"Mumsnet statement on moderation with regard to..."

[RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling]

@MNHQ, I am wondering if the statement sticky at the top of this section needs a new, more accurate, less misleading title.

A large part of the difficulty that women encounter in discussing these issues comes from the framing of the issue as being about 'trans rights'. This implies that feminists are arguing against the equal rights of trans people, which of course isn't the case at all. It also disregards the fact that women and their rights have any stake in the issues being discussed - it makes it all about trans people having rights, or not having rights, and to the casual, uninformed observer that reinforces the TRA narrative that women are a privileged class denying the rights of oppressed transwomen.

In fact, women are the historically and systemically disadvantaged sex class, and so ha e a very large stake in legal and social understanding of sex and gender.

Might you give some consideration to changing the thread name (and OP as appropriate) to "...discussion of sex and gender" rather than "discussion of trans rights"?

I thought it was often suggested that as Karen White showed what happens if you say TWAW and put predatory male rapists like him into women prisons, he had been disowned by TRAs as ‘not really trans so doesn’t count’?

It's the moving of the goal posts too. Yaniv has been correctly sexed on threads, yet these have not been removed.

During the time that it was reported that Ian Huntley was supposedly self identified as a woman, posts correctly describing Huntley's sex, stood.

So looks like somebody on this thread did want somebody who used their penis to rape women, who sexually assaulted children, and attacked a pregnant woman, who is described as a 'dangerous and violent predator' by authorities, to be referred to as a 'she' and Mumnset obliged.

I wonder how the families of victims feel, Mumsnet?

@MNHQ are you SERIOUSLY telling me that a man who used his penis to rape women in two different women-only (supposedly) spaces can't be correctly identified as a man?

For FUCK'S sake. The rights of women to name their oppression is judged less worthy than a convicted rapist, on a site supposedly for women.

Hi all thanks for bearing with us while we give your posts here some thought. We agree it makes some sense to change the title of the moderation statement and we will do so asap but we're not going to be changing the Talk guidelines. Our approach remains that in order to continue to host this important debate which brings considerable cost both in terms of time and lost revenue for Mumsnet we need to keep the discussion around feminism and transgender issues respectful and measured. That's simply the minimum ask and we think our guidelines, whilst I'm sure not perfect, are the best way of ensuring this.

On a side note, I want to reiterate that the moderation team here are extremely dedicated hardworking folks who are doing their very best to be fair-minded in what I think we can all agree is quite tricky territory. I know many of you feel passionately about this issue but please be respectful and refrain from attacks as they are incredibly demoralising and often pretty unfair imho.
Thanks,
Justine

I know many of you feel passionately about this issue but please be respectful and refrain from attacks as they are incredibly demoralising and often pretty unfair imho.

Oh, the irony...

Justine. As I understand it, you've just deleted a post that correctly sexed Karen White. Something specifically allowed for in the guidelines.

What about, for example, Karen White – is it ok to say he is a man and call him 'he'?
We think we've allowed for flexibility and context here; we’re unlikely to delete where an individual is primarily known for extreme or criminal actions undertaken before they transitioned.

It's not working. One side is allowed to put its view on its own terms. The other side is not. One side is continually given the benefit of the doubt. The other side is not.

I'm sorry, but this is not our fevered imaginations: it's the actual state of play. Posts disrespecting the feminists on this board are routinely allowed. The emperor has no clothes. I'm disappointed in what you've said here.

But it’s self-fulfilling isn’t it? You’ve created extra rules that apply solely to this forum which attracts outsiders reporting the slightest bit of wrongthink so the moderators have to work extra hard to try and see whether the post does break the special rules. I had a post removed on the surgery thread because one word was considers possibly inflammatory. If there weren’t such special rules, the mods wouldn’t be under so much pressure! It’s not US doing the reporting, and generating the work. It’s outside Monitors” who police this forum and know you want to keep things within the special rules that create the extra work. Once again, as with the previous thread, we want to know why you’re determined to create a situation where you* put your moderators at the whim of outside controllers with rules that are as clear as mud?

We aren’t criticising the moderators. We want to know why the moderators are being placed under pressure to decide whether it’s ok or not to call a convicted paedophile rapist “he”, for the sake of

we need to keep the discussion around feminism and transgender issues respectful and measured

Unfortunately, these are all signs of the time we are in. We are moving into a world which at once is guided by utopian principles ( that we can all be exactly who we 'feel' ourselves to be) but whose flip side is a dystopia of rigid conformity and authoritarianism.

We are living in an age of rigid ideologies on one hand ( the old 'left/liberal' ), and charismatic, individualistic dictators on the other ( the old right) - and both are poised against each other - even as both share many of the same characteristics.

What I find disturbing and most worrying, though, is that we need to be moving towards a more earth centred approach; a more simplistic lifestyle; less consumeristic; more respectful of the earth, of our own bodies, other creatures and life forms...instead we march into what looks to me a dystopian technological/pharmaceutical future which seeks to transcend all of that.......

It doesn't look very hopeful to me.

Hi all, just to be clear - the post wasn't deleted for the mention of Karen White, it was deleted because it broke another talk guideline. We've emailed that poster.

As disappointing as this all is...Mumsnet is caught up in it too.......We're going to have to foment an underground movement ( already in process) because this damaging nonsense is now mainstream. We are living in an age, certainly in the West, it has already happened elsewhere, where true freedom of speech is being shut down and political correctness has taken over. People are no longer expected to think for themselves. We have become a nation of cultists and tribalists - each seeking out their own 'truth'.

@OnlyTheTitOfTheIceberg

I know many of you feel passionately about this issue but please be respectful and refrain from attacks as they are incredibly demoralising and often pretty unfair imho.

