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?

On moderation

We completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users. If anything we tend to spend much more time explaining why things have been deleted on FWR than elsewhere and trying to help users avoid deletions and strikes.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Could it be that you're having to spend a lot of time explaining deletions on FWR because these extra rules are so difficult to understand and comply with?

We know what we want to say, we know how to say it clearly, we have no wish to be deliberately offensive or to harass anybody. Yet we are prevented from expressing our views in clear, ordinary language.

We have to tiptoe through what feels like a minefield (e.g. too generalising - BLAM! too specific - BLAM!) avoiding all the Bad Words, including some which are not mentioned anywhere in the special rules - what's the deal with 'TRA'? What's the deal with ? I know you don't want to make a simple list of banned words, I understand why and I think that's wise, but can you not understand that the current special rules and the way they are applied leave a lot of us feeling like we're treading on eggshells?

If Maya's case means anything it means that we should be allowed to express our belief - that sex is immutable and important - in clear, ordinary language. It doesn't give us a licence to harass anyone, everyone is clear on that, and IMO that should be the bottom line - does this post amount to harassment?

Does it violate someone's dignity, or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, based on their protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Unlike non-crime hate incidents, the threshold for unlawful harassment is not subjective. The perception of the complainant is important but it's also necessary to take into account all the surrounding circumstances and whether it's reasonable for the unwanted conduct to cause the complainant to feel harassed.

As you say, Mumsnet is an inherently female-centred and feminist space and we have an honourable history of supporting and promoting feminist viewpoints.

Those are the surrounding circumstances.

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language?

I don't think that's reasonable, I don't think that amounts to harassment and I don't think such posts should be deleted.

Obviously personal attacks are different and may amount to harassment but that's already well covered in the general talk guidelines.

@LangClegsInSpace

On moderation

We completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users. If anything we tend to spend much more time explaining why things have been deleted on FWR than elsewhere and trying to help users avoid deletions and strikes.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Could it be that you're having to spend a lot of time explaining deletions on FWR because these extra rules are so difficult to understand and comply with?

We know what we want to say, we know how to say it clearly, we have no wish to be deliberately offensive or to harass anybody. Yet we are prevented from expressing our views in clear, ordinary language.

We have to tiptoe through what feels like a minefield (e.g. too generalising - BLAM! too specific - BLAM!) avoiding all the Bad Words, including some which are not mentioned anywhere in the special rules - what's the deal with 'TRA'? What's the deal with ? I know you don't want to make a simple list of banned words, I understand why and I think that's wise, but can you not understand that the current special rules and the way they are applied leave a lot of us feeling like we're treading on eggshells?

If Maya's case means anything it means that we should be allowed to express our belief - that sex is immutable and important - in clear, ordinary language. It doesn't give us a licence to harass anyone, everyone is clear on that, and IMO that should be the bottom line - does this post amount to harassment?

Does it violate someone's dignity, or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, based on their protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Unlike non-crime hate incidents, the threshold for unlawful harassment is not subjective. The perception of the complainant is important but it's also necessary to take into account all the surrounding circumstances and whether it's reasonable for the unwanted conduct to cause the complainant to feel harassed.

As you say, Mumsnet is an inherently female-centred and feminist space and we have an honourable history of supporting and promoting feminist viewpoints.

Those are the surrounding circumstances.

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language?

I don't think that's reasonable, I don't think that amounts to harassment and I don't think such posts should be deleted.

Obviously personal attacks are different and may amount to harassment but that's already well covered in the general talk guidelines.

Well said.

@LangClegsInSpace

On moderation

We completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users. If anything we tend to spend much more time explaining why things have been deleted on FWR than elsewhere and trying to help users avoid deletions and strikes.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Could it be that you're having to spend a lot of time explaining deletions on FWR because these extra rules are so difficult to understand and comply with?

We know what we want to say, we know how to say it clearly, we have no wish to be deliberately offensive or to harass anybody. Yet we are prevented from expressing our views in clear, ordinary language.

