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?

I think I've always seen MN (and healthy social media) as reflecting the principles of journalism and that posters all have the potential to be effectively 'citizen journalists' as well as also being the equivalent of modern 'newspaper readers' when it works well. It has the power to highlight the reality of experience and to hold power to account.

For me this has always been the greatest power of MN and its done it better than many other online mediums.

That relies on cross pollination of views.

I do appeal to retaining that.

I want constructive debate and it recognised when people have gone to trouble to highlight problems or express the often emotional and difficult nature of their life experience and how things have impacted on them.

MN often is an avenue for women to do this, when everywhere else is largely hostile to this as its dominated by men.

I ultimately came to MN because of problems elsewhere online which featured constant abuse and sexual harassment of women. I had long used male user names to avoid a huge amount of this and to be taken seriously. I do look at the world of teenage girls seeing to take this to another level and wonder about whats going on. The irony isn't lost on me.

@PearPickingPorky

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?

Really, is this actually true @MNHQ?

If it is true Packit then I cannot comprehend it at all.

This is Mumsnet, and yes, it's open to everyone, male or female, parents and not. There are so many, many boards that are inclusive and accessible to anyone and everyone. But there are some that are not. Would you have a man mod the childbirth and pregnancy, or abortion threads? No, that wouldn't be appropriate. Relationships? Again, no, that would not be appropriate (given the sensitive and almost-always gendered nature of those threads and the particular vulnerabilities of women in abusive relationships). There are dozens of boards where one's sex is not relevant, where disagreement is rife and needs significant moderation: Politics, AIBU, celeb guff, the Royals, Money etc etc etc - loads of places where men could work with absolutely no issues.

WHY would anyone ever think a man modding the Feminism and women's rights board was appropriate?!

The more I think about that, the more incomprehensible it gets. Women, talking about their own movement, on a board specifically for their movement against men's oppression, having their opinions on feminism assessed for approval by a man.

There is no need to shunt us off the feminism board and I find it pretty offensive that MNHQ think this is their preferred option. I cannot see any justification. What we are asking for is that the rules are changed in the light of the Maya judgement, and applied equally. Sex and gender discussions are absolutely fundamental to women’s rights and to our feminism. So it’s a NO from me too. We are all able to see or not see posts that interest us.

@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.

Yep

And I still miss Lang.

@NiceGerbil

' '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.

And this

@Thecatonthemat

There is no need to shunt us off the feminism board and I find it pretty offensive that MNHQ think this is their preferred option. I cannot see any justification. What we are asking for is that the rules are changed in the light of the Maya judgement, and applied equally. Sex and gender discussions are absolutely fundamental to women’s rights and to our feminism. So it’s a NO from me too. We are all able to see or not see posts that interest us.

And write ones which do interest us.

I too feel upset that MNHQ's reaction here. It feels as if we're being punished - 'oh and by the way, we keep getting asked to put you lot somewhere you can't be seen by decent people, so that's what we're going to do.'

but it is illegal to express them if it was to discriminate against a protected characteristic?

Which includes people with protected beliefs like religions or gender critical feminism. There is no hierarchy of protected characteristics, each case would stand on its own merits. So sometimes the TRAs would have a case against an individual and sometimes it would be the other way round. Read some of the neutral legal interpretations.

I started reading FWR because of the continual comments elsewhere about how awful it was. I stayed because the discussion about the clash between women’s rights and what was being demanded by the trans lobby was interesting. And because all the topics are together, I then clicked on others and thus learned about other important feminist topics. So had there been a separate section, I would almost certainly have learned less about the wider feminist debate.

I also suspect this might have come up because those extra rules are never going to be removed, and the staff want women to stop asking. If that is the case, I would much prefer to hear it directly, along with a polite but determined request to stop asking.

