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…..

Truly gender dysphoric people seem to be a minority in this vocal new waves.
Also gender dysphoric people are treated rather badly by the TRA lobby. If the TRA movement has its way, it will be not counted as a disorder and so people will lose their right To Treatment.

I don’t think any of he women I’ve seen here arguing this issue have a problem with, or hatred of, those with gender dysphoria or the more old school transsexuals.

They are rightly worried by changes to he law that will affect them.

And if I’m honest, those changes will solidify the culture of toxic masculinity by removing legal protection, and by creating a climate where women cannot speak out of they are concerned.

These changes to the law WILL make toxic masculinity more protected.

and by creating a climate where women cannot speak out of they are concerned.

Which is clearly already here.

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.

We're all doomed. Doomed I tell you!

I'm going to Lidl.

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

Do you think that transwomen also face social disadvantages - for either being seen as women - or for being seen as transwomen?

Do you think that transwomen also face social disadvantages - for either being seen as women - or for being seen as transwomen?

Yes I agree that they face social disadvantages. But I just don't see them as part of the female sex class. I want them to have protections, yes.

I haven't had chance to catch up on the thread and will do later. I have though been reflecting upon the dilemma facing us. I have set out a way of talking about the issues we want to focus on vis a vis Transgender below - some of the language and terms may need tweeking and of course it may be unacceptable - I can take a no. My intent is to try and take the focus off the whole Self ID/Trans subject and focus only on the area of that i.e. the extremists, that are causing the problems. Perhaps talking about it in a slightly different way may assist with MN's concerns as well. It's a starter for ten as they say:

How about if we centre all our posts and comments around WAWAG (What about Women and Girls). Re any comments re Transgender, confine ourselves to focusing on the hijacking of the Self ID movement by a radical misogynistic element, who are not supported by moderate transexuals/trans. That this element is using the Self ID movement as a cover for their extreme non-mainstream views that coerce women and girls to accepting their version of womanhood. Their version is not in women and girls best interests. It eradicates all sensible safeguarding that is inbuilt in the current single sex systems and that most acknowledge is necessary against the predatory minority. Everyone other than this extreme element accept that surgery and medication do not a women make, but rather a semblance of one.

There are legitimate reasons why victims of male violence should not be forced to have men in the room. In fact these segregated sex areas are for sound medical reasons (to avoid harm through re-traumatisation). Given the level of male violence taken out on women, this affects the majority of them. Those who consider themselves non binary may like their own restricted facilities where appropriate, as indicated by some OPs on here.

There are also, long-accepted, safeguarding reasons to have single sex facilities like toilets, changing rooms and so on. Most moderates, non-binary and binary alike, accept and support that. If necessary, a third category of non-binary facilities should be introduced.

Some women, as some men, also want to have single sex places for those who prefer them - just as the men’s clubs have survived, so women need an equivalent.

We have no disagreement with mainstream LGB and non binary people, provided they respect the safeguarding of women and girls. Most do. Where we diverge is we disagree profoundly with the extremists, the TRAs, who act like a mob online and in real life and who seek to totally erase woman as a sex. They assert that any man should be treated exactly the same as a natal woman, just because he says so and irrespective of context. They also seek the total removal of all safeguarding measures for women and girls, across the board. As women and parents, we cannot under any circumstances condone these ill-thought through proposals that have not involved any consultations with us.

Just as other movements, such as Islam being hijacked by Isis, and women’s liberation and free-love in the 60s and 70s, being used as cover by some extremists to normalise their outlier desire to have sex with children, so the Self ID movement is being used by a minority wanting to normalise their extreme misogyny and male entitlement. It is this extreme minority that we take issue with. Whether on mainstream media or as masked thugs attacking older women, their views are not welcome nor in society’s best interests. Trump may be president however his extreme views are also rolling back the hard-won concessions for women's wellbeing from a male dominated world such as abortion. Extremists and terrorists do nothing for society other than cause dissent, violent conflict and war. We are the moderates here not the radicals.

The inability, or unwillingness, to distinguish between something parading as personal freedom for adults to do what they like against the right of women and children to not be abused is the heart of the issue here. Unless any discussion is predicated on doing no harm to women and children then the conditions are not in place for respect of their rights and safety. Hence common sense tells us there is not yet the basis for a fair mediation and hearing. This is what we are seeking to attain and what we discuss here on FWR, amongst other feminist topics.

