Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?

915 replies

ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn · 10/06/2021 13:02

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
GCITC · 10/06/2021 19:43

I would also support this change.

Man and woman can refer to sex. When sating someone is a man or a woman it cannot be said that they are being misgendered when it is their sex that is being commented on.

Correctly sexing a person is not comparable to misgendering them, unless you are claiming that sex and gender identity are the same thing.

BoreOfWhabylon · 10/06/2021 19:48

As I understand it, it is perfectly legal to say you believe any given trans woman to be male, and refer to them in the third person as “he”, but setting out to directly harass that individual is still illegal, same as it would be to harass anyone else.

As I understand it, that would be deliberate misgendering of an individual. We have always been able to say that TW are men and TM are women, just not direct it at any specific individual.

Brownteddybear · 10/06/2021 19:52

@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.

Absolutely this! I hope MNHQ are listening. Thank you for starting this thread OP.
LangClegsInSpace · 10/06/2021 19:53

@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.
They can set their own talk guidelines as long as they don't discriminate against anyone because of a protected characteristic.

The issue here is that we have an extra set of special talk guidelines for discussing gender identity and sex which potentially treat less favourably those of us with gender critical beliefs / lack of belief in gender identity.

I'm not sure any of the things you mention would amount to protected beliefs for the purposes of the EA. You could test them against the Grainger criteria I suppose.

Then you'd have to show how abiding by the same talk guidelines as everyone else amounted to discrimination on the grounds of your beliefs.

adviceseekingnamechanger · 10/06/2021 19:54

@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.
I don't think you have got it, unfortunately. We have to take responsibility for the way we phrase things in order to correctly convey what we mean. Several people interpreted your post the way I did. That's reading comprehension, not assumption. You clearly implied something you've now clarified didn't intend: that's on you, I'm afraid.
GloriousMystery · 10/06/2021 19:57

Adding my support for Mn altering their posting guidelines to reflect legislation.

TheShadowyFeminist · 10/06/2021 21:24

Just popping this on the thread, in case there's anything contained within this complaint response that MN could find helpful.

Smile
Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?
colouringindoors · 10/06/2021 21:32

Adding my support

dragoncheeselady · 10/06/2021 22:34

I am wondering if this ruling means that @MumsnetHQ needs to reconsider any bans they put in place for women that used trans identified make instead of the approved language

ItsNotNormalLove · 10/06/2021 22:36

Agree with OP, and thanks MNHQ for agreeing to discuss it.

LangClegsInSpace · 10/06/2021 22:38

Yes, it would be good if bans could be reconsidered in light of this ruling.

Thelnebriati · 10/06/2021 22:53

Mumsnet don't have to follow the law of the land.

Mumsnet do have to follow the law of the land. They can make whatever rules they like for their site, as long as those rules are within the law of the land.

Alternista · 10/06/2021 23:31

@Thelnebriati

Mumsnet don't have to follow the law of the land.

Mumsnet do have to follow the law of the land. They can make whatever rules they like for their site, as long as those rules are within the law of the land.

Absolutely this!
LangClegsInSpace · 11/06/2021 00:37

And it would be good if the rule against using 'trans identified male / female' was removed.

The special rules say:

Can I use the expression ‘TIM’ (trans-identified male) in conversation with one another, as long as we don’t use it in conversation with someone who is themselves transgender?
We're likely to delete this term however it's used. 'Trans-identified' seems pretty goady – people generally don't identify as trans, but as the opposite sex. As someone said on this thread, one person can't really tell another how they identify, even if they disagree with the logic.

‘TIM’ also focuses heavily on natal sex. We don’t wish to prevent anyone from asserting as part of their gender critical position that transwomen are born male, and as ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment. But we think trans people will feel unwelcome if users habitually use a collective term which defines them by an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected, so we’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people which centre on natal sex.

I don't think this is consistent with today's ruling, especially as women are only realistically left with variations of 'trans woman' / 'trans man' to use instead. Personally I've gone for 'tw' / 'tm' - but it still feels like compelled speech every time.

people generally don't identify as trans, but as the opposite sex

This has never seemed accurate to me. Many people have all sorts of gender identities that are neither 'man' nor 'woman'.

We don't have a permitted term for [the group of male people who have a gender identity that is other than 'man']. This is especially pertinent because the trans individuals referred to in Maya's case were Gregor Murray and Phillip / Pippa Bunce, neither of whom identifies as the opposite sex.

I have no interest in telling anyone else how they identify. I just don't believe in gender identity.

I don't want to have to tie myself in knots, tread on eggshells or expend effort on finding out exactly which of a myriad gender identities someone is adopting today (BBC once said there were over 100) simply in order to use the correct compelled terms to refer to them.

Of course we focus heavily on sex. That's the only reason we're discussing this in the first place. I respect people's right to believe in gender identity, it's just not relevant or interesting to me. If a male person is demanding access to a female only space I don't care if he identifies as a woman or as non-binary or gender fluid or whatever else. I just care that he is male.