Oh, the irony...

But the Mumsnet mods aren't attacking anyone - so I don't think there is an irony here?

lost revenue

Mumsnet is just like so many on the relationships thread: stuck being financially coercively controlled by men. “Do as I say or you won’t see a penny”.

But the Mumsnet mods aren't attacking anyone - so I don't think there is an irony here?

Oh, Justine.

Is making yet another suggestion of Freedom Programme training an "attack on the mod team"?

Cos, y'know...

... I despair.

@NotBadConsidering

But it’s self-fulfilling isn’t it? You’ve created extra rules that apply solely to this forum which attracts outsiders reporting the slightest bit of wrongthink so the moderators have to work extra hard to try and see whether the post does break the special rules. I had a post removed on the surgery thread because one word was considers possibly inflammatory. If there weren’t such special rules, the mods wouldn’t be under so much pressure! It’s not US doing the reporting, and generating the work. It’s outside Monitors” who police this forum and know you want to keep things within the special rules that create the extra work. Once again, as with the previous thread, we want to know why you’re determined to create a situation where you* put your moderators at the whim of outside controllers with rules that are as clear as mud?

We aren’t criticising the moderators. We want to know why the moderators are being placed under pressure to decide whether it’s ok or not to call a convicted paedophile rapist “he”, for the sake of

we need to keep the discussion around feminism and transgender issues respectful and measured

There's a reason why this type of discussion isn't permitted on other forums tbh - advertisers are skittish. They don't want to be associated with controversy. We spend a lot of time explaining that it's not a free for all on Mumsnet - we have guidelines and mods who enforce them. We're a website that is funded largely by ads and without those rules I think we'd be putting the site's existence in peril.

It seems the thread where a TRA was asking for teachers to take part in research in order to identify how best to re-educate those with incorrect thoughts has been deleted. Why delete the whole thread not just those about the TRA researchers status?

Strangely you seem to have overlooked the thread about the ‘human Ken/barbie’? (Which I am sure will now be killed)

Justine

It's the impression here that we are being moderated by transactivists on Twitter, using your staff.

That the reports are coming from outside. Or from people who have joined the site purely in order to report on this board.

And moderation is a direct result of reports.

In the interests of fairness, and understanding that transactivists on Twitter are not representative of public opinion, could you stop taking reports from people who are not members? Or who appear to join just to report on this issue?

We're not going to be changing the Talk guidelines

Thank you. It's a shame that so many members can't see the difference between reasonable debate and abuse.

We spend a lot of time explaining that it's not a free for all on Mumsnet - we have guidelines and mods who enforce them

Whilst I understand that, I sincerely long for the day where you tell advertisers that what we are saying it's not transphobic, in the slightest. And then tell them why.

I genuinely believe that day is coming. Because the tide is turning, and with it public opinion.

There's a reason why this type of discussion isn't permitted on other forums tbh - advertisers are skittish. They don't want to be associated with controversy. We spend a lot of time explaining that it's not a free for all on Mumsnet - we have guidelines and mods who enforce them. We're a website that is funded largely by ads and without those rules I think we'd be putting the site's existence in peril.

Justine - I think we all understand there are financial fears. At least this is honest. What is not honest is you pretending that the rules are either fair or evenhanded when frustration erupts. Because they're neither fair nor evenhanded. We know it. You know it. The external reporters weaponising the Special Trans Privilege Rules know it.

If you''d just stop pretending otherwise, it might help.

It's a shame that so many members can't see the difference between reasonable debate and abuse
Agree with @snowblight here, and think because of this the moderators have made the right decision.
It can't have been an easy one to make

it broke another talk guideline

Which one? Not much point in telling us which one it didn't break if you don't tell us which one it did, Michael. Sorry.

@LangCleg

There's a reason why this type of discussion isn't permitted on other forums tbh - advertisers are skittish. They don't want to be associated with controversy. We spend a lot of time explaining that it's not a free for all on Mumsnet - we have guidelines and mods who enforce them. We're a website that is funded largely by ads and without those rules I think we'd be putting the site's existence in peril.

Justine - I think we all understand there are financial fears. At least this is honest. What is not honest is you pretending that the rules are either fair or evenhanded when frustration erupts. Because they're neither fair nor evenhanded. We know it. You know it. The external reporters weaponising the Special Trans Privilege Rules know it.

If you''d just stop pretending otherwise, it might help.

I don't know what you mean by fair exactly. But I do think they are reasonable guidelines that recognise competing rights here. And I'm certainly not pretending anything.

Thank you. It's a shame that so many members can't see the difference between reasonable debate and abuse.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that posts are removed because they’re abusive. Posts are removed for all sorts of baffling reasons. For example look at a post of mine that was removed and was able to negotiate reposting by changing one word:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3785132-What-language-are-people-allowed-to-use-around-describing-SRS?msgid=92864963#92864963

Completely factual. One word considered “inflammatory” which only happened because of the extra rules. That’s my point. The rules create paranoia and over caution in the mods. The rules put them under so much pressure that actual factually accurate posts are removed. No one has an issue with abuse bribe removed, but the extra rules have created an environment where TRAs can sniff out the slightest bit of weakness, report it and the poor mods are too scared to say no lest they have to face the boss and explain why there’s outrage on Twitter about Mumsnet transphobia that is going to cost money in advertising revenue.

You have to wonder what else members here are looking for. They can discuss every aspect of the trans debate and they are allowed to cherry-pick negative news stories and pore over them in a 'look at these nasty trans people' type of way. They are even allowed to attack trans people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the self-ID debate. You can guarantee if a trans person appears prominently in the media someone will start a thread about how awful they were.