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?

This isn't to do with the equality act.

It's to do with the fact MNHQ don't and haven't had to allow this conversation.

The posters saying MNHQ are behaving illegally and saying what if it goes to court wtf.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

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.

This.

If you can't make a profit while operating within the law then your business is not viable.

Everyone (almost) knows and accepts this when it comes to equal pay, pregnancy and maternity rights, minimum wage, health and safety, bla bla bla. This is no different.

The EA says that discrimination or harassment because of a protected characteristic is prohibited conduct.

That's the bottom line.

That's for employees.

The guardian deletes all sorts of posts left right and centre. Are people going after them?

The obvious answer to this bizarre threat is that they stop hosting this conversation and ban all the posters on the topic.

They won't fail.

I can't believe people are attacking mn I'm really taken aback.

MNHQ did not have to host these conversations.

In fact it costs them to do so.

Has it cost them, though?

MN is very keen to trot out that it is “hosting the debate”, while in fact it has not been doing so since the special rules came in. Not really. Women arguing for women’s rights have been very stifled and restricted in what we could say.

I think MN is cashing in on a false reputation. When the FWR posters find each other elsewhere, the scale of the stifling of women’s voices becomes clear.

MN has to now make the decision one way or another. Do they want to appease advertisers by promising to clamp down on so-called “transphobia”, or do they want to keep the reputation that they are “hosting the debate”?

Now that we can speak more freely elsewhere, gender critical media will pick up on the discrimination going on on MN.

That's for employees

The Equality Act doesn't only apply to employees. It applies to all companies including in their dealings with their service-users, customers, potential customers, etc.

I think the anger on this thread is an entirely predictable response to the absurd suggestion that we should now be shunted off the feminism board all together.

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

Yes, this is where MN is great, just because I disagree with a lot of posters on trans issues on here, I can see its good points as in it's somewhere we can come and talk and get advice - when my teens were toddlers it was somewhere I came and read about others in the same situation/parenting issues, and stuck around and I'm still here lol.
I don't get all the attacking the mods either from "GC'' posters - it must be incredibly hard to try and make a space where both women and trans people can speak.
Would be much easier for them to just go "fuck it, can't be arsed" but they haven't.

MNHQ did not have to host these conversations.
In fact it costs them to do so. Has it cost them, though?

I'd say yes, as in the whole site has a reputation for being transphobic for hosting the conversations, (which I find a bit unfair because the whole site isn't - which you soon see when posts end up on the main board and out of the echo chamber - any transphobia is called out a lot more.)
Also I'd say it'd cost in losing some advertising deals as well.

which you soon see when posts end up on the main board and out of the echo chamber
In fact whenever feminist topics come up on other boards , single sex prisons, Maya Forstater etc the agreement with the main FWR ideas are about 95%. There is often more disagreement on FWR as that is the forum that attracts anti woman activists and anti feminist trolls.
Funny that.

Of course it's to do with the Equality Act!

Maya Forstater brought a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. And won (at least on this legal point). That's why this thread was started.

The OP says:

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?

It's fine to be grateful to MN for allowing this discussion when almost nowhere else did. I'm grateful for that too

If you are so grateful to an organisation that you don't care if they behave unlawfully then you don't have a healthy relationship with them. Are there any other laws you think MN should be exempt from because they did a good thing?

I don't want MN to get sued!

I want them to carefully and thoroughly review their moderation rules, policies and practices to ensure that they are operating within the law.

So they don't get sued.

Yes of course it's cost them.

They are referenced all over the internet as a site for homophobes etc.

They have had to explain over and over why they are doing it.

I have no doubt that they have received God only knows what personally.

I have never heard of a chat site being sued for breaching the equalities act in deleting posts that go against it's started terms. They have in their terms total control.

I think this stance is pathetic. I'm really annoyed.

If it wasn't for the fact I recognise some posters names I would think this toys out the pram stuff was an attempt to get MNHQ to say fuck it then. We're not doing this any more and shut those conversations down. Which of course they are entitled to do.

Will their actions hold up in court? Fucking hell.

So they're getting it in the neck from both sides now. Great.

This is ridiculous.

