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?

@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.

Should clarify my earlier post...Cis has never been banned, only posts where someone is called cis are deleted

A post saying ‘i am cis’ or ‘cis women are...’ is allowed to stand

@NiceGerbil

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.

The EA protects us all from unlawful discrimination in the areas of work, housing, education, provision of services and public functions, clubs and associations.

MN is a service provider and they are required to abide by the EA and not discriminate against their service users, as well as their employees.

The guardian is free to delete 'all sorts of posts left right and centre' as long as they do so indiscriminately. If they moderate comments more harshly from particular groups who have a protected characteristic then that would be unlawful discrimination.

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

That would be direct discrimination though.

A lot of us, including me, are angry with MN's response to the OP's request.

Some of us are also pointing out legal risks to a platform we very much care about and want to survive long into the future. That's not an attack.

@ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn

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.

Exactly this!

One is a statement of a scientifically illiterate belief, and the other is a scientifically, and 99% of the time legally, accurate 'belief', and yet the former is allowed and the latter not.

Discrimination needs a tangible loss though surely.

What tangible loss is there from not being able to say certain words?

Are you all taking this up with the guardian, Twitter etc? Or just MN? If the latter, aren't you engaging in demanding more from a female led predominantly female space than male ones?

If MN pull the plug because they think fuck this is that a good result for you?

MN is a service provider and they are required to abide by the EA and not discriminate against their service users, as well as their employees.

This.

nicegerbil - Mumsnet is now more censorious of women with protected gender critical beliefs than either Facebook or Twitter. I am active on both those platforms and I speak largely as I please (within the law). I have stopped posting here because I can't. It's an absolute nonsense to say they've held a space above and beyond what others have and what space they did hold has become increasingly narrow.

MNHQ could say they will no longer accept talk threads on trans issues at all. That would not be discriminatory as neither "side" would be affected in a way the other was not.

What it cannot do under EqA is treat holders of one protected belief differently to others. If it does and this unequal treatment is disadvantageous, that is unlawful conduct. It really is as simple as that.

@Quaggars

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.

I just don’t buy this logic overall, not when it’s espoused by MNHQ. We are supposed to believe that, instead of figuring out how to advertise and tap in to the 10 million unique users with the views we all hold, instead advertising companies are rejecting access to 10 million unique users because of the views we all hold - legally protected views - to appease a small percentage of Twitter users, the numbers of which are smaller?

Are advertising companies really that stupid? Surely there are people who work at the companies who look at the numbers and see how it should be handled. Are advertising companies like the Labour Party now, in thinking Twitter success equals real life success?

And why aren’t all advertising companies pulling out? Clearly there are companies who see the inherent worth in this place and continue.

You’d be bonkers, as an advertising company or another company to give up this source of product - us, the users - just because people like Mimmymum post on Twitter that the place is “transphobic”.

Either these companies are utterly stupid, or we don’t get the full story from MNHQ and it’s not entirely as it is presented.

'nicegerbil - Mumsnet is now more censorious of women with protected gender critical beliefs than either Facebook or Twitter'

Seriously? Than Twitter?!

Ok feels to me that there's something else going on here.

Getting the conversation shut down entirely would be a great result wouldn't it.

@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?

Also seconded.

The Forstater judgement was a gift to MN. It would have allowed them to defend themselves from accusations of transphobia, and from pressure to censor GC views, by pointing to their legal obligations to treat them as protected beliefs. Instead, they have chosen to do the opposite. And what really rankles is Justine's patronising and rude response, effectively blaming FWR posters for the fact that we are targeted.

The tactics are so ham-fisted too. They keep publicly capitulating, which reinforces the pressure from TRAs.

Mumsnet is now more censorious of women with protected gender critical beliefs than either Facebook or Twitter. I am active on both those platforms and I speak largely as I please (within the law). I have stopped posting here because I can't. It's an absolute nonsense to say they've held a space above and beyond what others have and what space they did hold has become increasingly narrow.

I think MN have it harder as they try to host discussion from both "sides."
Places like Twitter, there is no conversation as if you ever tweet something and someone doesn't like what they're hearing, they can get trigger happy with the block button.
Not so much here (which I think is a good thing) I do think if you're wanting a discussion both sides need to be heard whatever the subject and I think that's what MN goes beyond with, as not a lot of places do that anymore.

@NiceGerbil

Discrimination needs a tangible loss though surely.

What tangible loss is there from not being able to say certain words?

