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?

@lightand

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.

There's a difference between Feminists i.e those who would call themselves that and are committed to it as a cause, and discussions that are broadly feminist in nature.

You can get rid of the former to some extent but not the latter, especially on a forum for women. The majority of women on FWR and the wider forum are not actively feminist, for example, in the way Julie Bindel is.

Regardless they aren't going to suddenly stop talking about biological reality. Even without a Feminist section women will still notice what is happening around us. Every time a public figure says something like "mother is an outdated term we should use birthing bodies instead" women will take note and we will talk about it. You don't have to call yourself a feminist to have an opinion.

In short, these discussions aren't going away. You can try and ban all talk about it by being incredibly censorious but a site that's for woman and mothers will always have biology at it's core so by shutting down all dissent you risk destroying your USP.

@lightand

No advertisers, no site.

Well yes, and same old patriarchy dictating what women can and can't say.

@lightand

No advertisers, no site.

Advertisers chose MN because of the users. The USP of this site comes from the fact it's a predominantly female space & companies want their custom.

The traffic that FWR draws is significant, even if that's inconvenient for Justine, MN or those who have a problem with women with opinions, expressing those opinions, in FWR.

At the end of the day, it's a very odd decision to make, after maintaining the space for women to have a discussion (albeit significantly censored ones) to then decide to censor it further.

Getting back to the original point - it's a reasonable request for moderation rules to be reviewed in light of the judgement. Diverting discussion to the dead cat of trying to separate FWR from discussions on how sex & gender are distinct instead isn't really 'in the spirit' IMO.

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats Good point

@MrsBongiovi

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.

This is what I'm most uncomfortable with. I don't doubt that it's been really difficult, REALLY difficult. I'm grateful that we've been allowed this space, but we shouldn't have to feel grateful that women can talk about their rights and children's rights and attempts to change the law that would have a huge impact on those rights, or the biological realities of being a woman. If the initial impetus behind the site was to give women a place to talk about the things they couldn't discuss or share elsewhere then it's moved some way away from the original mission.

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.

Why are people, famous people, allowed to go on major news and media outlets, like the Guardian, the BBC, Oprah etc, talk about themselves, their gender presentation, appearance, lifestyle and personal choices publicly, presumably to try and influence public opinion on the topic of gender for their own benefit and the benefit of those who also believe such ideology (why else talk about it publicly?), but often to the detriment of women’s rights and with a negative influence on the health and wellbeing of children (for example, repeating the lie “children will die”), and do so without scrutiny or rebuttal?

And why, with organisations leaving Stonewall in droves, and with the amount of women who can now speak up turning from a trickle to a flood, would you not stick it out with respect to difficulties with advertisers, given how likely it is they will all be seeing which way the wind is blowing? Won’t you be embarrassed in a few years because you were complicit in appeasing advertisers who threatened to withdraw money because you wouldn’t comply with their request to silence discussion further? Any advertiser who doesn’t see the value on offer here is crazy. I have never understood that rationale, to turn down the millions of unique users here to appease a smaller number elsewhere. The logic of that argument has never made sense to me.

As I posted elsewhere, you have the opportunity to place yourself in history as the place that hosted the discussion that helped facilitate change - actual legal changes - that will be remembered for decades to come. Instead you want to take that place in history and piss it away to keep margarine makers happy today, who will have no qualms in changing their own advertising strategy when they realise they’ve backed the wrong horse. Bonkers.

When the co-op said they were going to launch an internal investigation into their advertising policy, over the fact that they thought the spectator was transphobic, Andrew Neill said:

Andrew Neil
@afneil
·
Sep 4, 2020
No need to bother, Co-op. As of today you are henceforth banned from advertising in The Spectator, in perpetuity. We will not have companies like yours use their financial might to try to influence our editorial content, which is entirely a matter for the editor."

The coop issued a grovelling apology. Of course. The threat of never being able to advertise again, was too much.

And they were right.

And that was before the entire country could even see the current Zeitgeist looming.

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.

