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 don't see why the guidelines and moderation practices re FWR aren't essentially the same as on the philosophy, religion and spirituality boards. That's an example where (last time I looked) there are many posters with different strongly held beliefs , there is a range of subjects, there can be very robust criticism and defence of other world views.

@ErrolTheDragon

I don't see why the guidelines and moderation practices re FWR aren't essentially the same as on the philosophy, religion and spirituality boards. That's an example where (last time I looked) there are many posters with different strongly held beliefs , there is a range of subjects, there can be very robust criticism and defence of other world views.

Yes exactly! No personal attacks, same as the rest of the boards, but the ability to look at issues and discuss them from different perspectives without being reprimanded. Religion and belief are also protected characteristics after all but debate is still allowed about those subjects and without additional punitive guidelines in place.

Boundaries are important. Where boundaries are unclear people will take advantage and use the lack of clarity to manipulate the situation. When they see that they can get away with their behaviour they will take it further. Punishing regular posters while allowing all sorts of behaviour from visitors on FWR demonstrates a lack of respect for women's boundaries. It cuts them off and leaves them without clear guidelines to point to when someone oversteps the mark. It's gaslighting.

" 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."

This this this!

@WhatKatyDidNot

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.

MN may have lost it's bottle? Sometimes, people do "give up the fight" so to speak, as they get older. Or maybe, the owners of MN are not that bothered or interested in the gender/biology thing? Or maybe, there are other interested parties in the way MN operates, even above the advertisers, and which MN feels it has to accomadate?

I dont think btw, that Pink News attacking advertisers, should be taken lightly.

Sometimes, when we look at things, from someone else's point of view, or a business point of view,we see different things, and in different ways.

Pink News is attacking advertisers? Can you post a link?

Justine's post on page 6. But now I can see I havent remembered it correctly, [apologies to anyone concerned] so I repost that part now.

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.

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.

♥️

[If MN wants to withsraw my post, that is up to them].

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

That's interesting NiceGerbil, and largely how I used to feel. I have in fact sent MNHQ a letter of thanks in the past. I think my recent posts probably demonstrate that my attitude has changed.

If a woman was living with a man who constantly changed the rules of their relationship (and indeed specifically refused to provide clarification when asked), imposed punitive measures seemingly pretty randomly and told her it was for her own good, but paid the mortgage even though he didn't have to, what would you say to her?

If it wasn't for FWR I'd be the ideal mumsnetter. I read it most days, I buy one of everything that's recommended on style and beauty (although I do draw the line at Roman Originals) and I actively encourage others to use the site because I think the women's voices here are brilliant.

But it's been made very clear to me by the people who run the site that I'm beyond the pale, and the kind of person who is disappointed that they insist on respectful language and inclusivity

quite the headfuck innit?

The right side if the law statement is interesting. Given that it’s the content that makes up the site, then that must mean the users are. So I’m not sure why the reaction now is to siphon off or suggest we’d now use disrespectful language.

There are many posters here who get the nuance and arguments around women’s rights.

Thanks both.

Well we got the measure of Pink News' CEO on Radio 4 last week. Of all the people to capitulate to, surely he would be the last?

Justine - MN deserve credit for allowing discussion to continue. However, trying to separate sex/gender from the main board doesn’t work. For example, a recent parliamentary survey referred to people suffering menopause symptoms - that is a woman’s health issue but the failure to use the term women is a sex / gender issue. The subsequent debate covered both topics. Perhaps the failure of young women to engage in STEM is influenced by the pernicious rise of regressive gender stereotypes?

Where would these topics sit in the proposed regime?

@Erikrie

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.

♥️

Agreed

@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.

@AnneLovesGilbert

It’s the actual law. So would be good for MN moderation to reflect it.

It's the law.

The person up-thread who referenced the spirituality board got me thinking....

Yes I've visited that board too and I'm reminded of the ongoing "Wicca/Witches" thread I looked into it myself!

It's full of stuff like candle making, walks in the woods, the moon phases etc, but obviously other people of other religions think that sort of thing is the work of the devil.
You simply don't get Catholics plopping into the thread upsetting all of the posters on the thread telling them they'll all burn in hell etc, despite the fact we know many people out there think this way.

I wonder why the feminist chat board attracts the sort of people who actually post determined to pick a bunfight specifically with people who they know hold views different to their own, when the spirituality board is more respectful.

@MiladyBerserko

Thanks both.

Well we got the measure of Pink News' CEO on Radio 4 last week. Of all the people to capitulate to, surely he would be the last?

Quite

The belief that transwomen are men and that transmen are women has been accepted as a legitimate and protected belief

I don't understand how this is a 'belief'? It's scientific fact!

Religion and belief are also protected characteristics after all but debate is still allowed about those subjects and without additional punitive guidelines in place.

But that's not literal violence or genocide or erasure or putting them in danger. Whereas whenever someone says AGP or TWAM it is

I don't understand how this is a 'belief'? It's scientific fact!

Sadly the ability to state neutral scientific facts isn't protected by law.

Where is the thread requesting to separate the proposed separating of FWR re: sex/gender as that is usual procedure where MN either say we will discuss it or say no and why ie with like edit requests?

I’ve seen many times people going into FWR just to moan that women don’t discuss other women’s issues yet rarely do follow up the suggestions of starting a thread even when seen mumsnetters reel a list of what things they want to discuss.

Oddly enough these moaners never contribute anywhere else on site nor those threads that discuss issues like porn etc.

Credit to the mumsnetters like that of pp who are what keeps the site in business and reason why mums like me bother to come here.

GN don't mind what people say. I just like freedom for them to say what they like.

" lightand Sun 13-Jun-21 12:41:56

Justine's post on page 6. But now I can see I havent remembered it correctly, [apologies to anyone concerned] so I repost that part now.

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."

Yes, I support the comment above. I stopped getting involved in internecine feminist debates on the head of pin when I was very young as it always felt pointless and like those committee of all kinds where most of the meeting is spent talking about boring non issues. However this current issue of whether women or people give birth if women breastfeed or people chest feed and how we count numbers of women in a census are real and important core issues for the protection and rights of women and it is great MN has understood that.

None of that detracts from most women's views that we try to treat trans people kindly of course but we will not be drowned out, cancelled or shut down on this issue.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I don't understand how this is a 'belief'? It's scientific fact!

Sadly the ability to state neutral scientific facts isn't protected by law.

This bothers me a lot.

If it's accepted that the idea mammals come in two reproductive groups etc is a belief. Then the implication is all of science is belief. And then creationists etc not that we have many here but it's just belief versus belief.

So say a scientific study says I dunno. If we put more green spaces into cities it will help with pollution and health. Just a belief? I suppose vaccines is a big one. Loads of anti vax people around. Saying they work and the side effect chance is tiny is... Just a belief?

Unintended consequences?

Having sex in mammals protected as a belief is worrying.

I have started a separate thread to avoid it getting lost, but I had a thought for a way in which Mumsnet could keep the peace and avoid splitting the FWR board.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/4270115-Hide-threads-containing-a-particular-word-or-phrase

If anyone else thinks that would be a good solution please comment on the thread so MNHQ know.