A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet

[IwantToRetire]

By Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics

It has been suggested that the forum-style parenting website Mumsnet is a hub for ‘gender-critical’ feminism, which directly opposes transgender rights, to be practised with little moderation (Livingston, 2018). This presentation reports on the initial stages of a project aiming to investigate that the potential intensification of linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet may lead to further marginalisation of transgender people offline (Powys Maurice, 2021). Though studies of non-linguistic transphobic rhetoric on Mumsnet (e.g., Pedersen, 2022; Mackenzie, 2019), and discourse analyses of other radical online communities (e.g., Krendel, 2020) have both occurred, this project is the first to analyse linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet. It also contributes to existing literature surrounding UK-based ‘gender-critical’ feminism; linguistic transphobia; and radical online community discourses.

The presentation explores the rise of potentially ‘gender-critical’ linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet over time through the corpus linguistic (CL) analysis of the ‘Feminism: Sex & Gender Discussions’ board, using three corpora comprising a fifteen-year timeframe: 2008-2013; 2013-2018; and 2018-2023. As the project is still ongoing, preliminary findings will be presented, namely a comparative overview of trends yielded in frequency analyses. Overall, this presentation provides insights into the growing commonality of potentially ‘gender-critical’ feminist rhetoric on Mumsnet and its effect on increasing transphobic discourse on the site.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-corpus-assisted-discourse-analysis-of-linguistic-transphobia-on-mumsnet-tickets-880795271367?aff=ebdssbdestsearch

(I had just finished my favourite tea time treat of catching up on FWR and was going to get back to the grindstone when this popped up on my feed. So have come back as it is too good not to be shared. Enjoy!)

Am I the only person here who isn't entirely clear on whether Aston Fold scraped

• FWR in its various forms and splits across the time periods
• the whole of MN bar the hidden sub-forums?

No it's not clear, or whether they can drill down by board/topic etc.

My assumption is that the dataset made by the Fully Automated Doxing Machine Men is everything they could scrape using whatever software they used. Whether they then looked at posts over the whole site, no one knows, but they described the site in general, neutral terms, so I would guess they were only looking for patterns and didn’t give a shiny shit about the content.

The they/them doing a PhD in Mean Mummies Who Say No to Men (Even Men Who Say They Are Women) claims to be concentrating on the Feminism Sex and Gender Discussions board, but they/them is supposedly looking at data spanning a 15 year period, and (as any fule kno) the Sex & Gender board is a fairly recent development in MN history.

🤷‍♀️ < that’s probably a non linguistic micro aggression.

I've seen TRAs present this (FS&G) board in a dishonest way before "why do they only talk about trans on the feminist board" when the board was split for this reason to have the trans issue primarily discussed here. I wonder if that's taken into account here.

This is how the MN dataset was presented on the FoLD index page before they DFE’d it all

(‘Deleted Fucking Everything’, Eden. HTH)

I like your username NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite, very topical.

I am in awe of your technical savviness. I don't even know what the generic term for this kind of knowledge is. "Computery stuff"?
I salute you.

So how can you get your data deleted without revealing your real life name and then having it associated god knows where to be accessible to god knows who when you don't even give MN your real name?

Just y'know asking for a friend.

Welcome to the Minority Report 👀

(Also place marking for Thursday)

🧦 🍆 w ⚓️ my non linguistic feelings.

The name felt right, KellieJaysLapdog, and I like it when current events influence NC.

Can somebody fill me in on what tokens are, please? As in "corpus size is 2 billion tokens"?

Is this the usual definition?

QUICK REFERENCE In the study of texts, the ratio of the number of different words, called types, to the total number of words, called tokens. For example, in a particular text, the number of different words may be 1,000 and the total number of words 5,000, because common words such as the may occur several times, and in this case the type-token ratio would be 1/5 or 0.2.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110417743

That many posts would be the entirety of Mumsnet. For users who have been here from early on that's quite terrifying. What is Mumsnet doing to protect its users - past and present?

The mumsnet corpus is written about in this book with an owner named. books.google.co.uk/books?id=JlABEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT628&lpg=PT628&dq=aston+university+mumsnet&source=bl&ots=k0rcu43TaE&sig=ACfU3U0wrEqNGpAYeBolh_hkMI6f3HgMjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9q8XlxdGFAxXjX0EAHU5iBWo4WhDoAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=aston%20university%20mumsnet&f=false

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695822000472#b0155

Following some of the cited sources this document they've got at Aston is already in the public domain.