But that’s just not true, is it? You don’t delete threads that do most of those things, only ones to do with gender. One particular Brooklyn Beckham thread comes to mind. There were some awful posts commenting on his appearance and lifestyle, it was absolutely a personal attack on a very young man....guess what... not deleted. But he seems to have been born male and presents as male...so that’s ok. You allow it to stand despite reports.
I’m sick of the lies and bullshit.

@lightand

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.

Had Justine come on the thread and explained that:

For business reasons related to advertising (and potentially related to legal challenges from individuals) they had to persist with the rules as they stood right now.

That they would continue to monitor the ongoing situation.

And that please, could we stop asking for a while because currently this was what they could offer...

Then this whole thread would have been understanding (if frustrated) regarding the situation.

Instead, asked after a major shift in the legal situation, having been asked whether they would consider changing the rules and/or the way they are applied, given they are currently not equally restrained for both sides of the debate, there was a very contentious announcement that all those users who currently frequent the feminist chat board most often were likely to be shifted into another area to make way for the (relatively few) posters who have been requesting that the feminist board should be kept clear of the women’s rights debate around trans lobbying.

In addition, a passive aggressive suggestion was made that we are problematic and want to insult people.

It seems an aggressive and unhelpful stance.

Appeasing advertisers who are pressuring the providers of a service into discriminatory treatment of people with a protected belief, is not a defence in court if providers go on to treat people with a protected belief in a discriminatory way.

Shocked anyone would think it could be.

Just popping back in to say that I was contacted overnight. There are indeed collated receipts of sanctions and suspensions imposed on GC feminists, together with records of staff communications, going back to when the initial limits on feminist speech with regard to transgender ideology were imposed. Of the little I've seen, some is quite shocking.

Perhaps not the best idea to be so rude or to suggest further unequal treatment in response to OP's perfectly polite question?

Just a thought.

Well yes, Justin could make the decision to only allow what the people with money, and who control the money, (men), want women to be allowed to talk about.

But that would be moving Mumsnet completely in the opposite direction of what she always claimed Mumsnet was.

Which, of course, she's entitled to do. But at least give women the courtesy of being honest about that. And then acceptingly join the ranks of the enormous list of other women's orgs/services/etc which have also decided to put what men want ahead of what women need.

Sorry, that was in response to AnyPrion and others re advertisers.

I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

Transwomen are male. It's a scientific fact and we should be able to say this whenever we like, not just under certain restrictions.

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.

OT for this discussion but I'm mindful of the woman who reported that her counsellor warned her on the use of correct pronouns under the aegis 'this is a zero tolerance workplace' - and how this excluded her from the sort of MH support that she needed at this time of need. Even when her marriage partner wasn't in the room, all discussion had to be framed with the partner's view as the default and not her own.

@SoapboxFox

I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

Transwomen are male. It's a scientific fact and we should be able to say this whenever we like, not just under certain restrictions.

It’s a shame Mnhq saw the request and used it to respond to non FWR complaints

There’s loads of people who want to suppress this discussion. Tough

Really pleased things are changing

I do think that we need to be able to accurately state that transwomen are biologically male where it is relevant to do so.

Transwomen are male. It's a scientific fact and we should be able to say this whenever we like, not just under certain restrictions.

Well yes it's obviously going to be very relevant to a lot of discussions on FWR, so IMO we ought to be able to say it there very frequently. There might be situations when it uncalled for especially elsewhere on the site.

For example:
Imaginary post on FWR: [Famous celebrity] has come out as gender fluid. [Famous celebrity] is biologically male but is saying that they are a woman on some days of the week when they like to do cooking and cleaning. This seems terribly sexist to me and I'm worried it reinforces gender stereotypes. They are also seeking removal of single sex spaces but, because they are male, I don't believe they understand why women need them.
This ought to be allowed IMO.

Imaginary post on AIBU: AIBU to think that [famous celebrity] looks weird since they got all that surgery done? They are a MAN and should just accept it!
I can see why MN would prefer we avoid posts like this and may want to delete them.

