"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"?

‘His’ to ‘the’ NotBadConsidering?

Nope. It wasn’t a pronoun.

My post on the surgery thread was deleted because where the word “terminology” now sits was the word “guise”. I used the word guise in the context of “many different guises” to mean that the common parlance terminology for these surgeries doesn’t describe the actual surgeries involved. It was a completely innocent turn of phrase. Someone reported that post and that word was deemed to be “inflammatory”. I complained and was able to get the post reinstated by making that change.

And people seriously think that only “abusive” messages are removed? Laughable. Someone didn’t want the bare facts about surgeries laid out like that, weaponised the reporting system and successfully had that post removed as a result. This happens all the time. It regularly happens when there is discussion about surgery. Or sexual dysfunction as a side effect of puberty blockers.

Posters are just being disingenuous if they think this sort of reporting doesn’t go on and MNHQ are not listening when we say it’s the abuse of the reporting system to prevent facts and reality being mentioned that is the problem.

Here’s my post again:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3785132-What-language-are-people-allowed-to-use-around-describing-SRS?pg=3&order=

@MNHQ
Thanks for making the change.

And again, it should be a fairly simple thing to look at. How many reports does FWR generate a ratio of volume of posts compared to say, AIBU?

My suspicion is there are many more reports from here as a percentage, which would suggest that the extra rules are generating more work for mods rather than making it better. And you then have a debate as to whether that means posters in FWR are inherently more abusive than those in AIBU or whether that means people are more willing to report the slightest little thing in FWR, indicating we are subject to a form of outside control.

So I see the sticky post at the top of FWR is just the same as ever.

No crumbs for bad women ?

Good to see that the title of the guidelines has indeed been changed. A step in the right direction. Excellent work, RaveOn, and all the others with such cogent arguments.

Hopefully the title of the sticky will be changed soon too.

SawingforTeens, thank you for your post upthread with the clarification, I do appreciate it. And obvs very happy that you wanted to share my post in the first place!

Onwards and upwards.

On a similar note I'd be interested to know how many people have been suspended for breaking this guideline:
Anyone who repeatedly reports similar types of posts that aren’t worthy of deletion – ie simply to be vexatious – will be suspended.

What if they're not MN members to begin with?

Oh, NotBad! I'm sorry but I am wetting my (old, bigoted, Christian fundie, far right) knickers.

Oh, Justine! Nothing to see here, right?!

¡uʍop ǝpᴉsd∩ ǝɥʇ uᴉ ǝɹɐ ʎllɐǝɹ ǝʍ 'ǝʞoɾ plo uɐ ƃuᴉʌᴉʌǝɹ ʎlssǝlǝɯɐɥS

(Sorry, but what else is there to do but laugh?)

@MNHQ, just to let you know that the title of the sticky—surely the subject of the OP—is still showing unchanged. I really do agree that changing it to match the “sex and gender” phrasing agreed will make the tone of this feminism forum much more welcoming and civil for women.

TalkingintheDark brava on that much earlier post, btw. I hadn’t seen it the first time around (or if I did, I forgot ) and I really appreciate your insight.

Ps Lang, I know you pose as a self-identified saggy-titted socialist, but PM me your address and I will add you to the latest batch of checks I’m processing on behalf of the mysterious far-right fundamentalist evangelical US moneybags so powerful that they spend their time and funds influencing Mumsnet. Mu-hu-hu-ah-ha-ha!!!

I require many zeros. I need them for the hoist bras.

I need them for the hoist bras.

Or ‘over the shoulder boulder holders’, but now for me more accurate to say ‘upper decker flopper stoppers’

Sorry - couldn’t resist, I’ve had too much coffee, an it’s raining so I’m a little giddy

Raining! Yay!

it’s raining

Hooray!

Bonkers isn’t it?! Just more gaslighting. “No, of course posts aren’t removed purely for stating facts or reality, what are you talking about?”

I don’t really care that certain posters fail to acknowledge what is happening in regards to this sort of reporting, it’s what I’d expect from people who have a vested interest in making sure facts and reality aren’t allowed to surface. It’s the implication from MNHQ that we are responsible for all the extra work the poor mods have to deal with because of “abusive” posts that makes me sad.

I'm still trying to work out why guise is inflammatory, but I know I'm on a hiding to nothing because 'Yawn' wasdeleted for being offensive and so too the , which MNHQ themselves crafted to be a shorthand for 'you are talking avoidant bollocks but I shall be polite and simply post an image of my favourite biscuit to avoid deletion for being rude to you'.

So anyone trying to suggest that all deletions are for hideous transphobic bigotry is a big fucking liar, and if MNHQ are having a pity party about all the extra work they've made for themselves, I'll give it all the weight I give my kids complaints when they haven't done their bloody homework until ten minutes before school. FFS.

I do feel rather strongly that if the complaint department wants us to state what guidelines we think are being violated when we report a post they could do us the same courtesy when they give us a strike for violating we know not what.

How about you put your advertisers' decision makers in a room, with half a dozen feminists from this board, and we can all have a chat?

BowlofBabelfish would be a fine FWR advocate.

Just adding my penneth to this.

Having had strikes for, frankly, nonsense.

Also having not been notified of deletions, having been ignored repeatedly when asking for clarification or daring to challenge.

