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?

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.

Exactly. It's not personal that I don't believe TWAW and don't believe it's possible to change sex. It's my strongly held positive belief and also my lack of belief in the gender identity ideology. Both are protected under the Equality Act. I do not have to lie and say I believe something I do not.

I agree - TWAW is, biologically speaking, just a philosophical belief, whereas TWAM is brutal biology as well as, as Maya's verdict says, a philosophical belief protected in law.

I also agree that MN has done a huge amount to publicise the GC viewpoint (and I am grateful), which is of course why the monitors lurk about and get posters deleted for 'misgendering' unidentifiable people. But at the same time, the term 'cis' which a lot of us find deeply offensive (because it makes us a subset of our sex in a manner contrary to our protected belief that biology matters) can be used. It's not a level playing field.

Honestly, I can't get over the fact that we have to fight for the right to just call ourselves 'women' without having to qualify what it is that we mean. It's utterly insane that a tiny group of people have, in the last decade or so, taken control of a word that is centuries old with an obvious meaning, and decided it means something else without consulting the people to whom it applies. Allowing the use of 'cis' is pandering to people who don't give a shit about women*.

• Adult human females. Those ones.

I don't think the structure of the board needs to change at this juncture.

Review moderation rules first, in line with Maya's case.

Then consider a board structure change later.

It seems like a distraction from the real issue, which is reviewing moderation rules to ensure they are up to date.

Exactly. It's not personal that I don't believe TWAW and don't believe it's possible to change sex. It's my strongly held positive belief and also my lack of belief in the gender identity ideology. Both are protected under the Equality Act. I do not have to lie and say I believe something I do not.

This.

What a terrible response.

Yep. Very disappointing but not surprising.

LangClegsInSpace 👏

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.

How pathetic.

LangCleg, you're on fire.

Honestly, I can't get over the fact that we have to fight for the right to just call ourselves 'women' without having to qualify what it is that we mean. It's utterly insane that a tiny group of people have, in the last decade or so, taken control of a word that is centuries old with an obvious meaning, and decided it means something else without consulting the people to whom it applies. Allowing the use of 'cis' is pandering to people who don't give a shit about women.

Adult human females. Those ones.

I very much agree with this - it does make me angry to read it. It's beyond insane that this happened/happens.

Superb post langcleginspace. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 I don't have anything further to add really except to say that changing a suspension into a ban without warning is a pretty poor way to treat any poster, particularly a long standing valued member of the community.

I was targeted last year - someone was trawling through old threads and reported posts from months earlier in an attempt to get me banned. Women are subject to targeted harassment on FWR and it's enormously frustrating that isn't acknowledged

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’.

Maybe it would be best to avoid "Transwomen are men" unless in response to someone asserting that "transwomen are women" but I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

Such statements should not be taken personally. Being overweight is not protected under the Equality Act 2010 (except in extreme cases where it results in disability) but I still think it's helpful to use an analogy: it would be inappropriate to start calling other Mumsnetters "fatties" but statements such as "being obese is unhealthy" ought to be acceptable even though some would strongly disagree.

We also have to bear in mind the context of Maya's case. There are things that you wouldn't say in a work context but you could say on a message board. Ethical veganism is protected under the Equality Act 2010 as a belief but I still think it should be fine for people to express on Mumsnet and other forums that eg they don't think that vegan diets are healthy, but if you had a vegan colleague you wouldn't keep telling your vegan colleague every morning that she is risking her health.

I hope Mumsnet can keep taking a nuanced approach to these issues and not split the feminism board.

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

I know some at MNHQ will be disappointed that we shut all the workhouses 😔

I know some at MNHQ will be disappointed that we don’t eat dogs in this country 😔

Not nice is it....

Some excellent posts on here, ive only read so far so I’ll continue

@yoursexnotgenderisonfire very well put. We must be able to state facts if it is relevant to the conversation. That is not saying we are going to stifle conversations by repeating mantras but means that we no longer have to ludicrously mangle language in order to make a point.

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats

Exactly. It's not personal that I don't believe TWAW and don't believe it's possible to change sex. It's my strongly held positive belief and also my lack of belief in the gender identity ideology. Both are protected under the Equality Act. I do not have to lie and say I believe something I do not.

This.

I'm also wondering how MNHQ plans to square this circle now there's legal precedent.

I don't have the knowledge or confidence to post frequently but do read Feminism Chat a lot and have mumsnet to thank for being made aware of the issues. I would like to add my voice to the many who have said that having a separate forum would be a bad idea and I feel quite shocked and disappointed by the tone of the MNHQ post on this thread. It almost seems purposefully worded to get a strong reaction from us, and somewhat contradictory to Justine's usual stance. Perhaps there are differing opinions within MNHQ itself and I like to think Justine might be trying to "put this one to bed" so it's not on the agenda of every management meeting for the rest of eternity. She can then declare the idea officially rejected. Maybe I'm being too optimistic and reading too much between the lines!

