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?

[Stealhsquirrelnutkin]

Thank you for raising this Viper, the moderation rules need a thorough going over, and rewriting. After which no strikes should be handed out for "crimes" that are not specifically listed in those rules.

It's tragic that so many brilliant women have been targeted, and picked off one by one, in response to complaints made by people who are not even registered with mumsnet, and who have learnt to game the reporting system to attack women whose ideas they are unable to oppose using rational arguments and discussion.

[OvaHere]

@Stealhsquirrelnutkin

Thank you for raising this Viper, the moderation rules need a thorough going over, and rewriting. After which no strikes should be handed out for "crimes" that are not specifically listed in those rules.

It's tragic that so many brilliant women have been targeted, and picked off one by one, in response to complaints made by people who are not even registered with mumsnet, and who have learnt to game the reporting system to attack women whose ideas they are unable to oppose using rational arguments and discussion.

This!

[CallMeCleo]

yes please

[SciFiScream]

Yes. Please review the moderation rules. Please.

[Vargas]

Adding my support too, thanks OP.

[MorbidMuch]

Agreed!!

[adviceseekingnamechanger]

@DelilahDingleberry

Confused by the slightly defensive replies to my comment. I wasn’t implying anyone hadn’t read it.

Because the implication behind your words was that people on here want to misgender with impunity. We do not.

[lightand]

They will need to discuss it with their sponsors/advertisers/legal/other sources of income etc, op. Nothing works in a bubble nowadays.

[DelilahDingleberry]

@adviceseekingnamechanger You interpreted my words as something I neither said or implied.

[adviceseekingnamechanger]

[quote DelilahDingleberry]@adviceseekingnamechanger You interpreted my words as something I neither said or implied.[/quote]
DelilahDingleberry
The High Court judge also said “ This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'mis-gender' trans persons with impunity.”

Sounds like reading the full judgement will be worthwhile.


It seems quite clear you're implying people have misunderstood the judgement, and should read it properly. If that's not what you meant, you should take more care with your words, as that's certainly how I and other posters read it.

[DelilahDingleberry]

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

[Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons]

Thanks OP thoroughly agree

[adviceseekingnamechanger]

@DelilahDingleberry

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

Understood, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. Although I think if several people interpreted your post in the way they did, your wording should be clearer. It certainly came across as patronising, hence the defensive posts.

[WhereYouLeftIt]

@DelilahDingleberry

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

Maybe you should have included that thinking in your post?

Your post of Thu 10-Jun-21 14:30:53 -

The High Court judge also said “ This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'mis-gender' trans persons with impunity.”

Sounds like reading the full judgement will be worthwhile.

Nope, still reads to me that you think people want to 'mis-gender with impunity'.

[TinselAngel]

Adding my support for this as the current talk guidelines are particularly difficult for trans widows to follow.

[LangClegsInSpace]

Yes please!

[AlfonsoTheMango]

@DelilahDingleberry

My thinking was, since this is about moderation, I wonder how MN will interpret the headline of the judgement, then that bit I quoted, and I wondered whether the full judgement gave much more information for MN to be able to decide how to respond.

You and others assumed I meant something. Maybe you should assume less.

Writing less snotty posts can be helpful, too.

[DelilahDingleberry]

So it’s okay for me to be told “you should take more care with your words” but not for me to say “maybe you should assume less”? Got it.

[LangClegsInSpace]

I imagine MNHQ will be reading and considering the judgment carefully

[Whoarethewho]

Mumsnet don't have to follow the law of the land. They already take action if somebody critisises Islam and it role in women's rights, it bans comments on Megan which are well within the law. And simply mentioning statistics from the government's own website about crime and ethnicity and educational outcomes and ethnicity has been enough to see serious action. There is no guarantee of free speech no right to offend (posts get removed with not on the spirit). This is because Mumsnet is a private member's site they can set whatever bounds they like you choose to post here you choose to obey the rules.

[jellybeansforbreakfast]

What does that have to do with a polite request for a rethink in light of this case?

[ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn]

@Whoarethewho

Mumsnet don't have to follow the law of the land. They already take action if somebody critisises Islam and it role in women's rights, it bans comments on Megan which are well within the law. And simply mentioning statistics from the government's own website about crime and ethnicity and educational outcomes and ethnicity has been enough to see serious action. There is no guarantee of free speech no right to offend (posts get removed with not on the spirit). This is because Mumsnet is a private member's site they can set whatever bounds they like you choose to post here you choose to obey the rules.

Mumsnet, like any other service provider or business, does need to comply with the Equality Act.

If a belief has been declared legitimate in law I'm not sure that it's lawful to restrict the expression of that belief, or to exclude service users who express that belief.

[AlfonsoTheMango]

@Whoarethewho

Mumsnet don't have to follow the law of the land. They already take action if somebody critisises Islam and it role in women's rights, it bans comments on Megan which are well within the law. And simply mentioning statistics from the government's own website about crime and ethnicity and educational outcomes and ethnicity has been enough to see serious action. There is no guarantee of free speech no right to offend (posts get removed with not on the spirit). This is because Mumsnet is a private member's site they can set whatever bounds they like you choose to post here you choose to obey the rules.

Those are valid points, too.

[TheFnozwhowasmirage]

Agree entirely.

[TheFnozwhowasmirage]

Agree entirely that we should be able to discuss or state biological facts without sanctions.