Better thread from Adam Wagner (Human Rights lawyer) about the Forstater judgment that I'd have expected:

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1402936358658883584

Interesting comment from an insurance silk:

Beyond the principal issue, para 108 of the Forstater judgment strikes me as also being potentially significant

twitter.com/GreatStrides65/status/1402942274519060480?s=20

@PearPickingPorky

If it is true Packit then I cannot comprehend it at all.

This is Mumsnet, and yes, it's open to everyone, male or female, parents and not. There are so many, many boards that are inclusive and accessible to anyone and everyone. But there are some that are not. Would you have a man mod the childbirth and pregnancy, or abortion threads? No, that wouldn't be appropriate. Relationships? Again, no, that would not be appropriate (given the sensitive and almost-always gendered nature of those threads and the particular vulnerabilities of women in abusive relationships). There are dozens of boards where one's sex is not relevant, where disagreement is rife and needs significant moderation: Politics, AIBU, celeb guff, the Royals, Money etc etc etc - loads of places where men could work with absolutely no issues.

WHY would anyone ever think a man modding the Feminism and women's rights board was appropriate?!

The more I think about that, the more incomprehensible it gets. Women, talking about their own movement, on a board specifically for their movement against men's oppression, having their opinions on feminism assessed for approval by a man.

This needs to be posted again! Well said Pear

Also :

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

I haven't posted for a couple years now (have NC), but still lurk. I also want FWR to remain as is and for the moderation to become more sensible. R0 and Lang should be reinstated. Haven't seen TheBewilderness or AAK for a while. Though I may have missed their posts, hoping they haven't been banned.

I always found FWR to be the least nasty board. The women defend their points of view with finesse and intelligence. They are constantly under attack. I believe it was on MN FWR some years ago that they were even slammed for talking about baking or animals to avoid the continual goady posts by a plopper. I think the thread was taken down for not being inclusive or something along those lines. It was incredibly frustrating that they couldn't answer back without risking deletion, but were trashed for being off topic. The lack of fair play has been staggering.

Mumsnet - please please don't use what is a valid request (the original op) as an excuse to shunt off gender critical feminists / debate from the feminism board. It's a shocking idea.

@JustineMumsnet

Hey,

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. We’re delighted with yesterday’s judgement because it vindicates the position we’ve held at Mumsnet for some time. Namely that people should be able to discuss sex-based rights and the implications of gender self-id freely, without harassment and that it’s not transphobic to do so.

This has not been an easy position for us to hold - we’ve been frequently labelled as a hate site by a few vocal activists on social media and in outlets such as Pink News and many of our advertisers have been targeted with such accusations, and subsequently withdrawn activity. So it’s a relief that, as of yesterday, our position is very clearly on the right side of the law.

That said, we believe it’s important, and in fact the only way forward where competing views and rights are directly in conflict, to be respectful of other opinions and beliefs - hence our insistence on civil debate and our keenness to be inclusive of diverse voices. There’s an important difference - hinted at in yesterday’s judgement - between stating a view in principle and stating it in an aggressive and offensive way - such as deliberately misgendering individuals or repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’. 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. It’s this type of behaviour (as opposed to the view that sex is immutable) that we consider to be transphobic, and hence it is against our Talk guidelines.

Posting guidelines on Mumsnet have never simply been about a set of defined rules of what can and can’t be said: we always want to take context into account because this is as much about the kind of community we want, collectively, to create (one that is inclusive, supportive and thoughtful as well as incisive and bold) as about the semantics of what’s written.

We also think now might be the time to consider a reshuffle of the topics in the Feminism board. Feminism and feminist organising has always been a crucial part of Mumsnet and we want all Mumsnet users to feel they can use these boards to discuss the hundreds of ways in which sex - and gender roles - impact on women’s lives, irrespective of their views on sex and gender. So we’d like to introduce a separate topic for Sex and Gender issues and at the same time streamline some of the other topics under the FWR umbrella (some of which are rarely used).

I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity here when elsewhere many gender critical feminists have had to put up with extraordinary amounts of incivility and indeed downright harassment. Please be assured that we will continue to insistently make the case for women’s right to be heard on this topic both on Mumsnet and off. But we do believe it’s far more effective to do that from a position of the moral high ground.

