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

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

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…..

And by the way you do understand that "the numbers are small" has no relativity seeing as you only need ONE male to compete against females in any sport to win due to their obvious male advantages making it pointless for females to compete.

You only need one male prisoner to be houses in the women's estate for hundreds of women to be put at risk of pregnancy.

I could go on but one male in a female only space effects every single woman involved.

^ But as Hypermice said, feminism has never been a monolithic block and there are a range of feminist opinions. It would be quicker to find common ground and go straight at toxic masculinity, IMO.

go straight at toxic masculinity

I think the bone of contention here is that many of us feel that current political transactivism is a manifestation of toxic masculinity. Take away the surface level trappings and what is the difference between an aggressive TRA and an aggressive MRA? Choice of avatar, and that's about it.

Yes, NATALT and NAMALT - but it's the activists who are trying to get laws changed to remove sex-based rights, spaces and services.

You won't stop misogynistic trans behaviour unless you stop misogyny as a whole.

Yup I do see your point. And I agree. We won’t.

At the same time I think my view on it is that every decade or so we get a new /ideology/‘thing’ that is the most aggressive and visible spearhead of that violent misogyny and when that appears we have to tackle it.
Right now, that front is TRA activity. It’s consolidating the MRA movement that’s been gaining ground and it feeds off a whole set of other things that are manifestations of that toxic masculinity.
So for me, while yes, every end goal is the dismantling of toxic masculinity the actual fronts that we fight on are specific issues. Because only specific issues can be targeted effectively and legislated for/against.

So I can’t legislate against toxic masculinity. But I can lobby my MP, and be vocal about the specific issue of the upcoming proposed changes in the law that will destroy women’s spaces.

A war is a long term strategic aim. But it’s won by winning smaller battles.

Cross posted with cleg, who as usual has been more succinct and put it better :)

Actually, I think you said it better, Hypermice!

I think the bone of contention here is that many of us feel that current political transactivism is a manifestation of toxic masculinity.

Langcleg calls it.

As far as I'm concerned there is no better example of patriarchy in action than a man calling himself a women, having this belief backed by law, and accepted as reality by public bodies and institutions and no one allowed to question it.

Meanwhile woman is emptied of all meaning and the rights of women and girls are collateral damage in the wake of male feelings and beliefs.

I honestly don't think the MRAs could do a better job of fucking over females and their rights if they tried.

I think the bone of contention here is that many of us feel that current political transactivism is a manifestation of toxic masculinity.
Yes I know, but my view is that you're spending a large amount of time fighting people like me who basically want the same thing as you. It would be quicker to find common ground and go for the source.

I think there’s room for both - I have absolutely no problem with women fighting this at source. At the same time when there’s an actual legislative change on the cards then that needs to be directly challenged.
A well organised army has forces in the heartland and on the fronts as well.

"It would be quicker to find common ground and go straight at toxic masculinity, IMO."

See this makes me uneasy, as it reminds me too much of the argument that it's best to focus on stranger rape with assault as more people understand that that type is rape. So more common ground, whereas talking about all the other types means people get upset either at the suggestion that normal men can commit rape, or that even dressing "modestly" and taking precautions can't save women from it.

We have to talk about the gender stereotypes and the myths about male/female brains, about the biological basis for why and how women are oppressed in order to even begin to address toxic masculinity.

Yeah, it's going to mean uncomfortable conversations especially for those whose identity hinges on the idea of some innate femaleness, and some people will find it hurtful (eg. men never like to be told they benefit from the hierarchy) but if we want to tackle the root cause it's got to be done.

Ok, but for example, I've been challenged before by rather baleful posters who are quite right, I can't prove that trans women are women and I don't think anybody can, at least as yet. But nor can I justify the scale of exclusion that they are advocating. So because I advocate more trans inclusion than they do I get the "if you're not with us you're against us" treatment and it only serves to alienate me from your point of view. I had the same problem with Corbyn.