This is and always was a forum about womens rights, how is it in any way disrespectful to keep this forum for womens rights??? That it's womens rights under attack, so why are the women whose rights are under attacked being accused of being disrespectful in discussing, angrily sometimes, attacks on their rights?

What a mockery is being made of womens rights and their rights to get pissed off when discussing attacks on them.

DARVO.

Thank you @MNHQ for changing the title of the moderation guidelines. I think that it is a great decision for all the reasons that RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling explained in the OP.

I realise that you, @MNHQ or @JustineMumsnet, do not plan on changing the moderation guidelines at this present time but I was wondering if the very first sentence of the guidelines could be altered slightly?

At present it states that Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed minorities. Because women and girls are not actually a minority then this sentence, as it is written, perpetuates the myth that women are a privileged class and not a vulnerable or oppressed group because they are not a minority. Likewise it is clear that children are very vulnerable and that they require safeguarding but they are also not normally considered a minority.

Could the sentence perhaps be amended to Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with the vulnerable or oppressed or Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed people. To my mind this makes the rest of the paragraph far more balanced in terms of understanding the conflicts that Mumsnet and all the Posters face during debates around sex, gender identity and the needs and safeguarding of all vulnerable people.

On a thread the other day I explained why I, as someone previously subjected to childhood sexual abuse, thought that it was important to consider the needs and wellbeing of vulnerable, abused girls who may be seriously impacted by having to share changing rooms, toilets or bedrooms on school trips with someone who is male. Later on, on that thread I watched as comments were made by one particular poster which called women and girls needing boundaries due to being subjected to rape: bigots, crippled with fear, fear mongering and hysterical. At no point did I think that the MN moderators would not step in and delete some of the deeply inappropriate posts, if they were asked to. In general, I do absolutely believe that MNHQ understand that women and children are vulnerable and can be oppressed, therefore I think that it would be great if the guidelines more clearly expressed that understanding.

I also think perhaps that acknowledging in the opening line that Mumsnet stands with all vulnerable or oppressed people, would bring the moderation policy more in line with the balance of The Equality Act.

Agree with you, ChickenonaMug !

Thank you to RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling for suggesting the title change and JustineMumsnet agreeing to:

"Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex"

I hope that the change helps Mods to respond more even-handedly to complaints which, from the deletions discussed in this thread, seem to be staggeringly far-fetched excuses to censor thoughtful contributions rather than any evidence of anyone being "abusive".

In an earlier comment I mentioned that we do not seem to see as many constructive contributions from trans people as we used to. Is that decline despite or because of the "Moderation Principles"?

We all know that "the Monitors" take screenshots of comments (or parts of them) and post them on Twitter etc. to critique and mock them. There are self-confessed sock-puppets who plant abusive comments here and bad actors who goad genuine members to try to get an angry reaction - all in the cause of getting "screenshot receipts" that "prove" Mumsnet FWR is inhabited by rabid bigots.

Trans people who post here in good faith have come in for a lot of abuse on other platforms from the trans activists who monitor Mumsnet FWR. It is not beyond the bounds of reason to think that that might account for a drop-off in the engagement of trans people who are interested in discussion, ie. rather than people posting tedious variations on the theme of, "You're all just nasty women so STFU !"

The stated aim of the "Moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex" are:

"We do not want Mumsnet to be a place that feels inherently hostile to any group, be that trans people, gender-critical feminists or anyone else (except perhaps trolls). If you can abide by our rules – the spirit and not just the letter – we want you to feel you can be a part of the community."

That statement, well intentioned though it is, sets up a "trans" vs "gender-critical feminists" dichotomy that does not reflect reality. There are trans people who are gender-critical and we used to see them engaging in FWR threads.

How many of them have drifted away vs how many have fallen foul of "three strikes and you are out" deletions initiated by same trans activists who target gender-critical feminists?

One of the most toxic aspects of the "Moderation principles" is the way that they have been abused by trans activists to censor trans people who do not fall in lock-step with transgender orthodoxy.

On the odd occasion in the last 12 months when a "newbie" trans person has introduced themselves and initiated genuinely constructive dialogue from a gender-critical viewpoint they have been welcomed and the conversations have been mutually respectful and rewarding. Nothing like the sniping and accusatory comments from trans activists (who may not even be trans) peppering this thread.

It would be really helpful if the "Moderation principles" used a form of words that did not set up FWR as a battle-ground between "trans" vs "gender-critical feminists".

The gad flies and goaders who have no interest in dialogue and abuse the "Moderation principles" to shut down discussion and get members banned, they are not interested in being "part of the community". We do not even know if all of them are trans.

What we do know is that they are at least as determined to deter gender-critical trans people from engaging with discussions on FWR as they are to generally disrupt and censor any gender-critical conversations here.

Where has the title of the moderation statement been amended ?

I read on a laptop, due to vision issues, and when I arrive at FWR I'm still greeted with the 'trans rights' statement.

It looks like the sticky and URL read ‘trans rights moderation policy’

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

But if you open the policy, the title reads ‘Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex’

I’m hoping @JustineMumsnet / @mnhq change the sticky and URL title to match the policy title.

Thanks GirlDownUnder

It's a bit silly to change just the policy title and not the sticky and URL title.