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?

@Quaggars

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.

Hit a nerve?

To get to the crux of a problem you tend to have to speak in blunt, clear, crisp language.

This can be interpreted by some as rudeness. For others its language which breaks down the argument into component parts that are accessible for all.

One of my main beefs with the Feminist Board when I first started on MN was how it was word salad and inaccessible shite and a bunch of people telling you to go read whatever.

In recent years, where the argument has really been won has been in something of a change in this - people repeating the argument patiently and in accessible ways that make it easy to understand why the desire to conflate sex and gender fundamentality is one of the greatest threats to women's rights and the foundation of all the current arguements / problems / conflict.

If you try and separate it off, it spectacularly misses the point and doesn't resolve this either way. It stops the debate about WHY this is just so crucial to understand and why it leads to issues further down the line.

If you can't come to a workable understanding/tolerance/compromise - call it what you will, you will see the issues women face fester, remind hidden from view or deliberately buried either by accident or nefarious players.

You CAN NOT - regardless of which side of the fence you are on - pretend this isn't an issue. Why? Because material reality and the fact you still have an unresolved situation in which harm occurred / needs are not being balanced.

Its almost like being King Knut sitting on the beach asking the tide not to come in. Its not a solution. Its a fudge that doesn't work.

Things only get sorted if you actually tackle things like this head on. Think of it like seeking a peace accord - like the GFA. You HAVE to get all parties sitting down at the table effectively.

This is what government should be aiming for. A proper public debate on the matter in which grievances are properly aired but taken seriously and then a settlement reached.

I do think the same is true of MN.

Avoiding the problem or constantly banning posters for stating what is sometimes the bleeding obvious / has been posted by others without consequence / is an unavoidable truth back up with case evidence (which at times might be unpalatable and doesn't align with politically correct views) isn't going to help.

Its just going to lead to resentment and more digging in of heels.

No, was just saying it's not always a conspiracy theory although some seem to think it is (not aimed at anyone in particular, you do see it a lot on the threads though, including this one)

Given that there are bad faith posters who come here periodically (and in one case I'm aware of, specially invited by Mumsnet!) to create goady threads or derail existing threads with the specific, openly stated intention to source 'transphobic' screenshots to take back to Twitter, it's rather dismissive to handwave these away as 'conspiracy theories'. There is heavy weighing given to these posters in terms of the language and phrasing they are permitted to use - cis and similar phrases are allowed as they are 'useful language for the trans community' despite many users of this board finding them deeply offensive. GC posters on the other hand receive deletions for using words and phrases which are perfectly innocuous and are tied in linguistic knots trying to express themselves without receiving a deletion. As someone mentioned previously, many new posters find themselves baffled as to what they've said that merits a deletion and are put off posting on the FWR board.

Call it 'cheerleading' all you like. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

@Quaggars

No, was just saying it's not always a conspiracy theory although some seem to think it is (not aimed at anyone in particular, you do see it a lot on the threads though, including this one)

Some of the most knowledgeable and no doubt influential posters on FWR have been banned. You can pretend R0 received a ban because she was uncivil, but regular posters know that's not the truth. So why was she banned? Because she's knowledgeable and influential on here. That looks like targeting. It's not paranoia. Likewise posters who monitor FWR and report have been saying for some time that there should be a separate section for these discussions. They've no doubt actively lobbied for it behind the scenes. One can be suspicious of the motives there again without being paranoid, of course if you ban any discussion of the conflict of women's rights and trans rights from the main FWR board then you silence women and make it impossible to raise their concerns where there's more traffic. Of course there'll be less traffic on a "trans rights" thread because less people will want to look at/associate themselves with it. It's almost like it's a deliberate attempt to make FWR less influential at a time when things are unraveling for gender ideologists. MN has been a powerful organising platform for writing to MPs etc. If you were able to exert influence over MNHQ and you didn't like the direction of travel of course you'd try to get the women on FWR silenced. Don't take us for idiots.

