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!)

Given that she described her work on LinkedIn as research into transphobic hate crimes on Mumsnet, I think that ship has probably sailed.

Yeah, I came across that back in the 1980s/early 1990s when a researcher had quoted one of my Usenet posts and wouldn't let me improve the wording because it was "data". I quietened down for a long time after that. Also when I first realised that Usenet posts were being archived forever. Something we pretty much take for granted now, but in the old days we really did just think they were conversations that disappeared, like speech.

Also, I have a question. What would happen if some of us were to withdraw permission for our data to be used in this way? From what I was reading about Twitter and research (sorry it’s a long thread and I can’t find it) this would make the data set unusable. Perhaps we could go and do this on the thread on Site Stuff?

Their MUmsNet set could turn out to be data that they're notallowed to use.

The reply from mumsnet on the other site stuff thread is pretty clear that they had no knowledge of their data being scraped. I take that as meaning that Aston did not obtain permission so does that mean the use of this data is illegal? Can mumsnet request for it to be deleted now? Has mumsnet ever given permission to Aston for data to be scraped?

And there is another moral/ethical question. The use and storage of older internet activity from when we weren't aware everything was out there forever. We have now got "the right to be forgotten" but with devices like the wayback machine and archiving people are already ensuring that "right" is just a paper exercise.

And if mumsnet don't challenge this or indeed lose their challenge it means the ICO regulations are meaningless.

Note that the data set has disappeared from their website so they do seem to understand that there might be issues.

Hence my question for after the talk about how does the researcher make sure they've avoided their own preexisting bias (aka prejudice).

There is no way this research does that. The entire premise of the research is about proving there is transphobia.

No overseeing supervisor should have permitted the subject of the PhD for this reason. Ethics aside, its piss poor practice.

When I was an undergraduate our media department were really strict on subject and wording for our thesis. It had to be well thought out before they would approve it.

This makes Aston Uni look utterly terrible in terms of their general standard of research and education.

Add in the ethics and I'm appalled.

But no evidence the dataset has been deleted from their offline database. I hope Mumsnet don't come to a deal and sell its usage and they do fight for it to be deleted. Retrospective permission should not be allowed or it will pave the way for wholesale site scraping across the board, not just here.

You can’t withdraw something which they have never had (indeed that would seem unwise as it might be taken to imply they do) but you can certainly state that they do not have permission. I don’t know what the ramifications would be.

The forum for permitting use of the data, the researcher for not ensuring robust protection of their data subjects or the university for allowing it to go ahead?

Potentially all 3. Plus the men who scraped it. If you read @RealFeminist link upthread the ICO says this type of scraping should be reported as a data breach.

And if mumsnet don't challenge this or indeed lose their challenge it means the ICO regulations are meaningless.

It's not just up to Mumsnet. Anyone affected can challenge with the ICO. It's your data.

As ever, trans rights are somehow asserted by accusing women who dissent of transphobia and hate.

Nicci MacLeod seems of a piece with the OU academics who were the subject of the accurate depiction of their activities in the Jo Phoenix vs OU employment tribunal decision. Recall the aggressive nature of their actions and their shoddy performances as witnesses.

We heard from several authors of the triumphalist paper about contributing to the downfall of the previous Pro Vice-Chancellor. They praised themselves for their subversive networks and communications via WhatsApp. You'll recall that not one of these brave warriors still had the same phone and not one of they had ever backed up their WhatsApp when it came to discussing their activities and agitations against Jo. The bravura of this paper was of a piece with the ethics, morality, and intellect that we heard from on the stand (with a substantial overlap with the paper authors).

In discussing the events leading up to the resignation of the former Open University Vice Chancellor in April 2018, we focus on the enactment of a form of resistance against proposals for the university through a WhatsApp group, enabling rapid information exchange, discussion of tactics and concrete planning for action. We suggest our group – ‘the Hive’ – was unusual because, first, it countered the politically quiescent trend in academia to comply (at least outwardly) with neoliberalisation, and/or only to write about it, as opposed to mounting challenges. Second, the Hive was virtual, comprising various staff categories, including people based off-campus; it operated almost entirely online and many members had never met face-to-face. This for us evokes notions of the multitude. Third, the group exemplifies alternative forms of solidarity and resistance in other ways, being non-hierarchical, highly pluralist and non-exclusionary. Finally, our Hive provided a supportive, caring space for resisters, which we suggest emerged partly through members’ love for the distinctive social mission of The Open University – although our story also provides hope for harnessing similar emotions within other academic institutions.

Bowes-Catton, H., Brewis, J., Clarke, C., Drake, D. H., Gilmour, A., & Penn, A. (2020). Talkin’’bout a revolution? From quiescence to resistance in the contemporary university. Management Learning, 51(4), 378-397.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1350507620925633

Well at least the student and supervisor have been laudably open about their preconceptions. Far outside my techie field but.... isn't there an approach to qualitative research called "researcher as instrument" where the researcher explicitly interrogates their own background, preconceptions and reactions? They treat them not so much as problems to be overcome but as factors to be reported on. Usually applied to small scale in depth techniques, like interviews or field studies.