We have to tiptoe through what feels like a minefield (e.g. too generalising - BLAM! too specific - BLAM!) avoiding all the Bad Words, including some which are not mentioned anywhere in the special rules - what's the deal with 'TRA'? What's the deal with ? I know you don't want to make a simple list of banned words, I understand why and I think that's wise, but can you not understand that the current special rules and the way they are applied leave a lot of us feeling like we're treading on eggshells?

If Maya's case means anything it means that we should be allowed to express our belief - that sex is immutable and important - in clear, ordinary language. It doesn't give us a licence to harass anyone, everyone is clear on that, and IMO that should be the bottom line - does this post amount to harassment?

Does it violate someone's dignity, or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, based on their protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Unlike non-crime hate incidents, the threshold for unlawful harassment is not subjective. The perception of the complainant is important but it's also necessary to take into account all the surrounding circumstances and whether it's reasonable for the unwanted conduct to cause the complainant to feel harassed.

As you say, Mumsnet is an inherently female-centred and feminist space and we have an honourable history of supporting and promoting feminist viewpoints.

Those are the surrounding circumstances.

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language?

I don't think that's reasonable, I don't think that amounts to harassment and I don't think such posts should be deleted.

Obviously personal attacks are different and may amount to harassment but that's already well covered in the general talk guidelines.

Biscuit…

Thats all I’m gonna say

@LangClegsInSpace

On moderation

We completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users. If anything we tend to spend much more time explaining why things have been deleted on FWR than elsewhere and trying to help users avoid deletions and strikes.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Could it be that you're having to spend a lot of time explaining deletions on FWR because these extra rules are so difficult to understand and comply with?

We know what we want to say, we know how to say it clearly, we have no wish to be deliberately offensive or to harass anybody. Yet we are prevented from expressing our views in clear, ordinary language.

We have to tiptoe through what feels like a minefield (e.g. too generalising - BLAM! too specific - BLAM!) avoiding all the Bad Words, including some which are not mentioned anywhere in the special rules - what's the deal with 'TRA'? What's the deal with ? I know you don't want to make a simple list of banned words, I understand why and I think that's wise, but can you not understand that the current special rules and the way they are applied leave a lot of us feeling like we're treading on eggshells?

If Maya's case means anything it means that we should be allowed to express our belief - that sex is immutable and important - in clear, ordinary language. It doesn't give us a licence to harass anyone, everyone is clear on that, and IMO that should be the bottom line - does this post amount to harassment?

Does it violate someone's dignity, or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, based on their protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Unlike non-crime hate incidents, the threshold for unlawful harassment is not subjective. The perception of the complainant is important but it's also necessary to take into account all the surrounding circumstances and whether it's reasonable for the unwanted conduct to cause the complainant to feel harassed.

As you say, Mumsnet is an inherently female-centred and feminist space and we have an honourable history of supporting and promoting feminist viewpoints.

Those are the surrounding circumstances.

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language?

I don't think that's reasonable, I don't think that amounts to harassment and I don't think such posts should be deleted.

Obviously personal attacks are different and may amount to harassment but that's already well covered in the general talk guidelines.

Hear hear!

I'm with you *LangClegsInSpace'.

It's more accurate to say we are harassed and they are the harassers anyway.

You've written a whole extra set of rules for gender-critical feminists! How is that not treating us differently?

Everyone is so terrified of the ragey men.

Conversely, it would seem far more reasonable in the surrounding circumstances for fwr posters to feel harassed, because of our protected belief, by the special rules and the way they're applied.

I have frequently found fwr to be an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment because of these rules, the way they are applied and the effect that has had on the overall tone of discussion.

I don't think anyone here wants to engage you in a legal battle. We'd just like a proper conversation around the special rules and their application and how they could and should be amended in light of this judgment. It's quite normal for organisations to review their policies and practices when there has been a landmark ruling.

It's not an attack or a threat of litigation to ask you to do this, or to ask for a discussion around it. It's a sign that we think you're decent enough to want to do the right thing.