Maybe it would be best to avoid "Transwomen are men" unless in response to someone asserting that "transwomen are women" but I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

For me it comes down to the difference in treatment between the two groups. That difference starkly represents the inequality in the way the rules are currently applied.

If it comes down to “transwomen are men” is offensive and potentially off-putting to posters, then I would say I personally feel the regular repetition of the phrase “transwomen are women” is equally offensive, especially if we are not able to respond with our belief (aka fact) that they are men.

I have had to take breaks from the board because the offensiveness of that repetition and other similar “arguments” becomes so unpleasant. And of course those with the belief that “transwomen are women” have hundreds of other places they can post on the internet, if they feel the conversation in FWR is too robust. FWR is only welcoming to tough minded women, even if they are gender critical. I found that out quite quickly.

I feel there is far more tolerance extended towards “not in the spirit” posts from transactivist posters than towards women, in my opinion, but that is difficult to quantify. But the inequality is 100% clear when you look at the difference in tolerance to these two opposing statements. It absolutely demonstrates how one group are credited with being super-sensitive, while the other is expected to show patience and tolerance in the face of something that is, at the very least, deeply frustrating, at worst, a genuine challenge to women’s mental health.

Very well put, Prion. Why are my feelings of hurt and frustration in response to "TWAW" not valid or of value, yet the emotional reaction of others to "TWAM" is sufficiently important that the world must be rewritten?

@SirSamuelVimes

Very well put, Prion. Why are my feelings of hurt and frustration in response to "TWAW" not valid or of value, yet the emotional reaction of others to "TWAM" is sufficiently important that the world must be rewritten?

I still don't understand why the feelings of lesbians on this mantra aren't valid when it (for some) leads to pressure to accept a self-categorised male lesbian as a partner.

I still don't understand why the feelings of lesbians on this mantra aren't valid when it (for some) leads to pressure to accept a self-categorised male lesbian as a partner.

Equally for trans widows.

@JustineMumsnet can you really not see the inequality?

I have been thinking about this. As a trans widow, in the light of the judgement why should I be forced to speak as if I believe that men like my ex have changed sex?

I'm grateful that MN give us some freedom to state the truth on the Trans Widows thread, but it's not extended to when we post in the rest of the board.

Extremely good point Tinsel.

@AnyOldPrion

Maybe it would be best to avoid "Transwomen are men" unless in response to someone asserting that "transwomen are women" but I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

For me it comes down to the difference in treatment between the two groups. That difference starkly represents the inequality in the way the rules are currently applied.

If it comes down to “transwomen are men” is offensive and potentially off-putting to posters, then I would say I personally feel the regular repetition of the phrase “transwomen are women” is equally offensive, especially if we are not able to respond with our belief (aka fact) that they are men.

I have had to take breaks from the board because the offensiveness of that repetition and other similar “arguments” becomes so unpleasant. And of course those with the belief that “transwomen are women” have hundreds of other places they can post on the internet, if they feel the conversation in FWR is too robust. FWR is only welcoming to tough minded women, even if they are gender critical. I found that out quite quickly.

I feel there is far more tolerance extended towards “not in the spirit” posts from transactivist posters than towards women, in my opinion, but that is difficult to quantify. But the inequality is 100% clear when you look at the difference in tolerance to these two opposing statements. It absolutely demonstrates how one group are credited with being super-sensitive, while the other is expected to show patience and tolerance in the face of something that is, at the very least, deeply frustrating, at worst, a genuine challenge to women’s mental health.

Case in point, this thread that was taken down (for reasons I can't now recall). It was eventually reinstated after complaints but it's telling it was considered unacceptable in the first instance.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3430141-Womens-mental-health-is-being-damaged-by-our-forced-extinction

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

There's 2 things here aren't there

1. 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.

2. Justine's suggestion of somehow hiving off discussions around sex and gender into a separate board

I'm interested in 2, but let's not lose sight of 1, I'm not sure MNHQ have addressed that really.

I havent read all the posts after this one, but I think most people have missed the point. For years actually.

Justine said the issue in her second post.

The issue is advertisers.

MN users always seem to think that they are at the center of everything. While they are considered, they are not at the centre. Advertisers are.

MN users always seem to think that they are at the center of everything. While they are considered, they are not at the centre. Advertisers are.

No users, no advertisers.

No advertisers, no site.

And it wouldnt be no users, it would, and probably is, less feminist ones.
Site still carries on, and looking at in from MN point of view, they may prefer less feminists[still leaves thousands of other posters]. Not saying for sure MN want less feminists, but looks like it would give them less hassle. And maybe more revenue, as more advertisers interested??
Not saying their stance is right, but look at it from their point of view.

It would be nice to think that the creators of a parenting website, used mainly by women and mothers would have some principles around protecting women and children. Seemingly not though, money talks, and the people with money are getting richer and that’s what counts after all. Cheers Justine.