Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

The censorship is way beyond Clairself simply throwing a hissy fit.

It's sinister in nature.

This is a historic case with huge implications for women's freedom of speech and expression. There are no reporting restrictions. Why are Mumsnet censoring the name of the person who made a tit out of themselves on the stand in the name of their insane ideology. If the witness named really believes what he/she/they said during their testimony then he/she/they should be prepared to stand by their words when they are scrutinized by people who have a clear interest in the outcome of the case.

The TRAs always want to work behind closed doors, they want no sunlight or exposure on what is it they are espousing as fact, they don't want the public to see what they actually believe and be able to drill down into it. That's why they are trying to get the threads about Maya's trial censored, and it's why Posie's Triggernometry interview was taken off YouTube.

The thing is, Quentin’s a barrister, right?

So surely Quentin should have had a reasonable idea of how things were going to go down?

Unless Quentin’s judgement is faulty for some reason?

I loved the bit (paraphrased)
“If someone identified as a typist but actually wasn’t you’d recruit them, right?”

Morning everyone,
Just to clarify for everyone, re everybodypuuuullllll's question from earlier:

@everybodypuuuullllll

Once you discover there are no reporting restrictions, will you put the names back, *@MNHQ*? This is a historic case. If you get rid of the names, people are less likely to find this thread by searching.

Yes, that's exactly what we're doing now. We were being cautious, perhaps overly so, because it really wasn't clear why that name wasn't being mentioned anywhere. We now understand from Maya Forstater directly that there are no restrictions so of course we are re-instating (or as in this thread, for the posts to make sense, clarifying who initials refer to. We hope that's fair).

We do have considerable sympathy for the digital archivists of the future and hope that they can piece the story of this case together, but at the time we did feel that our options were limited to editing posts individually or deleting altogether.

I don't think Clair thinks Clair made a tit of Clairself. (I think Clair did.)

I think Clair thinks Clair is right, and that all women who wish to distinguish themselves from born males who say they id as women, in any way, are hateful.

My personal opinion is that Clair thinks that Maya, and all the women here who do not believe that TW are actually W, are guilty of hate speech, and Clair probably thinks that we all deserve to lose our jobs, and that we should be sent to Gulag for re-education and brainwashing until we happily chant TWAW and screech "terf" at other women.

I wonder if the trigger was the reporting of the "why are you referring to women as trfs and cnts? ...you are the bully not Maya" bit.

I think certain people are too deep in topsy turvy land to realise how mad their arguments sound so I'd be surprised if they were embarrassed about that. However, if you're a high paid professional trying to claim the moral high ground then calling women "c*nts" on Twitter doesn't sit too well.

I feel for your sense of nervousness about doing the thing that doesn't get you all clobbered, Hope, but doesn't that atmosphere give you misgivings about the censure you are being (unnecessarily) put under by those pressing for more control here? I mean, I get that we might come across as whinging sourpusses when we complain about the crushing effects of coerced speech, but does it bring up any insight when the mods are being so cautious they are going way beyond what any law requires to appease certain people we can't properly name?

I'm sorry, Hope, but you guys are going to have to stop dancing to other people's tunes, making rash decisions, looking foolish, and then pretending it wasn't really your fault when rowing back on the foolishness.

Again: no offence, it's nothing personal, I'm not spending my time sticking pins into a dolly of you.

But it's been one debacle after another around here in the last couple of weeks. You guys really need to get it together and stop saying how high when unreasonable people tell you to jump.

Thank you @HopeMumsnet

I look forward to reading the fully reinstated version.

None of it sits well. I want maya's testimony to be shouted from the rooftops, written in neon, and put on every billboard in the country.

Because it's legal, ethical, sensible, compassionate and correct.

As opposed to the TRA strategy of no debate which has continued apace. And even, unbelievably, extends to censoring discussion of your own testimony!

The real, hundreds of thousands of people died in them gulag or the arts and poetry readings Goldsmiths gulag?

Are all/most of the deleted comments being reinstated, HopeMumsnet? It really is confusing trying to wade through a thread with massive gaps in it and a lot of people will just be coming in now trying to figure out what's going on.

Oh HQ, you've created so much extra work for yourselves recently.
The left hand really seems to have no idea what the right hand is doing.
for all though, you're working hard even if you've doubled the workload yourselves.

Hopefully the outcome of Maya's case will allow the moderators to have more confidence in opposing censorship.

HopeMumsnet

"We do have considerable sympathy for the digital archivists of the future and hope that they can piece the story of this case together, but at the time we did feel that our options were limited to editing posts individually or deleting altogether."

Many more people will begin to archive/save these discussions - as and when they occur (and before deletions) AND keep paper (and other hard copy versions).

Many more people will begin to archive/save these discussions - as and when they occur (and before deletions) AND keep paper (and other hard copy versions).

They will.

And the desire to censor it all is as much of the story as what is being claimed in the first place.

Hi again,
Just to further clarify, what happened last night was that we were asked by several people (concerned that the Maya Forstater case not be jeopardised in any way) if we were certain that Clair Quentin's name could be used on our boards.
We weren't certain at that point so, as we said earlier, erred on the side of caution until we had confirmation from Maya Forstater herself. We have created a lot of extra work for ourselves, yes, but we don't mind, that's the job. Although we are a bit snowed under right now, certainly.

Bit early for gin so have some .

That's very gracious, Prodigal, thanks.

It'll be that rum/whisky truffle time of year soon...

Thanks for clarifying @HopeMumsnet

Thanks for explaining, Hope & @MichaelMumsnet

HopeMumsnet

You telling us what happened makes it all so much easier. It's when threads are deleted or comments removed, with little explanation, that causes speculation.

Agreed. Honestly, even when things get testy, the vast majority of the regulars here really do want to help. Let us!

Although we are a bit snowed under right now, certainly.

As an aside, similar to the data about traffic to various different boards, I’d love one day to get an insight into which boards generate the most reports, relative to traffic etc. Could be very interesting.