There has been a lot of discussion about why Maya's case was a matter of 'belief' when it's just obvious material fact that there are two sexes and you can't actually change sex. One very important factor in Maya's argument that qualifies it as a belief is this:

Sex is important

Sex matters. It's absolutely shocking that Maya had to go to court to establish this when sex is already a protected characteristic in the EA and some of our oldest anti-discrimination laws (possibly the oldest?) are based on sex.

But that's where we are and the courts have decided today that a belief that sex is important is protected in law. This particular part of the special rules is especially at odds with today's ruling because it says that sex is not important and should be subordinated to other people's gender identity beliefs.

I'm happy not to use TIM because it sounds like a man's name and I can understand that could be upsetting. Like Maya I have no wish to be impolite for the sake of it. I suggest 'male with a trans identity' (MTI) as an alternative.

insertrandomusernamehere · 11/06/2021 00:42

Absolutely with you on this one OP. I hope @MNHQ doesn't prove itself as the too woke for it's own good brigade by ignoring this thread.

LangClegsInSpace · 11/06/2021 00:48

More broadly, having a special set of extra rules that apply only to discussions around gender identity and sex looks discriminatory in itself, in light of today's ruling.

Can we not just get back to everyone having the same rules of PARD and no personal attacks?

Also it will be necessary to consider whether you are moderating posters who don't believe in gender identity to the same standards as everyone else. It would be good if you could confirm that posts such as 'bless', 'yawn' and 'Biscuit' will no longer be deleted just because of the subject matter of the thread.

LangClegsInSpace · 11/06/2021 00:52

But also thank you for allowing these discussions when pretty much everywhere else was shutting them down Flowers I do appreciate it hasn't been easy. Hopefully this judgment will bring clarity and confidence.

Quaggars · 11/06/2021 01:39

People write that trans women are men and that trans men are women all the time on MN and they aren't deleted

We tie ourselves in knots not to do that. But feel free to post screenshots if you're so sure of yourself.

They absolutely do.
The guidelines are such that there's ways of skirting round getting deleted, but I have absolutely seen this for myself.
People do state that a lot on here.
I don't take screenshots though as I'm not that invested (or even technically minded lol)

Quaggars · 11/06/2021 01:41

@LangClegsInSpace

Yes, it would be good if bans could be reconsidered in light of this ruling.
Where does that end though? Some have been banned for being abusive (whether to moderators or other posters) Should they be let back too, as hey they're "GC"?
ViperAtTheGatesOfDawn · 11/06/2021 01:41

Can we not just get back to everyone having the same rules of PARD and no personal attacks?

Yes. That is what I would like to see.

It is fundamentally unfair that posters who believe in gender as identity are able to assert that men can become women, whilst posters who believe in gender as an oppressive hierarchy are unable to assert that men cannot become women.

Hopefully the judgement in Maya's case will help restore some balance.

OP posts:
LangClegsInSpace · 11/06/2021 02:53

I have every faith in MNHQ's competence, Quaggars Smile

PearPickingPorky · 11/06/2021 04:08

I too would like to see the restrictions eased, and bans rescinded.

It is, at times, necessary to correctly-sex even a particular individual. The judgment today agreed that this can be perfectly legal to do, even when an individual takes offence.

Women (and it is almost-always women) should not be being banned from mumsnet for expressing scientifically accurate, and legally protected philosophical beliefs in the importance of sex over gender identity.

adviceseekingnamechanger · 11/06/2021 06:25

@Quaggars

People write that trans women are men and that trans men are women all the time on MN and they aren't deleted

We tie ourselves in knots not to do that. But feel free to post screenshots if you're so sure of yourself.

They absolutely do.
The guidelines are such that there's ways of skirting round getting deleted, but I have absolutely seen this for myself.
People do state that a lot on here.
I don't take screenshots though as I'm not that invested (or even technically minded lol)

Ah yes, the 'it happens all the time but I have no evidence' line. Not that your opinion matters, because that belief that no-one was allowed to openly say, is protected by law. At the risk of deletion, Transwomen are biologically male, and it's not transphobic to say so. It's just fact.
Vanishun · 11/06/2021 06:36

I would appreciate this and also more clarity.

I don't post on these boards much anymore, partly because there seem to be unwritten rules that change all the time. As an autistic woman, the lack of logic is baffling to me.

It has a silencing effect (which is of course what the men's rights activists want).

AlfonsoTheMango · 11/06/2021 08:23

@Vanishun

I would appreciate this and also more clarity.

I don't post on these boards much anymore, partly because there seem to be unwritten rules that change all the time. As an autistic woman, the lack of logic is baffling to me.

It has a silencing effect (which is of course what the men's rights activists want).

Fellow autist here.

I agree. As there are no written rules, it is impossible to know what is and is not acceptable.