What a terrible response.

You may be delighted with yesterday's judgment but it doesn't appear that you have understood it, or its implications for you as a service provider.

This thread was a good faith request to review your moderation policies in light of this judgment, to ensure you are not discriminating against or harassing posters who believe sex is importantt and posters who do not believe in gender identity.

You have ignored this request and instead you are proposing plans which will make it even more difficult for women who believe that sex is important, and who don't believe in gender identity, to discuss our rights.

So it’s a relief that, as of yesterday, our position is very clearly on the right side of the law.

Are you sure about that?

Maya's case wasn't about you, it was about us. The EA gives rights to individuals. It imposes obligations on service providers. Are you meeting your obligations?

Your portrayal of FWR posters here is extremely offensive and inaccurate:

'deliberately misgendering individuals'

'repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’'

'Threads devoted to named individuals to unpick their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle or personal choices'

'I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity'

That's what you think of us is it?

This 'reshuffle' you are proposing -

The general rule is that new topics are created in response to demand from the people who want to use them.

It never, ever goes well if a new topic is created in response to demand from people who want other people to use it because the basic message is 'fuck off over there where I don't have to engage with you'.

You know this.

You know that those rarely used topics under the FRW 'umbrella' (), which you want to 'streamline', are just the sad, dusty detritus left over from last time you tried to send the wrong sort of feminist somewhere else out of the way.

So in summary -

• you have failed to address the issue of whether the special rules unlawfully discriminate against posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity

• you have failed to address the issue of whether posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity are being moderated fairly, to the same standard as other posters

• you have said some very offensive things about posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity

• you want posters with the protected belief that sex is important / protected lack of belief in gender identity to go away and post somewhere else so that some other posters don't have to see or engage with us.

'Please be assured ...'

No.

And I don't think the moral high ground is quite where you think it is.

LangClegsInSpace 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

That is the most important post of this thread.

Maya's case wasn't about you, it was about us.

And the rest of it. Fantastic post, LangClegsinSpace

Surely if people don't want to see gender critical topics dominating the board, they can just hide those threads? @JustineMumsnet is there not some way that the board can be recoded so it's possible to add a tag to threads when you create them, and give people the option to hide all threads with that tag? (I know some reddit subs do something similar). That way people who aren't interested in the Gender Critical stuff could avoid seeing it with the aid of a few clicks. And while it may be a bit of technical effort, it'd also be useful for other boards, such as the breastfeeding v bottlefeeding example given earlier.

However, this is all a bit of a derailment from the thread topic about clarification of the additional rules on FWR in the light of the Maya Forstater judgment. As a reasonably new poster, I still don't entirely understand what some of the rules are, and sympathise with the autistic PPs who find the lack of clarity confusing. What counts as being "not in the spirit", as I've frequently seen goady posts stay up, despite long thoughtful posts getting deleted? And generally the tone of discussion seems much more civil than AIBU and the coronavirus boards to name but two. "Talking about a thread" also seems to get posts deleted, but I can't see anything about that in the FWR guidelines or the general Talk guidelines either, and there's occasional mutterings about not using the word "peak" too. While I appreciate that you can't rule out every single little thing, the apparent arbitrary nature of deletions at present sometimes gets in the way of clarity in discussions as we have to throw in a load of circumlocutions to be on the safe side.

There’s an important difference - hinted at in yesterday’s judgement - between stating a view in principle and stating it in an aggressive and offensive way - such as deliberately misgendering individuals or repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’.

Having reread Justine’s post, this section struck me as an area where there is a serious case of discrimination on the gender critical view.

If stating that transwomen are men is banned, then equality would dictate that the equivalent gender positive version transwomen are women should equally be banned.

Given that the latter is used incessantly, it means that much of the discussion allowed is inherently discriminatory against those of us who disagree.

This is really shocking.

