Remaining within FWR guidelines without compromising clarity or integrity

[GrinitchSpinach]

The special rules for FWR moderation have been a recurring source of frustration for the women who post here regularly. I understand that outside activists put much pressure on MNHQ, and I think we're all aware how closely they monitor our words.

It is sometimes tempting to step back from MN out of frustration with these limitations, but I think this place is still incredibly valuable as a virtual gathering place for women to discuss our life experiences. FWR hosts a very special, possibly unique kind of interaction between seasoned feminists with years of experience in their respective fields of expertise and (usually younger) less experienced women who perceive injustices against women and girls but are still learning how to articulate their thoughts, organize and take action.

In the interest of keeping this special interaction between women going, I thought I would start a new thread where we can discuss effective ways of communicating in light of the higher standard to which this board is held than, for example, AIBU.

I'll start off with this: Apart from what is spelled out in the guidelines, posters should know that moderators seem to have much less tolerance for sarcasm and jokes in general and for judgments about specific individuals' actions, morals, or states of mind on FWR than they do on other boards.

I think that sometimes it can help to avoid specifying any individual's trans status in order to discuss the broader implications of their actions or demands. Sticking to the barest facts of a situation may help. ("Jane Jones, a male sprinter, has just won the US women's NCAA 100 meter dash;" "Samantha Smith, a male convicted rapist, has just been arraigned on charges of sexually assaulting four female prisoners while incarcerated with them." **Names obviously fictional.) I suspect, though can't be certain, that a comment like "Male athletes don't belong in women's sports; that is dishonorable cheating" is less likely to face deletion than "Jane Jones is a dishonorable cheat who doesn't belong in women's sports."

Other ideas? What do you do to make your posts clear and honest while trying to avoid deletion and banning?

I'm not sure if that would work.

Didn't a poster get deleted recently mentioning someone directly in reference to binders - the inference being it would be ok to make a general, rather than a specifically personal point?

So I'm confused. Is general ok? Or not?

Well, I think a major problem is that enforcement of the guidelines seems unclear to many of us. But I do think I have seen more "not in the spirit" deletions for posts referring to specific individuals than for posts referring (carefully, carefully) to male people as a class.

Also there is an assumption that we are being sarcastic when we are not.

Orchid got banned for expressing empathy, even after an appeal she was not reinstated.

(The post was "how awful" and on the same thread, which got pulled as the OP was not the mother as had been claimed, but the child, there were harsher comments)

The guidelines are not clear, are not consistent and are enforced at will. MN is still a great place to be but it's not what it once was. For those who want this I hope they are happy, for those who do should push back but have to be careful and that in itself is not all that comfortable for me. You can't complain if you just get banned and told to "go well".

“What do you do to make your posts clear and honest while trying to avoid deletion and banning?”

Much as it pains me, I’m not sure having any discussion over wording in public will help. As soon as any seemingly suitable phrases are decided on, Mumsnet will be put under pressure to ban them.

General information might be useful. I wasn’t aware, for example, that it is allowed to say generally that people are male, but posts which state specific men are male will be removed.

I think we are still allowed to note that specific people are male, but not to call them men if they don't wish to be called such...

As soon as any seemingly suitable phrases are decided on, Mumsnet will be put under pressure to ban them.

I'm sure this is true. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this place still draws the eyes of so many women that it's worth trying to stick around, though of course I understand when posters reach a personal line in the sand.

nb my personal preference would be for a relative speech free-for-all. I'd rather mods left up nearly all comments, including the "get back in the kitchen and suck my dick" type things we get from misogynists all too often. I think these comments are illuminating to reasonable people just starting to look into these conflicts. But it's not my site.

.

Narrow the opportunity for being reported by being explicit it what you mean (don't generalise and use examples), have context to make sure what you say is framed in the way you want and explain rather let others misinterpret and twist what you mean.

Keep your language simple even if explaining difficult things.

Get to the heart of the argument as quickly as you can.

And avoid ad homiem attacks.