In the notes section of that -

'The ethical issues involved in collecting and analysing online forum interactions are complex (Mackenzie 2017). In the case of Mumsnet, posts are in the public domain and contributors can use pseudonyms as usernames. We did not therefore seek individual consent for the purposes of our study. However, as Mumsnet owns all material posted on the site, we sought and obtained their permission to carry out the research. Original usernames or any identifying information has also been removed for the purposes of this study. The study was approved by the FASS-LUMS Research Ethics Committee at Lancaster University.'

I wonder if the research in the OP sought permission from MNHQ or removed any usernames or identifying information.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2023/08/joint-statement-on-data-scraping-and-data-protection/

ICO statement on data scraping.

The response from @mnhq in the thread that brought me here clearly says no consent was asked for or given.

@RealFeminist the ICO statement makes it clear this was unlawful data scraping by Aston.

As does every other paper quoting how they got MNHQ's permission.

Yes. So how do things proceed? That dataset should be deleted and I think it needs checked that it IS deleted because these people are clearly operating above the law and outwith any ethical considerations.

Interesting findings although I could have done with less surprise that women might navigate complex circumstances with emotional intelligence and (effectively) an evidence-based stance. (NB: "surprise" is my grudging interpretation.)

Our analysis also demonstrated that, although Mumsnet might be considered combative on the surface, particularly to newcomers or casual observers, this interactional strategy can actually be a mark of affiliation and support. Acculturated AIBU users are very likely to have recalibrated their benchmarks for impoliteness assessments to account for the fact these many forms of conflict are an expected and even a welcomed and valued community norm.
Finally, with regards to vaccination discourse on Mumsnet in particular, this paper demonstrates a very clear need to investigate actual language use. Anti-vaccination stances and vaccine hesitancy are widely believed to be driven by misinformation, lack of knowledge, misperception of risk, or personal ideology. These factors certainly exist, but in our data a large proportion of the conflict around vaccines involved making decisions within the context of managing complex, social dynamics and relationships between partners, ex-partners, the OP’s own parents or siblings, and so forth, particularly where tensions were pre-existing. It is therefore unsurprising that individuals may find themselves seeking perspectives on forums such as AIBU in an effort to unpick the intricacies of the matter and find a way forward. Based on the data we have analysed, parenting forums such as Mumsnet can perform a useful function in (vigorously) supporting pro-vaccination decisions in the context of anti-vaccination kinship or social circles.

OT—I see that MSE (Money Saving Expert) features in a corpus (don't know whose).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799123000163

Is this something that individual users could hold the university accountable for? Mumsnet can ensure the data is deleted as it owns the data but do the individual users have cause to raise complaints with the ICO? This has the potential for quite far reaching ramifications if it's not handled properly.

I think that is another research team and I was not sure if they had created their own corpus of data (if that is the right word). This one apparently went through ethics at Lancaster (see footnote 2).
I don’t think they used the FoLD one.

When I was looking earlier, I found 34 articles which had used MN content in some shape or form (from single threads to larger bodies of material). Not had time to look at them in any detail but I did look at this one as it mentioned a corpus. But I think that just means body of textual data. Not the MN corpus created at Aston.

59,000 ICO complaints could take up rather a lot of their resources! Be nice if we could get some compo to spend on terfy lawfare though - imagine that for a backfire on Eden - sets out to prove Mumsnet is a seething mass of transphobia, ends up bankrupting Aston university’s FL department and funding scores more cases that reassert sex based rights all over the U.K.

Would be especially nice seeing as the FundieBux the TRAs wang on about endlessly never seem to materialise…

Just a fantasy of course, will probably take years to get the money through and the battles will already be won on women’s own wages and a half ton of Tunnocks.

It's actually quite interesting.

I'd really like answers to this. I'd imagine every MN user could ask their data be deleted.if they wished, but that would be potentially outing, as Redtoothbrish noted.

And the intentional way this has been done, and the suggestion that MNers are criminals, seems even worse than data scraping for marketing, tbh.

I liked the conclusion, that the arguing on AIBU is useful for public health