I politely asked MNHQ to look at the rules around discussing sex and gender as I suspected, in light of the judgement in Maya's case, that those rules might not be compliant. Many other posters have eloquently elaborated on my OP.

The rules appear to me to be unfair and weighted in favour of one set of beliefs over another, so I asked for a review. It has always been encouraged for members to raise issues and questions, I assume that's why we have a 'site stuff' board.

What I find most ridiculous though, is that Mumsnet used to be known as 'a nest of vipers' and 'the one with the swearing' and it traded off that reputation. Intelligent, robust and challenging debate were what brought many of us here, and why we stayed, and why many of us are still loyal even when we feel unfairly treated. Mumsnet means something to us, if it didn't we wouldn't care and we'd leave. We just want fairness.

Maya lost her job!

What is the tangible impact of not being able to say a word or whatever on a chat forum?

Jesus.

You’re completely right OP. No reason they couldn’t have put this announcement on another thread on a different day. Still not addressed your key question. Annoying.

The women posting on certain threads are small in number compared to the whole site.

The idea that they will fold if those posters leave is ridiculous.

All I'm seeing here is arrogance.

I want them to carefully and thoroughly review their moderation rules, policies and practices to ensure that they are operating within the law.

So they don't get sued.

I'd be startled if anybody did that and wonder what they were attempting to achieve. I can not think whom it would benefit other than bad faith actors. I'd be interested to see an argument otherwise.

After all, is disparity in the moderation a reflection of who reports posts and their agenda? Many established posters are resolute in their commitment not to report posts, not least because of a belief in the importance of, and necessity to discuss, matters that influence contemporary society. However, that's not a shared agenda, and there are people who may well be opposed to any such discussion and they might choose to avail themselves of appeals to the moderators.

I don't get all the attacking the mods either from "GC'' posters - it must be incredibly hard to try and make a space where both women and trans people can speak.

The current moderation on the FWR board is heavily weighted to benefit those who believe 'transwomen are women' in a determined effort by MNHQ to address the constant accusations that it is a transphobic website. Language is allowed which 'GC' users find offensive as it is 'useful for the trans community'. There are special, unclear rules (unique to the FWR board) which aren't specifically stated. Malicious reporting (which is gleefully recounted on other social media such as Twitter) is allowed and seemingly condoned (one now banned user somehow persuaded MNHQ that she was not 'here for the screenshots' despite evidence showing exactly that).

Now that there has been a ruling that we can state biological facts without fear of discrimination, making it a hell of a lot easier to discuss these issues, we're told that actually, any discussion relating to these issues will be shunted off onto a separate board (making it a very easy target for bad faith posters, while at the same time limiting the amount of interaction from women unaware of the issues).

The original post simply asked if the unique moderation rules used on the FWR board be reconsidered given the new situation. Somehow, this has morphed into the posters on FWR being told that they must be 'disappointed' that there is an expectation for civil debate.

I'd really love to know the footfall that Mumsnet get for the FWR board, specifically regular users rather than the 'ploppers' who appear to tell us off and then disappear forever. I'm guessing that the advertisers don't get any gains from them.

@Waitwhat23 - beautiful post. Spot on.

Language is allowed which 'GC' users find offensive as it is 'useful for the trans community'

On here?
I find that doubtful, as they ban words and phrases on both sides, the word beginning with C springs to mind

Cis is not banned. I've challenged the use of it myself and was told very specifically that it isn't a banned word as it is (as I said previously) 'useful for the trans community). Cis is used constantly on here despite many women finding it offensive.

The request was polite, fair and appropriate and I hope MN agrees to the change.

Again, that one can describe 'transwomen as women' but one cannot describe 'transwomen as men' is a very basic example of the discrepancy that some of us hope can be redressed following Maya's judgement.

It's about balance, that's all.

@Waitwhat23

Cis is not banned. I've challenged the use of it myself and was told very specifically that it isn't a banned word as it is (as I said previously) 'useful for the trans community). Cis is used constantly on here despite many women finding it offensive.

Yea, its not banned generally

If a poster is persistently called cis then MNHQ will delete

Ah OK, must have been a very recent addition if they're now allowing it, as I've definitely seen posts where it's been banned recently.

@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'd been very keen to see that happen here

@Quaggars nope, not recent.