Active discussions

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

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

366 replies

womanformallyknownaswoman · 12/04/2018 05:47

I'm starting another thread - which is really a continuation of the previous post re dealing with inflammatory posts and comments. On Site Stuff, MNHQ have revealed more about their issues with FWR - i.e. the moderation workload. They need that reducing.

Please do also take on board the fact that the combative tone isn’t just in relation to goady posts or trolls - the majority of deletions take place in discussions where there isn’t a debate or conflict. It’s a root and branch problem.

What's the nature of the root and branch problem - is there a pattern to the deletions? Are they from certain OPs? Without fully understanding the problem, I am unsure what solutions to focus on - ie. will self policing the tone work as that assumes it's our comments that are the problem? Or is it, as I suspect, trolling that is increasing the mod workload?

I personally don't report much as I am conscious of their workload. Am I alone in this? Thus, I have asked them if they have analysed which accounts are doing the reporting (to see if Sealion and troll accounts are swamping them). Or is it the mods trawling through comments policing the tone??? Or is it us?

BTW @Datun has suggested pinning a post emphasising self policing. Great idea if it is us - but if so, what phrasing is OK and not? Would I be right in thinking saying "self id doesn't take sufficient account of concerns about women and children is fine"? But what is off limits? I still come back to what is that the root cause of the mod workload increase?

Secondly, I keep pointing out that Sealions/concern trolls use covert bullying so the pattern of someone's comments is important, not just a one off remark. As with coercive control in DV, each individual incident can seem inconsequential, but over time the drip, drip cumulative effect leaves women alternating between enraged and cowering. And with Sealions it's not just the comment reported but a pattern of covert bullying remarks consisting of dismissing others concerns, falsely accusing others(Transphobia), criticism that is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication.

Where I think we may need to be smarter is in dealing with Sealions. I have heard it argued that the debate is needed. But if one is wasting one's time on Sealions, it just gives them more ammunition to report and complain about. It feeds them. Hence more mod workload. The only way I have found effective is not to engage with known Sealions. I just ignore them. I don't engage personally with them. So we potentially have a conflict between those who want to have the debate and yet at the same time needing to call time and IGNORE Sealions, after they have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage healthily. For example on the Inflammatory post - I would have preferred to call time on certain Sealions much earlier - there's no point in being nice if it defeats the object ie having debate with someone who wants to engage plus not increasing the mod workload.
Would love some of your thoughts…..

OP posts:
thebewilderness · 13/04/2018 20:58

I have trouble keeping up with peeps who switch back and forth between generalities and personalities.

yetanothertranswoman · 13/04/2018 21:01

Dysphoria being a state of profound unease or distress with one's healthy and normal bodily anatomy, but delusion being for example, the false belief or conviction that one IS or should be a different bodily sex despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary

Don't you think that there could be something in the brain that triggers that?

BarrackerBarmer · 13/04/2018 21:04

Absolutely!

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:11

I'd agree with Barracker. If a person wishes that their body was different and is distressed that it isn't then that's not necessarily a delusion. If they insist against all evidence that they're literally female despite having a penis, testicles, and a Y chromosome ("I have a woman's penis") then that's delusional.

BarrackerBarmer · 13/04/2018 21:13

In particular, the former: dysphoria. I am entirely open to the idea that there may be a neurological basis to it, either wholly or in part.

Similarly the latter; delusional belief, although arguably when society begins to reflect back on a large scale that certain concepts are fact rather than ideology, it is entirely possible that a delusion is supported so entirely that it is simply a reasonable reflection of the surrounding environment.

A false belief is still false, even if you are surrounded by people telling you it is true, but perhaps it isn't a delusion if you aren't exposed to the evidence to the contrary!

Ereshkigal · 13/04/2018 21:14

You're entitled to a) be perfectly sure and b) to think I'm wrong for not being perfectly sure. You're not entitled to insist that I adopt either of those opinions or call it a debate if the only outcome you will accept is everybody agreeing that you're right.

Have I done this then? As far as I can see I've just disagreed with you. You'd like me not to have the right to consent to "more trans inclusion than you are comfortable with". I.e. To have my boundaries violated against my will. I feel that's an equally hostile position towards me and my beliefs.

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:19

Going back to WAWAG, my underlying point has always been that regardless of what's causing dysphoria the fact remains that women and girls should not be expected or required to abandon their right to define themselves as a distinct group or their right to bodily privacy and boundaries because there's another group of individuals experiencing dysphoria. As cold as it sounds dysphoria in males is ultimately not women's problem to deal with, and attempting to make it such is sexist to the core. If anyone needs to be more accommodating it's regular old gender confirming males, who are currently a menace to both women and GNC men on an all too regular basis.

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:20

Conforming, not confirming. Many men are currently very happy to confirm gender roles if doing so means that they get their dinner cooked and their laundry done for them.

