off one by one by monitors this is it. For the avoidance of doubt anyone reporting posters who discuss safeguarding you raise more red flags 🚩than you can imagine

Always the women concerned about safeguarding who get picked off 🤔 & R0 is better informed than any of her monitors, that's why they've targeted her.

Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory of "they're picking people off" "must be the monitors" and say it's because people have a problem with safeguarding (no they don't, I don't anyway)
If you say what the problem is more likely to be though you get deleted.
So I'll join in the cheerleading which comes across as a bit "yay, you go girl!, and talk about "targets, monitors, and being picked off instead with everyone else.

Hi @JustineMumsnet

Thank you for the thoughts.

I'm one of the old crew, from before the FWR board was created.

I remember the threads at the time that I was involved in had two schools of thought

1. Not separate, women's issues cut across all sorts of issues and are important for all women. Hiving it off into a corner will lead to feminists being told not to post from a feminist perspective everywhere else on the boards

1. Having lots of threads have s strong feminist perspective was annoying for some and also would veer off into arguments about feminism by a few strong voices who essentially were arguing all over the place

I could understand both arguments tbh.

Anyway we got the topic.

I agree with tidying up, I suspect most users only use chat really and pulling it back into one for example would mean important posts weren't missed.

On the new topic. I don't l understand why, but in practice it's just not going to work. Here are my thoughts.

1. You mention that women need to be able to discuss issues of sex and gender role, and then gender. There are 3 definitions of gender I can think of which are all used widely. Gender ID would be the better term if you were to do it. The fact that sex, gender role is so entangled with trans conversations makes things difficult. I don't think people will know where to post and you'll be constantly getting reports and shifting threads around
2. It often happens in a thread about feminist topics that sooner or later a poster says something like, how can this even be tackled if charities etc don't believe in sex. Would that mean the whole thread should be moved? Would the poster be warned? Etc. It is pertinent though. Because without our words we can't do feminism at all
3. You can bet the general topic would be heavily policed and you'll get loads of reports which will be a lot of work. Decisions will I suspect be difficult and contentious. I wouldn't fancy being a MNHQ mod in those circs
4. I suspect that threads saying eg abortion is a big issue for women would start to be reported a lot. Again this is going to be difficult. Assuming you reject the requests to move threads I suspect there will be a lot of to and fro
5. The gender id topic would be a clear focus for those who want to get MNHQ to stop these conversations. They would be heavily trolled. And the call to shut the topic would be strong. It could be seen as you condoning certain views by providing a talk topic for it
6. I would worry that women posting on the new board could be targets for doxxing etc as they will be the women on those threads. Rather than just s woman posting on feminism who may have whatever views. We know that a utility has been made and shared to track the posters on FWR with keywords being counted to assess their views
7. I just don't think it's the right thing to do. Is for example the situation with rapists in women's prisons a niche issue? I would say it's a massive issue for women due to the impact on the other women in prison. They aren't a nice topic, they're women who are at risk

I also feel we already created the board and posters do say if there's a feminist opinion on eg something in the news then take it to the feminist board is posted. Hiving conversations off even further feels a step too far to me.

I think that's it. Sorry for being long winded!

I'd like to say thank you to you and the team for hosting these conversations, you didn't need to at all and it must have created a lot of difficulty. I am very grateful.

I'm so tired of women being told what we can't say and where we can't say it.

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

Inequality between whom? Would we be allowed to use the word 'woman' at all? Otherwise, what on earth is a feminism board going to discuss?

I did sign up for premium to support MN, thinking that was a bit daft, now.

@NiceGerbil

Hi *@JustineMumsnet*

Thank you for the thoughts.

I'm one of the old crew, from before the FWR board was created.

I remember the threads at the time that I was involved in had two schools of thought

1. Not separate, women's issues cut across all sorts of issues and are important for all women. Hiving it off into a corner will lead to feminists being told not to post from a feminist perspective everywhere else on the boards

1. Having lots of threads have s strong feminist perspective was annoying for some and also would veer off into arguments about feminism by a few strong voices who essentially were arguing all over the place

I could understand both arguments tbh.

Anyway we got the topic.

I agree with tidying up, I suspect most users only use chat really and pulling it back into one for example would mean important posts weren't missed.

On the new topic. I don't l understand why, but in practice it's just not going to work. Here are my thoughts.

1. You mention that women need to be able to discuss issues of sex and gender role, and then gender. There are 3 definitions of gender I can think of which are all used widely. Gender ID would be the better term if you were to do it. The fact that sex, gender role is so entangled with trans conversations makes things difficult. I don't think people will know where to post and you'll be constantly getting reports and shifting threads around
2. It often happens in a thread about feminist topics that sooner or later a poster says something like, how can this even be tackled if charities etc don't believe in sex. Would that mean the whole thread should be moved? Would the poster be warned? Etc. It is pertinent though. Because without our words we can't do feminism at all
3. You can bet the general topic would be heavily policed and you'll get loads of reports which will be a lot of work. Decisions will I suspect be difficult and contentious. I wouldn't fancy being a MNHQ mod in those circs
4. I suspect that threads saying eg abortion is a big issue for women would start to be reported a lot. Again this is going to be difficult. Assuming you reject the requests to move threads I suspect there will be a lot of to and fro
5. The gender id topic would be a clear focus for those who want to get MNHQ to stop these conversations. They would be heavily trolled. And the call to shut the topic would be strong. It could be seen as you condoning certain views by providing a talk topic for it
6. I would worry that women posting on the new board could be targets for doxxing etc as they will be the women on those threads. Rather than just s woman posting on feminism who may have whatever views. We know that a utility has been made and shared to track the posters on FWR with keywords being counted to assess their views
7. I just don't think it's the right thing to do. Is for example the situation with rapists in women's prisons a niche issue? I would say it's a massive issue for women due to the impact on the other women in prison. They aren't a nice topic, they're women who are at risk