Do you think that transwomen also face social disadvantages - for either being seen as women - or for being seen as transwomen?

Yes, I do in some situations which obviously needs to be challenged too.

What I was thinking of when talking about social disadvantages was areas where trans women are 'excluded' (I was responding to a poster talking about this) e.g. STEM scholarships or AWS where females are disadvantaged because girls are told that women can't do science and are socialised to be quiet and not challenge.

WidowWadman

Nobody fights to take rights away from women

With all due respect that's exactly what LM did by taking a place as a "Woman's officer" a place intended for women to encourage women into politics.
It's what CJ did when accepting "Woman of the year" as a male, it's what HM has done by fighting to be placed in the Australian women's real football as a male.
It's what LH did in fighting for a place in the women's weightlifting Commonwealth competition as a male.
JD and RM both fought for the right to compete in women's cycling besides being male.

I could go on as there are many many more examples.

It is a woman's right to exist and compete seperate from males. These rights are being taken away.

Do you think that transwomen also face social disadvantages - for either being seen as women - or for being seen as transwomen?

Yes I do - certainly - I think they are disadvantages unique to being a trans woman or transgender probably fewer of the disadvantages women face from birth of the person has previously been typical Male gender presenting, and more those from being seen as a trans woman.

As a natal woman I do not presume to know first hand the struggles encountered by those who transition. I can certainly imagine a few. I just don’t think they are the same social disadvantages as women face.

Transwomen face a unique set of social challenges, a unique set of medical challenges etc. There should be services specifically tailored for them because they are not well served by services solely for women. How can they be? Medically for example it’s a very specialist area - the average gynaecologist isn’t going to have the expertise. You need someone who specialises.
Simply saying that a trans woman is a biological woman and always has been surely fails to address the unique challenges you face? It’s a unique experience. It needs unique services

I have no desire to see any law abiding person discriminated against, mocked, or suffer mentally or physically. At the same time I do not believe that removing the sex based exemptions to the equality act will benefit women, OR transwomen.

I agree Hypermice.

I do think transwomen face some social disadvantages, but more because they are perceived as nonconformist men rather than being perceived as biological females.

I also believe they face significant social advantages over women on account of being correctly perceived as male and also as members of a protected group, trans, which must not be questioned or criticised.

I support the pursuit of specific protections for males who identify as transwomen to counter the disadvantages, but want to challenge the concerning nature of the advantages - which manifest as a further burden upon women.

The "no one has a problem with "old school transexuals" rhetoric is no different from xenophobes denying being xenophobes, because they don't have a problem with foreigners they know personally.

On the FWR board people have consistently misgendered trans women regardless how far along they are in there transition. Surgery has been referred to as mutilation and at the same time those who don't have surgery (yet) being painted as impostors that want to do harm to women. It's really quite ugly to read.
Whenever challenged, examples from aggressive tweets are brought up. I am friends with a number of transfolk, and follow a few more. They're all pretty openly advocating women's rights, and I never saw any of them posting any aggressive "die in a fire" crap.
I don't doubt that there are people out there who do, and if I went looking for insults and aggression I could probably quite easily find it, but I guess you get bellends in every movement.
I certainly have not seen that kind of aggressive language from people who are personally attacked in FWR over and over again.

They're all pretty openly advocating women's rights,

Which rights would those be, that they're advocating?

As an example based on what a pp said, I believe that trans identified males who have to have a mastectomy due to breast cancer suffer every bit as much as women do. But she said a fairly well known transactivist, involved in law and policy making, claimed that they suffer more. I find that extremely hard to stomach as a view. It's just misogyny. Women's feelings about their bodies are often extremely complex, and the loss of a breast is generally devastating. What I find hard is that we're treated as some kind of vessel to support everyone else, with feelings that can be dismissed.

I don't doubt that there are people out there who do

Lots and lots and lots of them. Trust me.

Widowwadman
Could you try to understand that for some of us, using pronouns to reflect the sex that we know to be true, and not the gender that we deny exists, is a fundamental part of honesty and integrity? That it isn't done with hatred or intent to hurt?
But from a genuine and fundamental belief that it is wrong to pretend, at any level, that a person is female when they are not. For me to call a male person 'she' feels entirely like a lie, and more, like a lie that I will be punished for not telling.

