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!)

No idea. I've had a very long day and I'm fucking furious about this.

Whichever one the university is duty bound to respond to.

Thinking about the forthcoming event and whether they are going to try to prevent Mumsnet members attending, it would seem to me to make a mockery of any claims to ethical research if they do-nothing about us without us, huh?
They might try and claim it would make the researcher unsafe, of course, which is the usual ploy but good luck doing that without being defamatory.

They have scraped with intent to dox.

Side note - I use outwith all the time. It makes aaaaallll the sense. What do other places use instead?

Aston are legally required to respond to both.

FOI is a request for data from a public body, which includes universities, which they can turn down if they think it would violate a living person's privacy or for various other reasons.

SAR is a request for data about you and every corporate body must hand that over once they are sure that you are who the data is about.

So I could make a FOI for all the data Aston hold about AlisonDonut and they would be correct in saying "no, you can't have that", but you could make a SAR for that iff you were happy for a woke, captured institution whose research staff think we are "transphobes" to not only have your complete Mumsnet posting history but also your real name.

"Without" doesn't make sense as the opposite of "within" unless you're name is William Shakespeare because it also means "not having something". The scousers I work with say "outside of" or just "outside".

Would it have to be a real name?

How would they know what our real names are? I thought the underpinning principle of transgenderism was that we can be who we want to be?

So I apply to have what data they have on fluffybunny.

How do they verify I am fluffybunny' off off the MN and they aren't giving my information to some random weirdo?

They can't.

@IwantToRetire I think we're going to need a bigger thread.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/how-to-make-a-subject-access-request/

@RedToothBrush Verification could be done by them giving you a codeword to post in one-off OTBT thread.

Damn it’s sold out. I was very much hoping there’d be a Q&A.

Hoping to hear someone report back 🤞

I think MN is named as this was used for the analysis which the paper focuses on. it is their biggest collection (as of the time of the paper, the project had been going on for a year, so from 2018, they say).
I watched the clip with DS speaking to me and having to skip forward 10 seconds to get through it before going out with him, as agreed. So my understanding is incomplete - also on my phone so could not see the slides properly.
But yes, they describe their scraped dataset as ‘a sandbox where we can play’
I think they were training a model to attribute speech - I got lost on the details here but I have noted that they were looking at the average number of posts per author and the key markers of those authors. They ‘naively assumed’ one poster = one author because they did not realise about name-changing (hahaha, oh dear).
I think they then selected 50 posters and 100 -135 posts each which were manually verified and anonymised to use to train the model. This is why they then talk about the same poster using particular language and spelling.
The presentation then talks about the accuracy of the model and that is when he examples of infertility, illness and dieting come in.

Men playing in their sandbox of women’s life experiences. Showing off their models trained on women’s life experiences. What lads! What a lark!
I wondered if any of the women in the audience were on MN and thinking WTF?!

I was telling DS about this when we were out. Even he, a young teenager, said that is not ethical and it is creepy, isn’t that going to doxx people? It’s not hard to get that it is dodgy ground.

I don’t even remember what my usernames were in 2018-19 as I have changed account and names since.

That relies on the person still being active.

Need sleep, but we do need to think about how to do this without making people literally and actually unsafe.

And not making it a fucking arse ache for MNetter either. Let these dickheads do all the running around. I don't see why I should have to when THEY are in the wrong.

Why can't they just destory the entire fucking lot under the supervision of the ICO?

I can't link here as it puts my personal id on but can I recommend posters search for other Aston research using Mumsnet data. I've found some dating back some years. All I searched was Aston, Mumsnet, research. It seems Aston have been scraping here for years prior to this, it might be why these individuals thought what they had done was perfectly fine.

I think that is the only possible solution, tbh. Nuke the whole damn thing and delete any associated usage/works.

Looks like Aston Uni know about asking for participation after all:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conception/5057450-calling-women-ttc-or-diagnosed-with-infertility

What's really needed is for Aston to delete the dataset and for the researchers who scraped it to be hauled over very hot coals, likewise Eden's supervisor. A PhD is a first foray into real research with training wheels still attached, the PhD student is still a student and it's their supervisor who is accountable for the suitability of the project.

Judging by the pulling of the page about the dataset and the removal of the Mumsnet logo from the seminar page, I suspect that some sticky conversations are already happening at Aston. Keep tabs on the Site Stuff thread because MNHQ have promised to keep us updated.

You tell 'em @ArabellaScott unethical creeps.

I've just got as far as the discussion at the end of the MN section in the Youtube Roundtable about whether it's possible to identify the type of devices or interfaces being used to communicate by MN users eg voice activated or smart phones. Since their data set spans 20 years [with changing technologies] the speaker said it would be a parameter they would be looking at.

It struck me that being able to identify technology that was used more by people with specific physical needs, eg. speech to text software for people with dyslexia or who have impaired movement in their hands, could add yet another filter to identifying individuals. When does this stuff move into disability related discrimination?

I don't know how to make a copy of a Youtube video, but can someone make sure that a copy is kept? I'm worried that MN won't pick up on this latest bit of the thread until the morning and that the video will be taken down.

They have inserted a request for participation into a woman's thread on that board - I don't want to share it because it's a fairly private board and I'm sure she probably doesn't want attention drawn, but it's giving me the fucking rage.

How the fuck dare they!

I'll download a copy.

Click through to that survey and there's some small print: the Aston University Research Integrity Office at [email protected]

So if anyone wants to let Aston's research governance team know what we think of their forensic linguistic research, that's the email address to use.

Don't take your frustrations out on the MSc student who posted that thread, she's not even from the same department.

Fair point, although tbh I'm starting to get the idea that Aston Uni overall has work to do with helping students to understand sensitivities, ethics, and research methods.

But they will give your information to a random weirdo to write papers on and talk about in seminars.