I've seen posters say they've gone from an unblemished record to two deletions in a couple of days so I'm alert to the possibility of targeted reporting and try and avoid getting drawn into one-to-one arguments. For example, if anyone I don't recognise addresses me or bolds one of my posts then I'm very wary about responding.

I avoid talking about individual TRAs by name.

I keep my posts as short as I can.

I don't respond at all to midnight gentlemen callers. Admittedly I'm not on here very often at that time.

If I'm getting annoyed then I walk away although I think that's sensible in any context.

(I've not done too well with some of these today )

As I understand it a general statement about transitioning is acceptable if it is positive but unacceptable if it is perceived as negative regardless of accuracy.
The special FWR policy appears to discriminate against women on the basis of sex.

Extremely good advice, Red and Floisme.

Creepster, and/or for you as applicable. It can feel very bleak indeed when we are fighting just to retain the rights our grandmothers won, and losing ground even there, rather than making any further progress for our daughters...

Yes good advice Floisme.

I also think there's a much higher chance of deletion and banning at the weekend due to an increase in reporting and different moderators, so it's safer to avoid these times. It shouldn't be like that but currently it is unless the moderating becomes more consistent.

Most of what's been said above.

Keep it factual, keep it general, word it carefully. E.g. "In my opinion, people who've benefited from male puberty shouldn't be in women's sports, regardless of testosterone suppression, because [insert ref. to Karlolinska institute recent paper]" "Convicted sex-offenders who have or have had in the past male genitalia shouldn't be in women's prisons."

Don't mention any prominent TRAs by name unless to report factually on something that's been in a newspaper. Leave the other stuff (the sort of stuff openly on their twitter feeds, posted by themselves, but that we aren't allowed to mention, and that you really wouldn't be comfortable mentioning in front of the vicar/your gran) to the Farms/Spinster.

If you get cross walk away (remember, "hide thread" is your friend).

If you think you're being targeted, name change (remember you can always PM virtual "friends" to let them know who you are now) unless you are really invested in the name you post under (I know I'd be gutted if Datun or Lang namechanged, for instance).

Spend your weekends doing nice stuff in the real world, and return rejuvenated on a Monday.

Sticking to the barest facts of a situation may help. ("Jane Jones, a male sprinter, has just won the US women's NCAA 100 meter dash;" "

I don't think that would work, for example Mckinnon is legally female so referring to Mckinnon as male would be grounds for deletion.

I don't see why you can't refer to the sportsperson as a trans woman though.

I think the rules are sex offenders like Karen White can be called male, but not entirely sure.

Has someone been deleted for referring to the material fact of McKinnon’s maleness? I wasn’t aware.

I no longer use the word ‘woman’ or any phrase containing it to describe any male person, as a matter of conscience.

I do not remember if it was McKinnon.
Comments are regularly deleted for referring to males as men if those males identify as a transgender woman.
The exceptions are the ones who are currently incarcerated sexual predators. For reasons I do not understand it is permissible on MN to refer to them as men.

No, I know we haven’t been allowed to call male people ‘men’ for quite some time now. I just wasn’t aware anyone had been deleted for using the word ‘male’ to describe a person with (apparently) XY chromosomes.

It's very unclear. What if we used preferred name and pronouns but with a picture?

I think we are still allowed to note that specific people are male, but not to call them men if they don't wish to be called such...

I had a post deleted a couple of weeks back where I referred to a specific person as a male transitioner.

This is the part of the guidelines quoted:

"Will I be deleted for saying 'male women' or 'male transperson' or 'male person', or for including them as part of the male population?

Oh, Lordy, AnyOld, I give up. That section says it's ok to say 'male' when it's a civil discussion of biological facts, but you got deleted anyway? I'm sorry. The unpredictable enforcement of these guidelines just makes things so confusing and fraught.

I really do wish they would just let all comments stand, short of direct threats of violence. Let readers take in all the arguments, all the commentary, and form judgments for themselves about who is civil and who is kind.

It is bizarre when you think about the hammering that others on the protected characteristics list get on MN without any effort to discourage racism, sexism, or homophobia.
There is just this one special category, that does not exist in law, that MN has decided to protect against derogatory or aggressive comments.