Have you not come across Quaggars before?
Back to the OP, anyone?
Great post, RedToothBrush.

Hang on, I missed this upthread - Why is a man now in charge of monitoring and moderating women's speech on women's rights in the feminism section

Is this true? Because this in incredible if so. Absolutely incredible. What on earth was the rationale at MNHQ for this decision?

@Quaggars

No, was just saying it's not always a conspiracy theory although some seem to think it is (not aimed at anyone in particular, you do see it a lot on the threads though, including this one)

When there have been lists of posters put elsewhere online with a bunch of names who have slowly disappeared its quite hard to ignore. Especially if your own user name is on that list.

If its a conspiracy theory, can someone explain why I've seen them? And have been concerned about it when I've been listed?

Whether its about scaring the shit out of posters via intimidation or about a genuine organised campaign is kind of irrelevant. To say that there hasn't been a list, when its been linked to, is massive gaslighting. The purpose is still the same - to shut down discussion and to try to silence posters that certain people dislike.

I think this was highlighted and shown to MNHQ too.

Why? Whats going on?

What is it about women speaking and being concerned about a subject that leads to a desire to stop them talking? Especially when what they are talking about is sex - which HAS to exist for a trans identity to exist. You can't be trans if you don't acknowledge sex, because your identity is based on an observation of your sex that you 'trans' from. Sex exists in law. Gender transition (and not a gender identity) is a protected characteristic - but ironically, being non-binary isn't. Because sex matters to women, men and trans people (whether they wish to pretend differently to the very foundation of their own identity).

Its a strange state of affairs. The very essence of being trans relies on sex, yet women can't talk about sex - we must only speak about gender apparently. Why is it that if you are trans you can have an identity based on sex (but dressed up as gender) but women can't have an identity based on sex (but must conform to gender stereotypes / discrimination or risk being labelled in derogatory terms or called 'man' or 'manlike' or trans in denial etc).

Its not just unfair. It makes no bleeding sense and is hypocrisy of the highest fucking order.

I am really grateful to Mumsnet for providing a platform for women to discuss all issue relating to women's rights in one place. However I don't look at the other feminist boards. I just scroll down Feminist chat. Tbh one board is fine. But sex and gender is really fundamental to understanding women's oppression and women's rights today.

'
'One of my main beefs with the Feminist Board when I first started on MN was how it was word salad and inaccessible shite and a bunch of people telling you to go read whatever.'

Yes! I did not enjoy that phase.

It has been through various ways it felt, as it were.

When it was first set up was when my personal legends were around. Dittany, Sakura, Lenin, others whose usernames I can't quite remember. The flavour back then was different as well.

If we're talking about banning then I still miss Dittany! The others kind of melted away, or maybe are still around under different names (like me).

I think that there's only a certain amount of time you can go round and round having the same conversations. And eventually many move on. I'm obviously a bit of s creature of habit

The intellectual years I was not a fan of at all. I'm glad that's not going on any more.

Then this came. It was raised on feminism from time to time starting maybe 5 years ago. And now it's taken over the whole board.

And that's just how it is. Many posters now are single issue. They come for that conversation. Not feminists. Women worried about what's happening. Many have said reading the board has opened their eyes to women's issues though. Stuff they weren't aware of. The different abortion rights around the world. The activism by women on loads of topics around the world. The gains and the pushbacks. Which orgs and charities seem to be doing good work/ are grassroots, if they say they want to help. Things like the vaginal mesh scandal, topics around pregnancy and childbirth etc. Just loads of stuff is still in there even now.

So I think that's good. I think it would be a shame to reduce the browsing and reading and hearing opinions on other women's rights topics.

So that's another reason I wouldn't want to see it hived off.