Even your own post is evidence of this. You think there should be social disapproval of those of us who won't lie, even though you know we do not believe the subject is female.

I, hand on heart, believe every female pronoun offered to anyone male, makes it harder for females to distinguish their own selves in the way I believe they should be afforded.

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.

I have no problem with this opinion expressed in this way and I agree with much of it. The "sexual dimorphism is a social construct" stuff annoys me. And I don't, @Ereshkigal, object to many female only spaces. Lily Madigan blocked me too, you know.

I do think that in order to minimise the overall harm to all parties, we need a little bit more trans inclusion than you are currently comfortable with. But these are very fine judgements which do require compromise and experiment and I'd support taking baby steps to see if I'm wrong if that’s what it takes.

What I do object to is being browbeaten with "Transwomen are men", straight after I've just conceded that I can't prove they aren't. You are sure of the answer; I am not. I am not objecting to you being sure, I am simply asking you to not insist that I be sure. That you can't drop it while at the same time as complaining of being silenced is, frankly, a bit Lily Madigan.

And the irony is that it doesn't really affect me at all whereas if you just keep hammering away at people until they agree that you are 100% right you will be the losers. It's a counterproductive strategy because it makes you look like uncompromising extremists and nobody wants to talk with them. So there's your ghetto.

WidowWadman
Please answer do you honestly and truly believe people can change their sex?
Do you honestly and truly believe people who are observed as female at birth should not have a word in common (such as female) to describe themselves?

NAMALT/NATALT vs a women once said that here therefore you are all to blame.

we need a little bit more trans inclusion than you are currently comfortable with

Can you elaborate on this?

"Lily Madigan blocked me too"

Slogan for t-shirt, right there

If we can't clearly define what a woman is for legal purposes then we also can't protect that class of people legally. There's no bigger threat to feminism than that. The reinforcement of gender norms that are oppressive to women is also a huge threat, and very relevant to feminism in that those gender norms are what we've been trying to dismantle since the very beginning.

Doesn't matter if it's only a small number of people supporting and promoting a thing if they're raising a lot of noise and having a big impact.

Also re Gasping's comment about tone. As can be seen from this thread, there are many women on this board currently who're anxious, confused, angry, worried, etc by the attempts to control the way they speak and make it conform to standards that aren't being made entirely clear. If one person then states that they find the current tone more considerate and appreciate it, while so many others are so unhappy about the situation, to whom exactly is that situation being considerate, and how considerate are they being in prioritizing their own comfort over that of so many others who share the same space? It's a question worth asking.

They're all pretty openly advocating women's rights, and I never saw any of them posting any aggressive "die in a fire" crap.

I’m sure your friends are decent people. I personally only know two transwomen and they are decent people too. Both horrified by all this TRA stuff.
And yet the tone of the online debate is extremely violent. TERFs, scum, all manner of abuse is flung at women stating biological facts. A man is currently on trial for punching a woman to the floor at speakers corner. Women have been told to enjoy their erasure. Of course there are extreme voices in many movements but when you have people in elected positions of power promoting this line then you have to accept it isn’t a few fringe loonies.

The ‘old school transsexuals’ line is valid. Previously, people with gender dysphoria and transsexuals were generally accepted. They did not try to remove sex based exemptions. It was, as it were, a gentle(wo)mans agreement and things rubbed along OK, in the main.

What’s changed recently is the tone and scale of the debate. It’s gone from a focus on gender dysphoria to this rather extreme idea where men, without changing anything about themselves, wish to be acknowledged as actual women. not as transsexuals, not as transwomen, but as women. And in order to do so they are vocal and violent and want to remove the legal protections for women. I can’t accept that.

I personally think thebupcoming changes to the equality act need to be fought as hard as we can. Once our legal protections are secure we can talk about inclusion. Because I genuinely think the bulk of women on here approach this not from a position of wanting to exclude, but wanting to be SAFE.

If one person then states that they find the current tone more considerate and appreciate it, while so many others are so unhappy about the situation, to whom exactly is that situation being considerate, and how considerate are they being in prioritizing their own comfort over that of so many others who share the same space

YY.

:D @AntiGrinch