Technical note: the PC of religion or belief is not included in the prohibition of harassment in the EA. However EHRC's statutory codes of practice say:

The definition of harassment as described below does not apply to the protected characteristics of sexual orientation or religion or belief in the provision of services, the exercise of public functions or the acts of associations. However, where unwanted conduct related to either of these protected characteristics results in a person suffering a detriment, that person could bring a claim of direct discrimination

And of course the PC of sex is covered by harassment in the EA. It's shocking that Maya could not rely on the PC of sex and instead had to rely on the PC of belief in sex. We need to bring harassment claims because of the PC of sex, but that's another thread.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Thats all I’m gonna say

Careful now

Just think how hard you're having to work MNHQ to appease a minority of people who get angry when women talk about biological facts. It's totally batshit. You just need to say no.

Everyone is so terrified of the ragey men.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Not everyone who disagrees with the gender critical position is a "ragey man."

There's people out there who are women and are fed up with it too.
(Biological women before someone starts defiiiine)

Is it reasonable for someone with the PC of gender reassignment, or with a protected belief in gender identity, to say they are being harassed because they have deliberately come into a female-centred, feminist space and have read posts from women expressing their protected belief that sex is immutable and important, in clear, ordinary language

Pow! In a nutshell.

I wouldn’t go to a trans-supportive space and demand to be allowed to express my thoughts as I pleased regardless of the differences of opinion. Common decency prevents it. It’s not my space.

I go to feminist chat to discuss feminism, but the rules for doing so are expressed in a way that demands I suppose that there is a trans person present who may dislike how I express my beliefs, and find it harassing.

It is acceptable for me to hold and manifest those beliefs. There is a power imbalance here, as beautifully illustrated by Barracker a while back, when she asked for a trans board member to allow her to express herself in the terms she preferred by laying down their privilege to make her speak as they preferred, so they could meet on a level playing field.

It was declined. Ignored, rather. Spoke volumes.

True. The loud ragey men are a clear scary threat, so it's easy to think of them as the main issue. Actually, a big problem is the women who enable their behaviour and even support it, and genuinely do not seem to see the collateral damage in the process.

This group is so much more baffling to me than the men who don't understand the damage they might cause by trying to remove all single-sex facilities and any conversations or challenges to that.

Some men literally can't understand the value of women-only spaces (how could they after all? They only ever had glimpses into them when they were young children and part of the women-children contingent).

But women should know why we need refuges and prisons and changing rooms and (yes I know some will eye-roll) toilets too - all without non-staff men being allowed in.

Even if they don't need them themselves, most women know what it's like to be terrified of a man at least momentarily, even if they don't live in terror generally, even if they've never been raped or abused - they can usually "get it". That's why mumsnet has become known for this conversation after all: so many mums and women online in a group who could talk freely together. I literally can't think of another space like it.

And that's probably why it hurts that yet more restrictions are coming, because it feels like this tiny window online where men and male priorities don't rule feels like it's narrowing. And some women cheerlead about it as though its a good thing.

@Vanishun

True. The loud ragey men are a clear scary threat, so it's easy to think of them as the main issue. Actually, a big problem is the women who enable their behaviour and even support it, and genuinely do not seem to see the collateral damage in the process.

This group is so much more baffling to me than the men who don't understand the damage they might cause by trying to remove all single-sex facilities and any conversations or challenges to that.

Some men literally can't understand the value of women-only spaces (how could they after all? They only ever had glimpses into them when they were young children and part of the women-children contingent).

But women should know why we need refuges and prisons and changing rooms and (yes I know some will eye-roll) toilets too - all without non-staff men being allowed in.

Even if they don't need them themselves, most women know what it's like to be terrified of a man at least momentarily, even if they don't live in terror generally, even if they've never been raped or abused - they can usually "get it". That's why mumsnet has become known for this conversation after all: so many mums and women online in a group who could talk freely together. I literally can't think of another space like it.

And that's probably why it hurts that yet more restrictions are coming, because it feels like this tiny window online where men and male priorities don't rule feels like it's narrowing. And some women cheerlead about it as though its a good thing.

