Why does Mumsnet listen to outsiders, rather than just Mumsnet users?

[loveyouradvice]

The fact that the reporting on this board is openly led by 'members' who never post, never participate on MN, merely stalk the boards to police women talking here because of some self appointed sense of superiority and then brag about this on Twitter is in itself extremely creepy. On what other MN board are men permitted to stalk and police women?

Having read this on another board, I realise how much this worries me... why would Mumsnet listen to "anonymous" sources, rather than reports from their users? I am sure the Mumsnet community is very powerful at calling out the unacceptable... why Mumsnet do you listen to strangers?

Gronky I know what you're saying - but I don't think the deleted was on a thread like that. Plus I don't particularly like Mumsnet moderating "tone" - when they don't on threads on other subjects. Even sensitive ones, unless it's very offensive, and they judge it "beyond the pale".

It's about even-handedness - independent of subject matter.

ZebrasAreBras, I agree that consistency is important but I disagree that it's possible to be consistent independently of subject matter (insofar as sensitivity, rather than particular subject matters) without reaching a point where either nothing is policed (which I don't believe you would want either, given that it would be an open invitation to trolls) or everything is hopelessly mollified to the point of absurdity.

I believe that, within the letter of the current rules (I lack sufficient data to draw conclusions about their implementation, unless there's an open list of deleted messages), it is still possible to have a robust discussion and that the rules, such as they are, are necessary, given that there's such a gulf over what is considered offensive (by definition, everyone is liable to place priority on their concerns over those of others) by each individual surrounding the issue.

More specifically, I understand the sentiment that your beliefs align with scientific fact but, in my opinion, that in itself isn't an issue or specifically disputed, it is more your (and others) specific interpretation of how certain facts relate to everyday life and how they should be interpreted that proves contentious to some. I don't believe I particularly disagree with you on the core of the issue, more on what is and is not justifiable from a perspective of fair and mutual (albeit, potentially enforced) respect.

Thank you again for continuing to have a discussion.

Gronky, I would ask you again, then - why are there no specific moderation rules for any other protected characteristic? When there is trolling/offensive comments against other protected groups?

why are there no specific moderation rules for any other protected characteristic

Again, it seems that we disagree over the cited rules being specific. You believe they are due to the headline they are presented under (context), I believe they are general with added clarifications (content).

Very specifically, with regards to the language specifications, I believe they are rather balanced, banning both terms including (for the purpose of commentary) 'trans-identifying', ect. as well as terms like 'TERF', 'cis', ect. I don't believe these are indicative of specific extra protections offered to a certain group but rather an acknowledgement that groups on different sides of the argument find different terms disrespectful and an attempt to reconcile these to allow for a civilised debate (as laid out in the opening paragraph of the statement itself).

How are they not specific? They are called the "moderation guidelines with regard to trans rights."

Can you point me towards the "moderation guidelines for disability rights? I'll wait.

While you're at it, show me where the 3 strikes rule is in the generic talk guidelines.

It's not there - it's only on the specific guidelines for trans rights.

Which is pinned to the top of the Feminism and women's rights board. No other.

How are they not specific? They are called the "moderation guidelines with regard to trans rights."

Again, content vs context. The context may be specific, the content isn't (entirely). It clarifies that the three strikes rule (broadly) applies to all contexts:

three deletions would usually lead to a suspension elsewhere on site.

Can you point me towards the "moderation guidelines for disability rights?

Within your criteria, you would also require guidelines for every protected characteristic. Since we appear to fundamentally disagree on said criteria, a lack of those precise guidelines is irrelevant.

It's not there - it's only on the specific guidelines for trans rights.

See above, while it appears in that context, the content relates to all cases, it explicitly states as much.

Furthermore, the statement on those rules is linked in the general talk guidelines, making it a subsection, it would be redundant to state them again in the general talk guidelines.

Its been going on for months and months and months

It is arbitrary and a bit of a tightrope for posters

Despite the counter argument in this thread (which I think is deliberately missing the point) I agree with the OP Zebras and Rufus this section of MN is moderated to a much stricter degree than the rest of the site (one only need look at AIBU to be aware of this) and some of the deletions have been ridiculous - even within the context of the thread - yes.

I've been around on MN for years and years, this is by far the most policed this section of the site has been. I'm not sure why MN were so hot on MRAs back then but don't see the similarities to what is being done to women on this board now. The moderation of FWR is one of the reasons I post more elsewhere now. At my age being told you can't express yourself in certain ways is unnecessarily irritating doubly so when you are a woman and subject to that way of thinking in the wider world and revising my posts over and over to check I haven't transgressed is tedious.

I posted here frequently - I still read because the women in this part of MN are fantastic but tip-toeing about in my posts is something I don't appreciate and you never really know what is going to be deemed offensive.

