"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"?

Eh, at least it's honest.

Without advertising revenue, no Mumsnet.

Therefore, as advertisers require women's needs and freedom of speech be subservient to the (imagined) fragility of transpeople, Mumsnet will enforce this hierarchy.

I wonder if all advertisers demand that Mumsnet shut up women, or if it's just a few key advertisers.

They're not reasonable guidelines. They privilege trans people over women, and indeed over everyone who's not trans. Literally every other group is subject to open, often rather no holds barred discussion without anything like the same level of protection or deference that's given to trans people on this forum. As I pointed out earlier, threads about the appearance of a trans person on the telly were deleted while a thread about the appearance of Prince George, who is 6 years old, was allowed to carry on.

He's also the future monarch, so you've managed to create a set of guidelines that privilege trans people over royalty and offer adult trans people more protection from criticism than is given to children. It's all gotten a bit ridiculous from an objective perspective.

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

Really! The whole thread deleted. Why? Many of us are, or have been, teachers and surely have something to contribute to the discussion.

Seems like trans activists are working round the clock to close down any free speech at all.

I wonder if all advertisers demand that Mumsnet shut up women, or if it's just a few key advertisers.

I wonder how many advertisers would be interested in a site which allowed a free-for-all on blacks, muslims, gays, lesbians or any other section of society? Because that is exactly what this site was like in terms of trans issues before the rules were introduced to ensure respectful debate and that is exactly what many members would like it to go back to... poorly moderated abuse and ridicule.

You have to wonder what else members here are looking for

I'm looking for the ability to speak without being compelled to lie.

Fair enough, Mumsnet doesn't offer that. Its reason for being is profit, we are the content, and advertisers call the shots. It really is helpful to hear it laid out quite baldly.

But I'm still pissed off at the absolute mangling of language that's the price of entry.

Loving the posters doing a Steve Buscemi sycophantic "Great job, boss!" contribution, who I've frankly never seen post a full bodied pro-woman sentiment on FWR.

I mean, I know the motivation behind the guidelines and those who support them is "Nice website you have there, be a shame if anything happened to it..." because Justine has just told us that is the primary concern. But it's always kind of shocking when you see people so very happy about that kind of thing.

I'm still going to be one of the women standing with the mums of distressed children, the wives of abusive husbands, and the lesbians sick of being gaslighted and I will sleep better at night knowing I am.

Thanks for replying on the thread Justine.

I understand and share the frustrations of others about the guidelines in general, but my post was mainly concerned with the tone set by the title of the sticky, and the way that centring the guidelines on 'trans rights' undermines and ignores the fact that feminist discussions about the meaning of sex and gender have their own history, take place in their own right, and are centred on women's rights.

It seems that this has been taken on board as a fair concern, and I just want to say that I appreciate the consideration being given to changing the title.

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

The utter irony......

I don't know what you mean by fair exactly.

I would, then, suggest you actually read all the (many) threads in which women have carefully laid out their objections and the instances in which they've been treated unfairly. Here's one of the most recent:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3735271-Oh-look-its-those-guidelines-making-no-sense-whatsoever-again?pg=1

Groundhog Day will simply continue otherwise. Because threads like these wouldn't keep happening if you'd got the balance right, would they?

Really! The whole thread deleted. Why? Many of us are, or have been, teachers and surely have something to contribute to the discussion.

Perhaps you should take it up with the people posting personal pictures and asking unpleasant questions about the student rather than having a go at the mods.

I wonder how many advertisers would be interested in a site which allowed a free-for-all on blacks, muslims, gays, lesbians or any other section of society?

You mean like twitter?

Agree with @snowblight here, and think because of this the moderators have made the right decision

Do you just cut & paste the same response, over & over again....

Without advertising revenue, no Mumsnet.

And without users, no advertising income. I mean, I appreciate the honesty, but at the same time the users who are the reason advertisers are willing to spend money here in the first place have every right to be angry that the "debate" is being framed in a way that decenters women and insists that women's rights only be discussed if that can be done in a way that makes it clear that they're less important than what trans people would like to happen.

Calling a male a male = free for all ? I don't think so.

Perhaps you should take it up with the people posting personal pictures and asking unpleasant questions about the student rather than having a go at the mods

If someone appears in public, or who posts or certainly promotes public images of themselves, then they are no longer private individuals by definition.

One post is all that should have been removed......if at all...rather than the whole thread.

And without users, no advertising income

Oh, there's enough elsewhere. Women's proper role is to generate pages on the Royal Family (going splendidly tonight/today) and similar.

I'm also wondering how the advertisers even know about the content on this site?

It can only be because transactivists market it to them.

In which case, do the people responsible for these decisions, ever come on here and take a look for themself?

Are they getting a one-sided view of it?

You can guarantee if a trans person appears prominently in the media someone will start a thread about how awful they were

And you can guarantee that someone will spend entire days monitoring the conversations that people have on here, report them and then post screen shots on someone's twitter page. then they'll turn up at legitimate conferences and meetings and harangue, verbally or even physically abuse people attending.

Haven't you got anything better to do?

I've seen precisely one racist comment about a member of the royal family deleted so far. Plenty of other nasty stuff has been left to stand, but she's only a woman after all so I suppose personal attacks on her are fine.

Oh, there's enough elsewhere. Women's proper role is to generate pages on the Royal Family (going splendidly tonight/today) and similar.

There is indeed. But I've definitely noticed the rest of the site becoming far more au fait with the objections to the trans-ideology.

Several AIBU threads, lately, have demonstrated a much clearer understanding and they're not having it.

I think the commitment to free speech part of the warning sticky on FWR needs to be removed.

This isn't a free speech issue. Mumsnet isn't backing freedom of speech. They are (quite acceptably, for a business) simply abiding by the requests of their advertisers that women get back to talking about make-up and nappies, but that's not some heroic free speech stance.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

Without advertising revenue, no Mumsnet.

And without users, no advertising income. I mean, I appreciate the honesty, but at the same time the users who are the reason advertisers are willing to spend money here in the first place have every right to be angry that the "debate" is being framed in a way that decenters women and insists that women's rights only be discussed if that can be done in a way that makes it clear that they're less important than what trans people would like to happen.

I agree but not all our users feel the same way about this issue and some frankly simply don't want to engage with it and are rather put off. That said, I do think it's important that somewhere as mainstream as Mumsnet allows proper discussion of this issue but I'm pretty certain that had we a different ownership structure (ie if we were private equity or venture backed) it would be shut down.

Literally every other group is subject to open, often rather no holds barred discussion

Absolutely!

There seems to have been a failure to grasp the fact that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and is standing to the side facepalming every time Groundhog Day - The Rules That Are Very Unreasonably And Very Biased happens again.