Are you all taking this up with the guardian, Twitter etc? Or just MN? If the latter, aren't you engaging in demanding more from a female led predominantly female space than male ones?

If MN pull the plug because they think fuck this is that a good result for you?

I think we should expect more of female led spaces tbh. It's more painful to feel let down by something female centric than anything predominantly male. It's never a surprise when men are not in our corner.

As mentioned by others MN should feel vindicated by Maya's win especially as Maya has a long time connection to MN not just from her recent case but her co founding of Let Toys Be Toys a decade ago that I believe started life on MN.

I can't really fathom their reaction.

nicegerbil never forget the lurkers. You cannot know how many women, and men, read FWR but never or rarely post. That has an effect. Right away or some time later.

FWR would not be targeted if it were not influential.

Plus MN know it drives traffic otherwise it would have been out years ago.

What tangible loss is there from not being able to say certain words? have you suddenly switched sides nicegerbil?

Human rights don’t have to be monetised or restricted to loss of life or limb to be recognised do they? The essence of this has surely always been to be able to state and discuss objective facts in everyday plain language in order to defend women’s sex based rights as enshrined in international law. The loss is of free and factual expression and of uncensored communication. That is huge.

Gender ideologists always aimed to rely on fait accompli to underpin their legal strategy. Alongside institutional capture, one aspect is to be able to say that people say or don’t say “XYZ” in everyday speech. We must not give away words and censor ourselves. Appeasement never works.

Justine’s reaction is bizarre and disappointing.

I just don’t buy this logic overall, not when it’s espoused by MNHQ. We are supposed to believe that, instead of figuring out how to advertise and tap in to the 10 million unique users with the views we all hold, instead advertising companies are rejecting access to 10 million unique users because of the views we all hold - legally protected views - to appease a small percentage of Twitter users, the numbers of which are smaller?

Hmm... I see it as people are able to by law to hold the views they have.
I mean, there's no such thing as thought police.
You're entitled by law to hold the views you may or may not have.
When it comes to publishing them on line to a public audience though, it gets more complicated and starts to cross a line.

A reminder that the court concluded that 'gender critical' beliefs were considered 'worthy of respect in a democratic society'.

Not, you can hold these views and never express them in a democratic society.

Yes it would be great to be able to post in FWR. I have been waiting patiently until no longer am required to think about posting with those in mind who hate MN yet constantly watching and policing site instead I can ask the those who want opinions or advice from which is women. Having to do mental gymnastics & dance around using cryptic code is not a skill I have. I don’t expect MN to cater around my autism but as a woman & a mother I fail to understand why you cater more to haters that your users.

The phase who is the parent here comes to mind.

Skill *don’t have

but as a woman & a mother I fail to understand why you cater more to haters that your users.

I'm not a hater, probably get thought of as one though (seeing as I usually post for trans rights)
Users can be a woman and a mother too who can see other women being afraid even if they're not afraid themselves.
As I said earlier, tricky line to host both sides

MNHQ doesn’t just have a relationship with advertisers, it also has a relationship with its employees.

The intern behind the leak of details of ‘anti-trans’ posters (the intern used a different word which MNHQ has banned) boasted about still having friend inside Mumsnet who shared her views.

That led me to believe that there are Mumsnet moderators who believe very, very strongly that TWAW. Naturally, their views will have been taken into account when drafting the FWR Moderation Rules and may have informed much of it.

The ruling in Maya’s case has confirmed that their beliefs are protected in the same way that Maya’s are.

The ruling is significant enough that Mumsnet should at least review the rules because there is a possibility that they may be unfair to one side the debate. Certainly, they have been told enough times that it is unfair to the GC views.

I understand that the principles of the equality act apply to more than just employers and include service providers etc. but a chat forum is still the Wild West in many respects. Perhaps someone could clarify for me - could a user sue Mumsnet for deletions and bans if they thought Mumsnet was doing so based on GC views?

With evidence from other sites of posters having been targeted fir deletion, Mumsnet should either close FWR down (which posters don’t want, and given the recent increase in traffic driven by FWR, MNHQ won’t want either) or reconsider the moderation principles. One option would be to return to the same principles of the rest of the site - hands off moderation and deletions only if there are personal attacks. Given that philosophy seeks general principles, theoretical chats should be acceptable. Specific comments about people are not attacks if they are truthful and evidence based. If something crosses the line, it would be quickly reported (it always is!) for moderators to review…in accordance with the principles applied to the rest of the site.