I also feel we already created the board and posters do say if there's a feminist opinion on eg something in the news then take it to the feminist board is posted. Hiving conversations off even further feels a step too far to me.

I think that's it. Sorry for being long winded!

I'd like to say thank you to you and the team for hosting these conversations, you didn't need to at all and it must have created a lot of difficulty. I am very grateful.

That's a really thoughtful and measured post - thanks. I agree on all points.

@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.

Appalling treatment of someone who did so much for women, and was unfailingly measured and civil.

God it really was long!

Thanks bell :)

@NiceGerbil

Hi *@JustineMumsnet*

Thank you for the thoughts.

I'm one of the old crew, from before the FWR board was created.

I remember the threads at the time that I was involved in had two schools of thought

1. Not separate, women's issues cut across all sorts of issues and are important for all women. Hiving it off into a corner will lead to feminists being told not to post from a feminist perspective everywhere else on the boards

1. Having lots of threads have s strong feminist perspective was annoying for some and also would veer off into arguments about feminism by a few strong voices who essentially were arguing all over the place

I could understand both arguments tbh.

Anyway we got the topic.

I agree with tidying up, I suspect most users only use chat really and pulling it back into one for example would mean important posts weren't missed.

On the new topic. I don't l understand why, but in practice it's just not going to work. Here are my thoughts.

1. You mention that women need to be able to discuss issues of sex and gender role, and then gender. There are 3 definitions of gender I can think of which are all used widely. Gender ID would be the better term if you were to do it. The fact that sex, gender role is so entangled with trans conversations makes things difficult. I don't think people will know where to post and you'll be constantly getting reports and shifting threads around
2. It often happens in a thread about feminist topics that sooner or later a poster says something like, how can this even be tackled if charities etc don't believe in sex. Would that mean the whole thread should be moved? Would the poster be warned? Etc. It is pertinent though. Because without our words we can't do feminism at all
3. You can bet the general topic would be heavily policed and you'll get loads of reports which will be a lot of work. Decisions will I suspect be difficult and contentious. I wouldn't fancy being a MNHQ mod in those circs
4. I suspect that threads saying eg abortion is a big issue for women would start to be reported a lot. Again this is going to be difficult. Assuming you reject the requests to move threads I suspect there will be a lot of to and fro
5. The gender id topic would be a clear focus for those who want to get MNHQ to stop these conversations. They would be heavily trolled. And the call to shut the topic would be strong. It could be seen as you condoning certain views by providing a talk topic for it
6. I would worry that women posting on the new board could be targets for doxxing etc as they will be the women on those threads. Rather than just s woman posting on feminism who may have whatever views. We know that a utility has been made and shared to track the posters on FWR with keywords being counted to assess their views
7. I just don't think it's the right thing to do. Is for example the situation with rapists in women's prisons a niche issue? I would say it's a massive issue for women due to the impact on the other women in prison. They aren't a nice topic, they're women who are at risk

I also feel we already created the board and posters do say if there's a feminist opinion on eg something in the news then take it to the feminist board is posted. Hiving conversations off even further feels a step too far to me.

I think that's it. Sorry for being long winded!

I'd like to say thank you to you and the team for hosting these conversations, you didn't need to at all and it must have created a lot of difficulty. I am very grateful.

I agree with this too.

@YourSexNotGenderIsOnFire

Can we just be clear that the appeal that Maya won was about her right to hold gender critical belief - the question of how she manifested her beliefs has still to be judged.

The courts have also previously held that believing gay sex is a sin is a protected belief, but Mumsnet would still be within their rights to delete inflammatory posts which says that all gay people will burn in hell.

I am gender critical but just wanted to clarify this as it seems to me that lots of posters are misunderstanding the judgment. It doesn't mean that we have absolute free reign to say what we like and that we must be given a platform to do so. I actually think Mumsnet have been doing a good job of striking a balance so far in terms of moderation.

I do massively oppose sex/gender issues being hived off though and would probably leave the site if that happens.

Yes this. I'm not massively impressed by posters flinging around 'it's illegal' or whatnot.

I'll be honest and say if I could change one thing about FWR it'd be that I wish people could scroll past obviously goady posts. They do it because people bite. But we can't 'manage' that with moderation rules. I hold my hands up, I do it too, and if you're new it's tempting to rebuff something obviously false.
Generally speaking I think MN are in a tough place and do well. But I can't ignore the brilliant posters who have been banned for good and I can't imagine they were being deliberately rude or transphobic. It's the unknown rules and inconsistency that seems like a deliberate tactic to be played.