Very good post and Sophocles too

One upside is posters who are on these threads they find boring and unnecessary won’t have an excuse anymore to tell us all about it so much. They can avoid them and stick to the other section.

@Quaggars

Everyone is so terrified of the ragey men.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Not everyone who disagrees with the gender critical position is a "ragey man."

There's people out there who are women and are fed up with it too.
(Biological women before someone starts defiiiine)

You’ll get your own section soon to start feminist threads instead.

I have frequently found fwr to be an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment because of these rules, the way they are applied and the effect that has had on the overall tone of discussion.

For example,
2. We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

Where is the equivalent rule stating that MNHQ does not allow derogatory or agressive posts towards women, including those who lack a belief in gender identity?

I have frequently found fwr to be an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment because of these rules, the way they are applied and the effect that has had on the overall tone of discussion.

For example,
Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed minorities.

Where is this commitment demonstrated towards lesbians?
The Equality Act defines lesbians as being women who are same sex oriented and that this a protected characteristic.

A number of posters were accorded a great deal of latitude during lesbian visibility week to insist that heterosexual male people must be accepted as lesbians.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4232998-lesbian-visibility-week

@Quaggars

Everyone is so terrified of the ragey men.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Not everyone who disagrees with the gender critical position is a "ragey man."

There's people out there who are women and are fed up with it too.
(Biological women before someone starts defiiiine)

You've been posting about this for, what, definitely over a year or 2 now Quaggars, and I've never seen you put forward a specific viewpoint as to whom you think are women and who aren't. You refuse to answer questions, however politely written, trying to understand your POV. You refuse to acknowledge or examine your own opinions when it's suggested that statements you make could be construed as transphobic in exactly the same way as other gender critical positions despite you constantly saying that you disagree with the GC position.

95% of your posts about this topic are specifically about your opinion of the FWR board and the posters on it.

After all this time refusal to engage in good faith, and just sneering about how wrong everyone is, does start to look like incivility.

As an example, you will have seen many posts with screenshots of angry people on Twitter, many male, making threats towards Mumsnet. You know this group exists and is whom that post was talking about. Yet you decided to pretend that you thought hecates was saying "everyone who disagrees with the GC position is a ragey man", just so you could disagree with it. That's called a "straw man" and is a sign of deliberate bad faith arguing and usually used to derail a thread.

I genuinely don't understand what you get out of posting on FWR as you are so determined not to engage in good faith about the issues discussed here.

langcleginspace

No emoji is safe 😩

Even could have a secret MNHQ meaning and here we are flinging wine and flowers around with wild abandon!

Just a thought; if fwr is reorganised to two separate boards will some previous threads be lost?

As we obviously link to many of them in various discussions.

We completely reject the accusation that we treat gender-critical feminists differently to our other users.

There's a poster who repeatedly gets 4 deletions within the 4 week period and isn't banned (or its happened several times to different non GC people.)

Website rules (which I have written in the past) are not easy to produce and to be fair so the bottom line in most cases is if people complain about posts they get taken down. I can understand that. it can be very unfair as those who take offence at things get stuff taken down all the time using report buttons all over the internet and those like I am who just about never want a single thing censored even if it says I want to kill Xenia do not do the same thing.

On MN most women want to talk about these sex issues and some trans women seem to be men trying to shut women up as ever and yet MN is supposed to be the one place women are not shut up by men. MN has very bravely allowed women to talk about this topic despite many other places online (but not all) censoring it as they give in to the voice of the tiny small minority which shouts very loudly.

I have never really had huge interest in all this but it does seem weird there are complex rules about posting on trans issues. Might be simpler just to have the same rules for everywhere and to remove posts a lot less on this topic even if the post caused a trans person to feel upset and instead refer them sources of counseling instead.

..and yes, Lang's post was wonderful just above...
And the other issue for websites is money and advertisers. Look at the mess vodafone has got into today and has back tracked on withdrawing advertising from GB news. These are difficult issues now social media is so prevalent and the woke left and the liberal left are so far apart on so many topics.