Ereshkigal · 13/04/2018 21:23

Going back to WAWAG, my underlying point has always been that regardless of what's causing dysphoria the fact remains that women and girls should not be expected or required to abandon their right to define themselves as a distinct group or their right to bodily privacy and boundaries because there's another group of individuals experiencing dysphoria

Yes this is entirely my point too. I wish them all the very best and to have legal protections and services, but too much is being expected of women imo. And underlying it is an attitude that women just don't matter that much. Not just in this debate, but it's particularly noticeable.

GaspingShark · 13/04/2018 21:29

Have I done this then? As far as I can see I've just disagreed with you. You'd like me not to have the right to consent to "more trans inclusion than you are comfortable with". I.e. To have my boundaries violated against my will. I feel that's an equally hostile position towards me and my beliefs.

Except I did say "I'd support taking baby steps to see if I'm wrong if that’s what it takes". As far as I can see only one of us has ever made any concessions. And yes we have established that you do not value the making of concessions, so provided you don't call it a debate you've been perfectly consistent.

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:32

I think you may have "debate" confused with "negotiation", Gasping.

RogerAllamsFangirl · 13/04/2018 21:33

Just to be a pedant for a moment - debate doesn't require either side to make concessions, it's simply an attempt to convince others of your position. A negotiation requires concession. Ahem. As you were. Interesting thread.

RogerAllamsFangirl · 13/04/2018 21:33

Cross post

GaspingShark · 13/04/2018 21:33

There have been cases where healthy limbs have been removed in bdd and the person has experienced significant relief. So ethical quandary - how to balance mental distress with physical wellbeing, and medical ethics (first do no harm.)

One could argue that to treat physically in some circumstances is better on balance for some individuals. I’m still not entirely sure where I stand on that but I’d defer to the individual and their physician.

Sorry, I was going to mention that, yes. I was thinking more of the cosmetic surgery addicts. The way you define delusion is largely dependent on the way you define heinously difficult things e.g. consciousness and free will, and as you say, none of it is helped by dehumanising people. "Delusional" is also used to invalidate people as "nutters whose views I don't have to bother with" and that's not ok.

I really must duck out now because I'm making myself quite ill. Not with delusions. Stop me, Richard.

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:36

It's a point worth making more than once, Roger! Especially given that it seems that it's going to come up over and over again in this conversation.

Ereshkigal · 13/04/2018 21:37

I'm not really sure women should be negotiated with and argued with when they say being in an intimate vulnerable situation with a male person violates their boundaries and right to privacy and dignity. You're right that I think it's pretty outrageous it's expected of me.

Ereshkigal · 13/04/2018 21:40

Sorry I didn't word that very well. I am happy to argue my position. Not to make concessions on women's rights to female sex protected spaces. And I don't think it's fair to paint me as an extremist for this line in the sand.

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:43

Sometimes "no" is a complete answer. Many people have trouble accepting this when the person saying "no" is a woman. It is not the woman who's saying no who's being unreasonable in that situation.

GaspingShark · 13/04/2018 21:45

Just to be a pedant for a moment - debate doesn't require either side to make concessions, it's simply an attempt to convince others of your position. A negotiation requires concession. Ahem. As you were. Interesting thread.

No indeed. I was referring to my earlier post saying that you can't call it a debate if the only outcome you will accept is everybody agreeing that you're right. If Ereshkigal hasn't actually called for debate then she's golden.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 13/04/2018 21:51

too much is being expected of women imo. And underlying it is an attitude that women just don't matter that much

Yes, this.

Ereshkigal · 13/04/2018 21:55

I disagree with your assessment of my position, Gasping. My boundaries around privacy and dignity in the presence of male people are not something I feel I'm prepared to negotiate. You seem to think my consent or lack of consent shouldn't matter. I think it should. You may persuade me otherwise. I doubt it, but it's possible.

GaspingShark · 13/04/2018 21:57

Sorry I didn't word that very well. I am happy to argue my position. Not to make concessions on women's rights to female sex protected spaces. And I don't think it's fair to paint me as an extremist for this line in the sand.
No, I'll have to go away and think about it but that seems fair enough to me. And I do appreciate that you've tried to be conciliatory in this thread.

GaspingShark · 13/04/2018 21:58

I disagree with your assessment of my position, Gasping. My boundaries around privacy and dignity in the presence of male people are not something I feel I'm prepared to negotiate. You seem to think my consent or lack of consent shouldn't matter. I think it should. You may persuade me otherwise. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Yeah, I can't disagree with that.
Night all.

AngryAttackKittens · 13/04/2018 21:59

Activate female socialization! Or attempt to, anyway.

It's fascinating to watch in a grim sort of way.

Ereshkigal · 13/04/2018 22:04

Night Gasping.