Moderation principles of discussion around gender identity and sex

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

But when you click on it, it says “trans rights moderation policy” as opposed to “gender identity and sex moderation policy”

That seems odd and reinforces the idea that discussion is about trans rights rather than the rights of women and girls

Apologies if I’m late to the party on this but I’d not clicked on the link before

Yes, I think that's changed. I clicked on it by accident the other day and thought "I'm sure it used to have a different title".

Can't find it to check at the moment (on desktop don't seem to see it).

I had noticed that too. Would be interested to know whether this was also the title of the link when the board was called FWR.

Seems like a pretty clear bias to me. It doesn't even mention Feminism.

Just found it by googling here:

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

When did the title change?

In fact, nowhere in either the title or the entire introductory paragraph are the words woman, women's rights or feminism used. It's dated 2018 but this reads differently to a version I've seen recently.

'Trans Rights Moderation Policy

Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed minorities.

Mumsnet is also committed to freedom of speech. Sometimes these two principles come into conflict, rarely more so than in the recent debate about what it is acceptable to say, or not to say, about trans people, and changing opinions about gender and sex. Some have criticised Mumsnet for allowing posts that some trans people find offensive, even hateful. Others have complained that we have “censored” comments which broke no laws and deserved to be heard. To try to create a more civil and mutually respectful conversation, we are spelling out a few principles for how discussions about trans issues will be moderated on Mumsnet.

Why is there no reference to women or women's rights?

Judging by recent events I suspect there's someone with a vested interest taking a hand now.
I can't fathom why else they're hanging on to the word 'debate' so much when it's caused so many issues for the regular posters.

I mean, they don't have PETA's 'animals aren't ours' at the top of the doghouse rules, do they?
Or farmer's rights at the top of the vegan forums.
None of these have earned the word 'debate', and I personally can say people always wander on to the vegan page to cause trouble.

Why is there no reference to women or women's rights?
The million dollar question.

The old thread from when it changed previously is here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3781626-Mumsnet-statement-on-moderation-with-regard-to

The original extra special guidelines were 'trans rights discussion guidelines'. We asked MNHQ to change the title as per the one you see on the link, because for most of us, the discussion was fuck all to do with trans, it was about women's rights. I believe there was a disconnect between the newly titled link, and the original address which remained 'trans rights'for technical link reasons.

I don't know if anything has been changed. I suspect not. But who knows, given the lack of engagement about the name of this board.

It does very much feel that either MN have someone who is not sympathetic to GC and given them FWR to look after it there is pressure coming from somewhere powerful

The most extraordinary threads seem to be allowed to stand as long as the poster is stating TRA views. There is currently a thread on LGBT Children board where the OP is accusing parents of children who are questioning their gender identity of being transphobic if they do not validate this medically and using false suicide stats to back this up.

OP, would this be noticed by MNHQ more if it was also posted on Site Stuff or should we all email our views to them (as we have seen, that seems to be the only way that major site changes are implemented).

Does anyone have an archived copy of what the special guidelines originally said? Looking at them again now this sentence made me wonder if it had always said that:

"Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely."

I'm fairly sure that sentence 'Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely' read like that previously but I'm certain that introductory paragraph has been changed. There was a lot more reference to women and the discussion about clashes of rights, rather than just how trans people feel about the 'debate'. It's been rewritten with a very specific slant.

@Waitwhat23 I've reported it for using dodgy suicide stats in a manipulative way, and for being a thread about a thread as well. Last time I checked it was still up but hoping mumsnet take it down yet. They said they 'understand my reservations and will have a look'. I don't report many things, but (mis)using suicide stats to manipulate worried parents into medical pathways is a red line for me, and even if done in good faith it shouldn't be allowed to stand.
I've also given mumsnet the reference for an extensive, peer reviewed paper that counters said suicide stats should that help.

Hang on, if many feminists are 'affronted' by terms such as cis and terf, shouldn't their feelings be given equal weight to those of trans people? No misgendering - quite rightly, imo, as it is good manners towards people with gender dysphoria to use preferred pronouns - but equally it should also be 'no use of cis/terf' if those are deemed offensive terms too. Not just 'you might get some angry feminists if you use them, but your call'.

I reported someone who was repeatedly using the term 'cis' on various threads, despite the vast majority of the posters asking them not to. I reported it to MNHQ and was told that it was 'useful language for the trans community'. Someone else on that thread (as an experiment) used a term to refer to trans people and it was deleted almost instantaneously (I.e. less than a minute).

One rule for some....

Yes Quarantine it was the "affronted" that stood out to me. Maybe it was always there and I just hadn't noticed.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

It does very much feel that either MN have someone who is not sympathetic to GC and given them FWR to look after it there is pressure coming from somewhere powerful

Emma Healey, the intern who leaked user details online, said that she still had friends at MNHQ who shared her views. So…yeah, there are people at MNHQ who are ‘not sympathetic to GC’ as you put it. Or as Emma Healey would put it - trans rights activists.

To be clear, the term used as an experiment was factual rather than offensive, just one that trans people don't like used (like 'cis' for GC feminists).

@DifficultBloodyWoman but apparently saying that is 'tin hat conspiracy theory'!

@EndoplasmicReticulum

Does anyone have an archived copy of what the special guidelines originally said? Looking at them again now this sentence made me wonder if it had always said that:

"Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely."

Yep, give me a minute. The previous url, afaict, was www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

This is from June: <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210615125010/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210615125010/www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

It does use the 'affronted' text but I haven't looked further back.

Where does this leave trans widow's rights?

That's interesting CardinalLolzy because it shows that the title has changed - the one from June has

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

Yes, it's weird the title has changed. Maybe to be easier to google??
But on first glance everything else is the same.

I think it was originally called 'trans rights moderation policy' which is why it's in the URL even on the archived page.

Lots of us said it wasn't a great title because it suggested the discussion was about trans rights, when in fact it's about women's rights - so they changed it to 'Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex'.

And now they've changed it back