I wonder if nowadays there could be some value in applying "researcher as instrument" strategies to larger scale, less individualised research... like corpus linguistics. Finding out could make in interesting PhD study in itself.

I'm stunned that an institution would not have at least carried out the very basic checks to establish the legalities of using this data. Wouldn't this be step 1?

From Aston's point of view, the problem is that we now know that they've got it, not that they have it in the first place, so it'll still be sitting on the same computer it's always been. All that stuff about it being 'airlocked' is simply that the computer it's stored on isn't actively accessible on the network; at best, it's being held on a computer where they've unplugged the network cable, but it's just as likely that it's on the bog standard database server but IT only drop certain people into the Active Directory bucket that allows them to see, open or append the records.

It wouldn't even surprise me if they've completely failed to ensure that datasets cannot be exported because they're using bog standard Microsoft apps, so it's only 'airlocked' because the other computers on the network are 64-bit and this one is a 32-bit/there's nobody around to update the VBA code to allow it to be interrogated on the others.

Nicci MacLeod seems of a piece with the OU academics who were the subject of the accurate depiction of their activities in the Jo Phoenix vs OU employment tribunal decision. Recall the aggressive nature of their actions and their shoddy performances as witnesses.

We heard from several authors of the triumphalist paper about contributing to the downfall of the previous Pro Vice-Chancellor. They praised themselves for their subversive networks and communications via WhatsApp. You'll recall that not one of these brave warriors still had the same phone and not one of they had ever backed up their WhatsApp when it came to discussing their activities and agitations against Jo. The bravura of this paper was of a piece with the ethics, morality, and intellect that we heard from on the stand (with a substantial overlap with the paper authors).

YY. There is a big problem in academia, not limited to the U.K..

I wonder if nowadays there could be some value in applying "researcher as instrument" strategies to larger scale, less individualised research... like corpus linguistics. Finding out could make in interesting PhD study in itself.

Yes, definitely.

Eden has a paper scheduled to be delivered for the June 2024 IAFLL Regional conference. Again, sounds rather like Eden has pre-judged the issue. I think it may well be fascinating to see Eden navigate through the versions of the Talk guidelines, sitewide and specific to variations on FWR.

P#66 Changes in Linguistic Transphobia on Mumsnet over time, 2008-2023. Eden Palmer (Aston University, UK)

https://www.aston.ac.uk/sites/default/files/IAFLL2024_Programme_Publish21.02.24_2.pdf

I had to do so for my Masters. I examined my own biases and preconceptions and how they had been influenced by my background, education, family structures etc etc and how they influenced my research. I've done it as a matter of course for smaller scale research projects I've undertaken as well. It's the whole concept of the reflective practitioner.

Blimey at the stuff uncovered here - it is waaaay past my sphere of knowledge. Is anyone in contact with HQ/Justine with updates or should we assume they have this thread on the ole OTW system and let them get on without being bothered overly by emails?

Thoughts most welcome!

I wonder if Nicci Macleod and Eden Palmer have ever examined their own biases towards women who don't subscribe to gender identity ideology and want female only spaces when vulnerable, simply because they don't accept MTF trans people are in any way women. That's it. That's literally all. I just don't believe it and I don't support their belief system as I consider it harmful to others.

I'm well aware of my biases, but I don't find the opposite arguments compelling in any way, and I'm not an academic writing papers about how awful a group of women who believe "trans rights" trump women's rights are.

It's not always black and white. It would be poor supervision to commit a student to a project that totally depends on a specific dataset before you know if they're allowed to use it for that project. But sometimes data can become unavailable for all sorts of reasons - the telescope your astronony PhD depends on breaks down.

Usually you'd try to pivot the project e.g. so it can use some other dataset, and in this case maybe you'd need a change of content focus too, to whatever the the new dataset talks about which might be nothing to do with gender. Or you might need a more fundamental rethink, if none of the other datasets have the nice conversation structures and multiple handles that you want to use.

As for whether Aston should be storing or using the dataset at all... well at this stage who knows. Unlinking it is only the first step, a reasonable first response to the query from MNHQ. We'll just have to see what happens next. Universities move slowly.

I find it so frustrating that this literally comes down to a difference of philosophical belief, and what flows from that. You (TRAs and their supporters) believe some male people can be considered women under the right circumstances, and I do not. Women are adult female human beings for me, and no amount of linguistic trickery, sophistry, special pleading, threats, abuse or emotional blackmail have ever convinced me otherwise.

Healthcare research is only beginning to uncover and acknowledge the research that was unconsented or where the participants were deceived. Look at the Tainted Blood inquiry.

Journals are now in a quandary about some of the racist work that they've published since their inception.

There's a reason that trial protocols have to be pre-published and that tools for validating them have had to be systematised and validated.

Scrutiny and reassessment of prior research can be essential. Such assessment in social sciences is long overdue.