And another thought @JustineMumsnet. It's often accused of being an echo chamber. Which is funny because it's open to everyone and you can't block anyone etc. If there was a separate section there would be a danger of ending up that way. And for more considered posters staying on the main board, who are often the ones to say hold on a minute that's not right, I don't agree etc etc. So that would be a really good reason not to do it. I go for the feminism but post a lot everywhere. 2 topics I'd probably go to one, as I do with chat at the moment. I mean not saying I'm great or anything just trying to say that you might end up with an unintended consequence here.

RedToothBrush

👏 👏

To say that there hasn't been a list, when its been linked to, is massive gaslighting

I didn't say anything about a list, anywhere, so not sure why you're implying I did, never mind implying gaslighting.
So don't put words in my mouth, please muchly.

Welcome to the "good feminist" board, these feminists have been approved by the patriarchy for their tireless work stanning for porn, prostitution and the right for men to say they're actual women with lady brains. Don't go near the "bad feminist" board where naughty non Lib fems stubbornly refused to allow men to define their feminism and were punished accordingly with the gulag, here be dragons.

@JustineMumsnet

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

Can you imagine any other site on the internet where trans rights are discussed, where they allow any space at all to include women's rights?

I was referring to the post I got deleted for which was saying how I found Ro's posts, and that could be a reason why got suspended, you're not allowed to say though, it must be a conspiracy theory instead and targets, and monitors.
So I said, okey dokey, I'll just cheerlead instead and join the other theories that are 100% inline with group think.
You're the one talking about lists, not me.

@RedToothBrush

To get to the crux of a problem you tend to have to speak in blunt, clear, crisp language.

This can be interpreted by some as rudeness. For others its language which breaks down the argument into component parts that are accessible for all.

One of my main beefs with the Feminist Board when I first started on MN was how it was word salad and inaccessible shite and a bunch of people telling you to go read whatever.

In recent years, where the argument has really been won has been in something of a change in this - people repeating the argument patiently and in accessible ways that make it easy to understand why the desire to conflate sex and gender fundamentality is one of the greatest threats to women's rights and the foundation of all the current arguements / problems / conflict.

If you try and separate it off, it spectacularly misses the point and doesn't resolve this either way. It stops the debate about WHY this is just so crucial to understand and why it leads to issues further down the line.

If you can't come to a workable understanding/tolerance/compromise - call it what you will, you will see the issues women face fester, remind hidden from view or deliberately buried either by accident or nefarious players.

You CAN NOT - regardless of which side of the fence you are on - pretend this isn't an issue. Why? Because material reality and the fact you still have an unresolved situation in which harm occurred / needs are not being balanced.

Its almost like being King Knut sitting on the beach asking the tide not to come in. Its not a solution. Its a fudge that doesn't work.

Things only get sorted if you actually tackle things like this head on. Think of it like seeking a peace accord - like the GFA. You HAVE to get all parties sitting down at the table effectively.

This is what government should be aiming for. A proper public debate on the matter in which grievances are properly aired but taken seriously and then a settlement reached.

I do think the same is true of MN.

Avoiding the problem or constantly banning posters for stating what is sometimes the bleeding obvious / has been posted by others without consequence / is an unavoidable truth back up with case evidence (which at times might be unpalatable and doesn't align with politically correct views) isn't going to help.

Its just going to lead to resentment and more digging in of heels.

Great thread

Sums it up for me

I was never going to go on old feminist board. They spoke in language I didn’t understand
But now I can join in and also learn stuff

And Rowan wtaf was she been banned for

She’s great and always linking to resources

One of the things about being challenged about your views is it gives you the opportunity to reassess what you think. Its healthy.

Sometimes it helps you to understand opposing positions better even if you disagree. Other times it helps you to develop your view further and gain information which backs up your position. Other times it helps you change your mind.

Liberal democracy and healthy debate operate based on this.

The suggestion of formulated echochambers on this subject are only are for the benefit of MNHQ imho. They don't improve the quality of women's lives. They don't get to the crux of problems.

Given that the tide is starting to recognise there are very real problems with the enforcement of the law and that a certain charity is proving to be a concern, which only has occurred due to increased awareness and people gradually changing their minds - due to debates and conversation - which in many cases was initially challenging previous views is this something MN want to lose?