In my head I can substitute "gay" for trans in huge amounts of the arguments expressed here and it sounds horribly familiar. You can't say "but biology",
because for hundreds of years people did say gay was incompatible with biology, it's a subjective feeling, think of the children the threat to all that we hold sacred etc etc etc etc, and they were wrong, because their view of biology and human nature just wasn't nuanced enough. It's possible that your certainties are also unwarranted and the refusal to contemplate that possibility is the root of the problems here.

No you're right, you can't prove transwomen are women - because they are men.

It really is that simple.

See this makes me uneasy, as it reminds me too much of the argument that it's best to focus on stranger rape with assault as more people understand that that type is rape.
But we both know that the vast majority of rape isn't stranger rape just as the vast majority of women's problems do not come from trans women. I think these are both facts that we could agree on.

Oh christ if you think gay is comparable to transgender we really are in for a long ride.

Transgender ideologists do not believe in sex. Therefore they do not believe in same sex attraction.

Gay men and lesbians were never asking to take rights from other people. They fought for their own rights. Transgender males are fighting to take rights away from women for us have spaces seperate from males, which is the problem. And asking us to redefine the very word that encompasses our existence - woman.

If Transgender people want their own rights I will help them fight for them. I will not give up my own.

the vast majority of women's problems do not come from trans women no they come from men.
Seeing as there is no difference between men, and men who identify as women please help us in recognising this.

But gay has never been against biology. Scientists have been saying that for a long time. Many mammals and birds seem to have a proportion interested in the same sex, there’s a plausible biological benefit mechanism and there may be a genetic link.
It’s also crucially not a zero sum game - gay marriage for example says nothing about straight marriage- two men getting married harms no one. NONE of the gay rights damage anyone else’s rights.
But removing single sex exemptions from the equality act IS a zero sum game - a small vocal minority benefit and half the population lose protections. I do not think this is analogous to gay rights at all.

You say you can’t justify the scale of exclusion - well I personally can’t justify the scale of removal of women’s protections

No you're right, you can't prove transwomen are women - because they are men.

It really is that simple.

I hope that at least some of you can see that here I have been trying very hard to find common ground between us and someone comes bulldozing through and perfectly illustrates why people don't see the point in trying to engage with you.

Transwomen are men though

Only men can be transwomen.

GaspingShrark

because for hundreds of years people did say gay was incompatible with biology, it's a subjective feeling, think of the children the threat to all that we hold sacred etc etc etc etc, and they were wrong, because their view of biology and human nature just wasn't nuanced enough. It's possible that your certainties are also unwarranted and the refusal to contemplate that possibility is the root of the problems here.

I understand what you are saying here and I agree with a lot of it. I keep challenging my thinking on this. I don't want to be 'on the wrong side of history'.

I accept that there is really good evidence for a biological basis for gender dysphoria. I think trans people deserve protected status under the law. But I don't believe you can change your sex.

On the other hand, it is a scientific fact, like evolution is a fact, that humans are sexually dimorphic. Nobody disagrees with this, do they? Women are discrimated against because of their sex. Allowing trans people (many of whom don't even want to change their sexual characteristics) to identify as the opposite sex we lose sex-based protections.

But nor can I justify the scale of exclusion that they are advocating

Why do you feel it's wrong for there to be female only spaces due to a need based in sex class oppression? With respect, you're presenting yourself as the voice of reason here, but I don't agree that you are.

But nor can I justify the scale of exclusion that they are advocating.

Any of the exclusion being advocated is in place because women are disadvantaged due to recognised social or biological reasons that do not apply to trans women.

I'm unsure why pointing out facts is bulldozing Gasping but whatever...

Nobody fights to take rights away from women.

On the other hand, it is a scientific fact, like evolution is a fact, that humans are sexually dimorphic. Nobody disagrees with this, do they?

Yes they do. It's becoming a real problem imo that people are scared to question gender identity dogma and so people don't hear this. I regularly encounter people online who don't believe humans are sexually dimorphic.