@MrsBongiovi

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.

But that’s just not true, is it? You don’t delete threads that do most of those things, only ones to do with gender. One particular Brooklyn Beckham thread comes to mind. There were some awful posts commenting on his appearance and lifestyle, it was absolutely a personal attack on a very young man....guess what... not deleted. But he seems to have been born male and presents as male...so that’s ok. You allow it to stand despite reports.
I’m sick of the lies and bullshit.

To be fair, loads of celeb ones get taken down. There was one on Louise Nurding the other day, wasn't particularly bitchy but still got taken down. I didn't see the Brooklyn Beckham one but I do think it's generally the rule that threads dedicated to individuals don't last long. Nb I never look at Royals/Harry & Meghan ones so they may have rules of their own!

CardinalLolzy

There’s loads still here. Other Beckham threads, comments about Ed Sheeran, Jamie Oliver and other various celebs about their appearance, lifestyle choices etc. The moderating and deletions are a joke. As long as you’re a bloke who feels like a woman though, it all deleted.

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

Really? Wow!

@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.

Rowan is regularly a named target of anti woman activists. She shares links of previous threads that are relevant, sha shares links to news reports that are relevant. As a repository of information she is so valuable, and this a target.

I'm not saying this to try and argue with individual mod decision on a single poster.

Am saying this to inform MN to that women are targeted for posting here, we could also be posting under different names about escaping a violent relationship and being banned or put off posting altogether could be a life or death decision. MN were just (rightfully) proud of the support system it provides for women leaving domestic violence. Allowing yourself to be played by those who hate women is never a good look.

@lightand

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.

This is a little naive.

If FWR wasn't here on MN, the anti woman activists would be targeting the women on TTC , breastfeeding etc. They would still target advertiser's saying that MNers are using trans exclusive language.

We are frontline soldiers here protecting the mods and other site users.

So posters have been banned for

Posting long text (facts & evidence)

Posting about the reality of enforced language use (safeguarding)

Posting about coercive control (facts again)

But we mustn't upset advertisers?

I honestly think we are very very close to a tipping point here. Soon there will be a rapid slide downwards as commercial organisations can't get away from views that are no longer convenient to hold, fast enough.

I don't for a moment believe that women will be winners in the new world, but confidently predict that some of those covered by the trans umbrella currently, are going to find themselves out in the rain.

In Justine’s own words from the Index on Censorship quote above

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

And the person in charge of moderating those women’s voices is a man. Someone who is used to those conversational filters, and may well feel threatened when they’re not applied. It was a strange decision

This is not a public service.

MNHQ did not have to host these conversations.

In fact it costs them to do so.

Their names and everything are public. Many women are worried about posting in their own names. Because of threats, workplaces being contacted, being seen as 'bigots', and all that.

As this is the ones place afaik where women can discuss this without being banned etc. Where women's voices outweigh men's, and it is open and public. That's rare really rare. Unique.

MNHQ run a chat board. That's it. It's very successful. It's always been contraversial and viewed with suspicion and trolled and subject to DDOS attacks. Always. The relationships board. The fact that whether women ID as feminists or not. When a poster says is this ok in a relationship, and it's not. She is told that. Women did not used to have that type of forum in real life or online. That is why it's so disliked. The very fact the site exists and is so strongly female mean men who come to 'give balance', if they're an arsehole the fact it's mainly women means they get told that.

The site is by definition feminist whether anyone thinks so or not because it is a rare predominantly female place.

So many women have learned and been helped with so much by other women. Who don't tend to dismiss etc but say yes. Menopause can be crap. Childbirth can be traumatising. No you shouldn't be bleeding like that see another doctor.

All that stuff.

Those saying MNHQ approach is appalling, a letdown etc. They have gone above and beyond when they did not have to.

The idea if the trans conversations go then the exodus of women will be such that the site fails is nonsense.

They did not have to do this.

Attacking MNHQ is baffling to me tbh.

This is not a public service.

The Equality Act applies to all businesses.