Another issue is that we must have accurate language to discuss issafeguarding. This means identifying men, and being allowed to talk about patterns in male behaviour, including when male pattern entitlement and predatory behaviours are observed among those who identify as something other than men.

There is furthermore a massive elephant in the room that constitutes a safeguarding risk for as long as we may not even mention it. We should be allowed to talk about autogynephilia.

Quaggers

I dip in & out of MN sometimes months apart and it been many years since was more of poster than just a reader.

Have only recently breezed back because it’s my go to when I know mumsnetters will have some info! I was actually losing will to live in searching for this particular size blind until chucked in google : Mumsnet wide blind to why I been back here.

I haven’t the foggiest who you are nor have any interest in u being trans, this is not me being rude this is MN not NM which been using on off since first started. When I want to discuss or ask opinions/advice on nappies or weaning I used those subs, when didn’t want to know about feminism or WR I stayed out of those subs, if I don’t want to be told AIBU I don’t post there or bitch that everyone being mean. I don’t go in dadsnet section and bitch about all the feckless fathers.

There are issues which related to myself that are to do with women ie domestic violence I know that FWR is best sub for response, I want to hear from women I don’t want to have Wade through loads of shit because it been derailed by trans stuff or have half posts deleted because it not worded to accommodate everyone else but women.

MN didn’t bow down to anyone before ffs F4J can vouch for that, yet here we are.

Am not a comprise so NO it not tricky. There was a time when people came here bitching MN didn’t do this and that all things fluffy-nice and they got told to pissoff to NM.

Tell me do you cater for everyone else over the transgender forums? I mean there are loads of them but I have never been inclined to use them on them just like don’t use other forums not relevant to me.

@Quaggars

I just don’t buy this logic overall, not when it’s espoused by MNHQ. We are supposed to believe that, instead of figuring out how to advertise and tap in to the 10 million unique users with the views we all hold, instead advertising companies are rejecting access to 10 million unique users because of the views we all hold - legally protected views - to appease a small percentage of Twitter users, the numbers of which are smaller?

Hmm... I see it as people are able to by law to hold the views they have.
I mean, there's no such thing as thought police.
You're entitled by law to hold the views you may or may not have.
When it comes to publishing them on line to a public audience though, it gets more complicated and starts to cross a line.

Only if you think “crossing the line” is publishing biological reality.

And even if you personally think publishing biological reality is “crossing the line” it doesn’t explain why advertisers or other companies would give up access to 10 million users who think it’s a perfectly acceptable position to hold and post, on the basis of small number of people like you who think it “crosses a line.” Why aren’t they brainstorming how to advertise to millions of users who believe in biological reality, rather than appeasing a small number of Twitter users who don’t just to get some woke points that no one in real life cares about?

Like I said, these are either the worst advertising companies ever, or there’s more to the story.

The tactics are so ham-fisted too. They keep publicly capitulating, which reinforces the pressure from TRAs

This is why one should NEVER PAY KIDNAPPERS, they'll just be back for other children later if you do.

There should have been a statement at the very first silencing attempt saying
"we're the one with the swearing, the hedge shaggers, the sex towel. We'll not drive our users away with baroque unpublished rules. Go well , away with ya"

@WanderinWomb

The tactics are so ham-fisted too. They keep publicly capitulating, which reinforces the pressure from TRAs

This is why one should NEVER PAY KIDNAPPERS, they'll just be back for other children later if you do.

There should have been a statement at the very first silencing attempt saying
"we're the one with the swearing, the hedge shaggers, the sex towel. We'll not drive our users away with baroque unpublished rules. Go well , away with ya"

Yup. Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

What is so frustrating is that the Maya judgement was the perfect opportunity for MN to reboot to a policy of the type you've described- thus making their own lives, as well as ours, immeasurably easier.

MN will employ young women even if some of those of us posting are as old as the hills. I hope it employs people of all views and whatever those people's views it can continue to allow debate of trans issues as they are so important to women and that it reflects the latest court case in tweaking the rules.

No one on MN wants to be launch personal attacks about to trans people and many of us fee sympathetic to them particularly as so many are mentally ill. I read a lot of books in the 1970s about them - it was a teenage interest of mine. However we need to fight against cancel culture. If certain things upset some people put are politely put like men are stronger than women then the posting on whatever topic should be allowed and the person who is upset could just put down their device and go out for a walk.