There are so many posters who have said they saw conversations which changed their minds or made them question certain issues due to FWR.

On the issue of single sex protection and other women's rights issues.

Glad to hear it littlebrowndog and I have always enjoyed and appreciated your posts.

The intellectual wankery years were terrible.

@NiceGerbil

Glad to hear it littlebrowndog and I have always enjoyed and appreciated your posts.

The intellectual wankery years were terrible.

Yep, I only dared read , and eventually post, on these boards once normal everyday insightful and intelligent women started explaining things using simple language that I, a common/garden woman, could understand.

@Quaggars

To say that there hasn't been a list, when its been linked to, is massive gaslighting

I didn't say anything about a list, anywhere, so not sure why you're implying I did, never mind implying gaslighting.
So don't put words in my mouth, please muchly.

Don't call it a bloody conspiracy theory then.

Bottomline, one way or another people have tried repeatedly to get certain posters to stfu because they didn't like what they had to say.

Other bottomline, where we are now in terms of highlighting the law and conflicts of interest between charities and organisations, was also about that.

And its not holding up in law. And I suspect we will see more legal cases highlighting the problem.

In other words, its being demonstrated that these posters often had a very valid point.

Its been difficult and frustrating to argue in the face of that. People have lost tempers, they have been tripped up and in some cases I do very much think have been treated inconsistently.

We all see our own sex. Whether we choose to admit this is the only difference.

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

I am now very confused. If you send discussions of sex and gender off to some other section, would discussion of “inequality and stereotyping” go there, or were you thinking such a topic could remain on the current board?

I can’t really see how you could avoid talking about biological sex or socially constructed gender if you were trying to address inequality between the sexes and gendered stereotyping.

Did you mean gender identity when you said gender? Part of the problem, and it is one that affects all discussions of women’s issues, is that the word “gender” is often used to mean either sex, which is biological, gender identity, which is faith based/spiritual, or the correct meaning of the word, social gender.

Given this confusion I cannot see how it could work in practice to section off conversations involving sex and gender, unless what you actually mean is that you wan’t to section of conversations about gender identity. If those with an interest in spiritual and innate gendered stereotype alignments want their own board to discuss these issues I am ok with that.

unless what you actually mean is that you wan’t to section of conversations about gender identity. If those with an interest in spiritual and innate gendered stereotype alignments want their own board to discuss these issues I am ok with that.

Yes I think this would be a very good idea. There are a lot of MNers who don't want to see any discussion about or relating to women as a sex class, and find it exclusionary of those with beliefs in Gender Identity Theory, so I think it would be an excellent idea for there to be a separate board which is a safe space for them to post about this, where they wouldn't be triggered by seeing feminist views.

Brilliant idea, fallin.

@littlbrowndog

And Rowan wtaf was she been banned for

She’s great and always linking to resources

Apparently she was banned for posting too much text and talking about abusive dynamics. Some people do not like that, and yes, r0’s name was on the aforementioned list of posters to be targeted.

Justine has a lot to think about for sure!

In the end it's MN decision. And that's aok.. They never had to host these conversations. The amount and type of communications asking them to choose discussions, I dread to think some of the content. And they're not anonymous.

They've had loads of targeting of their sponsors etc so affecting revenue potentially.

And the site has been repeatedly smeared as a hate site.

So whatever @JustineMumsnet and the team decide is fine by me. I'll still post

Anyway I've put down a few thoughts and arguments that might go into the mix as have plenty of others.

Sorry to tag you again Justine. Thanks again. This site and esp feminist posters and the FWR board have been really important to me. When I first joined when pregnant, I came across Dittany. And others. And the thoughts and feelings and opinions that I had had from a child as just knowing something wasn't right but no one else seemed to notice or understand, there they were writing them down. It was incredible.

So I care a lot about the site and the topic, in general, and not just over this issue.