The more I think about that, the more incomprehensible it gets. Women, talking about their own movement, on a board specifically for their movement against men's oppression, having their opinions on feminism assessed for approval by a man.

Welcome to 21st century patriarchy, same old, but make it pink and sparkly with a rainbow flag on top.

@JustineMumsnet

I can’t imagine how much grief you and your team have received over the years for allowing women to speak about their material reality and yet in the face of it all, you’ve nevertheless persisted. The cost (personal, emotional, financial) must have been large, like that borne by so many other women who are targeted for refusing to submit, and I’d like to thank you for being brave enough to do what no other site did.

I think you’re absolutely right to feel vindicated by the verdict in Maya’s case but please don’t abandon ship now - Mumsnet has played such an important part in shifting this from no debate to “actually perhaps these women have a point”.

You previously wrote this for the index for censorship and tbh, I don’t think I can say it any better.

There are still so few places where women’s voices are prioritised and respected, and where women of all backgrounds and ages feel they can express themselves, without activating the conversational filters that we so often employ in mixed company. Mumsnet didn’t set out necessarily to to give women a voice, but however it came about, it may turn out to be the site’s most significant achievement.

You’ve facilitated such an enormous amount in the fight for women’s rights but women still need to be heard, still need a voice. Maya’s victory allows you to be braver

Fuck me this is a bloody nonsense-what the heck are mumsnet towers thinking.

'I know some of you will be disappointed that we insist on respectful language and inclusivity'

@LangClegsInSpace is right that this is insulting and disappointing from @JustineMumsnet - compounded by the wince-making 'patronising 6th former addressing a 14 year old' tone of all pronouncements from MNHQ.

What MN and Justine have done, in giving women a space to speak - even with constraints - is important. Really important. Without MN, I doubt that the grassroots movement to defend sex-based rights in the UK could have got off the ground. That is why many people hate FWR. Where MNHQ repeatedly make their own lives harder is in making concessions to people who want to silence GC women. Haven't you learnt yet that capitulation only fuels the demands for more capitulation? You have just handed the people who want to silence us a huge victory and made a rod for your own backs. Why?

@AnyOldPrion

There’s an important difference - hinted at in yesterday’s judgement - between stating a view in principle and stating it in an aggressive and offensive way - such as deliberately misgendering individuals or repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men’.

Having reread Justine’s post, this section struck me as an area where there is a serious case of discrimination on the gender critical view.

If stating that transwomen are men is banned, then equality would dictate that the equivalent gender positive version transwomen are women should equally be banned.

Given that the latter is used incessantly, it means that much of the discussion allowed is inherently discriminatory against those of us who disagree.

Surely saying transwomen are men is exactly what this judgment protects. It's the cornerstone of the gender critical viewpoint in terms of disagreeing with trans ideology. It's also the foundation of a disbelief in gender ideology.

It's the whole point of going to court.

It's not to be mean. And it's not personal.

[quote WotgunShedding]@JustineMumsnet

I can’t imagine how much grief you and your team have received over the years for allowing women to speak about their material reality and yet in the face of it all, you’ve nevertheless persisted. The cost (personal, emotional, financial) must have been large, like that borne by so many other women who are targeted for refusing to submit, and I’d like to thank you for being brave enough to do what no other site did.

I think you’re absolutely right to feel vindicated by the verdict in Maya’s case but please don’t abandon ship now - Mumsnet has played such an important part in shifting this from no debate to “actually perhaps these women have a point”.

You previously wrote this for the index for censorship and tbh, I don’t think I can say it any better.

There are still so few places where women’s voices are prioritised and respected, and where women of all backgrounds and ages feel they can express themselves, without activating the conversational filters that we so often employ in mixed company. Mumsnet didn’t set out necessarily to to give women a voice, but however it came about, it may turn out to be the site’s most significant achievement.

You’ve facilitated such an enormous amount in the fight for women’s rights but women still need to be heard, still need a voice. Maya’s victory allows you to be braver [/quote]
All of this.