With reference to the counter argument - in what 'context' is it defensible to delete a speech made by someone about a political issue which was made in public and concerns a current political matter? Because the way I see it, there is no context where that sort of moderation is necessary.

I can't count the number of times I've not dared post something - not because I'm an extremely abusive person, but because I'm worried of expressing something wrong and getting banned. For example, is writing "male identifying as female" okay? I don't really know, I've gotten away with it but is it just that I haven't been targeted before and my day is coming?

Reddit is surprisingly refreshing in this regard. You can actually have robust discussions - and respond to the people you disagree with and who disagree with you.

Oh gosh I forgot about the targeting of certain posters!

That happens and its fucking obvious

And while i think about it posts deleted for being too long and full of information

That deffo doesn’t happen else where on mumsnet...look at the brexit forum for examples of that

ThePankhurstConnection totally agree with everything you said. I used to post much more frequently but it’s tedious and annoying to try and stay within rules that actually appear to change depending which mod is on duty. AIBU is viscous and full of nastiness and no such strict policies exist there. The racism on one thread, I can’t even... and yes I reported it and no, they didn’t delete them all. It’s actually amazing how different the moderating is.

I know what you mean Jessica one look at AIBU on any day will show you the disparity and I too have reported things in AIBU (although not recently) and they are left to stand.

Oh gosh I forgot about the targeting of certain posters!

I forgot about this too, one of the reasons I initially got so annoyed with the moderation was the obvious targeting of certain posters I considered interesting, eloquent and interesting and the fact they have now disappeared fortunately they didn't get all of them...

Yet.

Second part of my comment was from Rufus's post.

Absolutely pankhurst

and the fact they have now disappeared

Mumsnets loss is some other forums gain im sure

Would be great to get a response from @MNHQ - are the very strict talk guidelines on the FWR board ever subject to review, given the ever changing circumstances, legal opinion, EHRC guidance on who is legally female / male etc? The most contentious policy seems to be the forcing women to use scientifically and factually incorrect language to describe sex and sexism. MNHQ are preventing women from being able to use clear and scientifically correct terms to describe people, their behaviour, male violence, male pattern behaviour of coercive control, sexism. Also, does MNHQ accept reporting from people who are either not members, or have solely joined to report / police women, and not to post? We all appreciate you have been under pressure from trans activists / MRAs, especially people who claim to be lawyers, but it is possible to stay on the right side of the law whilst allowing women the ability to describe accurately the behaviour of trans activists, women's oppression and experiences of sexism

Within your criteria, you would also require guidelines for every protected characteristic.

Gronky, er, yes that's my point exactly. And we all know the reason for the extra-special for special moderation of trans rights discussion - but none any any other protected group - and it has nothing to do with context. It has to do with weeks and months of aggressive lobbying by TRAs.

Anyway, I agree Pankhurst, I've yet again fallen for a derailing tactic. I agree totally with what you say, and yes, "I'm not sure why MN were so hot on MRAs back then but don't see the similarities to what is being done to women on this board now." I made this point earlier too. Seems that males who say they identify as women have been far, far more successful in shutting women down than just the men identifying as men. Who tried really, really hard. And are probably sitting back and laughing their socks off now.

Remember the late night forum invasions by MRAs? The anti-mumsnet websites set up, the hacking, the SWATTING, the calling us man-haters, the F4J hoo-ha... MNHQ stood firm against all that. But somehow they've caved to TRAs, and we have to have special moderation guidelines pinned to the top of the FWR board.

It's coercive control, as women here have repeatedly pointed out.

’off you fuck, cunty-chops‘

Magnificent swearing. I am in awe

Yes, Bernard

I've been around on MN for years and years, this is by far the most policed this section of the site has been. I'm not sure why MN were so hot on MRAs back then but don't see the similarities to what is being done to women on this board now.

They still are hot on the few MRA trolls left who weren't smart enough to cloak themselves in gender identity politics for immunity against misogyny.

Remember the late night forum invasions by MRAs? The anti-mumsnet websites set up, the hacking, the SWATTING, the calling us man-haters, the F4J hoo-ha... MNHQ stood firm against all that. But somehow they've caved to TRAs, and we have to have special moderation guidelines pinned to the top of the FWR board.

It's highly likely there is a strong crossover between these groups. The former haven't vanished - just rebranded.

I quite enjoy it in a weird way when an MRA troll comes to visit. I can thoroughly take the piss in a way that is not allowed for those whose behaviour seems remarkably similar to me, but who have, as Ova says, cloaked themselves in gender identity politics

We used to have a lot of fun with the MRA trolls, that's for sure.

We were allowed to them. Which is definitely a breach of the guidelines. Tut tut