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!)

It's not being GC they're looking at, it's transphobic language.

Despite what many on here seem to believe, I don't think they'll be looking at posts which say "I don't believe a man can ever be a woman".

I imagine what they'll be looking at are the posts which imply trans women are fetishists or paedophiles, or using charming language like "penis nugget" (as per a recent thread) to describe someone's body and sniggering among themselves about it.

Indeed. Will there be a parallel timeline to contextualise the posts of eg crimes committed by Karen White, Katie Dolatowski et al, the NZ weightlifter in the Olympics, Lia Thomas smashing women’s swimming records, murders committed by males being reported as women’s crimes - in short, the real world impacts being felt?

Assuming anyone attending online (or in person?) is allowed to participate, why not be just be really annoying, by instead of going in in full harpy mode, them by being kindly and mothering and in ever such a soothing voice, of course I understand how you feel and gently suggest that maybe they have got things out of perspective. And it is really important to listen to other people's opinion and respect their right to have them.

On a more serious note it is upsetting that someone undertaking university educaiton has already decided that women talking about having sex based rights and the issues of being mothers etc., is somehow negative ie the standard old fashioned notion that women should martyr themselves for everyone else.

There's been feminist conversation, including conversations about gender ideology and how it affects women, since I joined MN in 2006.

I wonder if it was 2008 when we got the Feminism board.

In all that time, people have been trying to stop women speaking and at the same time to segregate discussion to the Feminism board.

It would be interesting to see whether, despite it absolutely not being Eden's aim, we can see the story of feminism on Mumsnet, and women persisting in this work.

I very much doubt it.

Assuming us to be a homogenous mono thinking entity whose thoughts they know because they've spoken to us all is fine then ? Where's the WTF font ?

Probably thought it would lead to some ridiculous, overpaid job as chief witch hunter at some big firm. Terrible time to go into that line of work.

Honestly I hope Eden doesn’t have pronouns on Eden’s CV or she’s never going to get a job and pay off those hefty student loans.

Which is why the bias stated in the title is so interesting.

You state as an example of a statement which is not transphobic - "I don't believe a man can ever be a woman".

But many people (including those who monitor this website, for various reasons) would state outright that that is an inherently transphobic statement and would be taken as an example of the transphobic language used on this site.

Research is always influenced by a researcher's inherent biases - that's why good researcher's examine their own feelings and thoughts as part of the research. I sincerely doubt that this will be the case here.

I’m guessing Mumsnet technically owns the copyright to all posts made on the site. So in theory this person could be breaching copyright by taking quotes from the site and using them in research without permission.

This is just a guess, I’m not an expert in copyright law!

You don't even have to say a male person cannot be a woman to be transphobic, you only have to believe it.

Have to say I object!

The board will come to life! A TRA's worst nightmare. And a prefect example of synchronicity in the classic Jungian sense, I believe.

Accusing MumsNet posts and posters of "lingustic transphobia" in the title of a talk or dissertation is quite serious. And as an occasional supervisor of dissertations myself, it would be more normal to characterise the source in some way without naming it in the title - unless you are really trying to stir up controversy of course. And seeming to equate "gender critical" with "transphobic" and failing to make a very clear distinction between the two is also likely to be a problem nowadays.

I don't think the MumsNet moderators would be too chuffed about this way of describing the site. They delete transphobic messages, after all.

So I am not sure about the research ethics here. I wonder if the researcher has discussed their project with MNHQ. And I also wonder if Aston University's ethical approval process has been correctly followed.

I've been Googling 'non-linguistic rhetoric'.

The word “nonverbal” is used to describe the many ways human beings communicate without overtly using words. Typically, this encompasses body movements (gestures, facial expressions, eye behavior, touching); body positioning (posture, distance from and alignment to others); and vocal behavior (rate, pitch, intensity). Sometimes physical (appearance) and environmental (architecture, design) features are also included.
https://communication.iresearchnet.com/rhetorical-studies/nonverbal-rhetoric/

Not sure how much of that applies to an online forum. Perhaps emojis, expressions of interest in "I❤JKR" bags or a desire to buy scarves in Suffragette colours? Or one's mere presence on a trans-related thread?

I also wonder how researchers can access a Mumsnet linguistic corpus. Can they search what's online or is Mumsnet selling access? Or are there companies who can mine online content to compile it as a searchable corpus?

I once did a bit of basic corpora analysis as part of an OU course. It was very interesting - the one that sticks in my mind is the use of the words "little" and "small". Although meaning the same thing, "little" was far more frequently used in spoken language, whereas "small" was used in written language.

What on earth is 'non-linguistic rhetoric'?

I don't know how an entirely online message board - consisting of words - can produce any non-verbal communication at all. Unless this is a corpus linguistic analysis of sarcastic gifs?

(I also have a Master's degree in Linguistics so consider myself nearly as educated on this subject as Eden...)

🍆🍆🍆

I thought phds were supposed to be useful

Someone's got to keep tabs on the women lest they commit thoughtcrime.

Under they's eye.

Do you think it's about coded text? The only ones I can think of on FWR are gardening and Malaga Airport. Unless all the references to Tunnocks have been completely misinterpreted. I hope not. Although, imagine a 3 year PhD completely punctured when a bunch of middle aged women stand up and say, 'no love, they're just teacakes'.

Perhaps we're going to be told what we really mean.

Unfortunately not @WarriorN They have to be an original contribution to knowledge.

As we have seen time and time again on this board, making up a new field of no use to man nor beast, is a guarantee that your contribution is original.

I feel I should shout out zemiology from the OU criminology department at this point. Original as there appeared to be only the one researcher studying it and they/them had made it up.

Well can I do a PhD extolling the virtues of the board formerly known as FWR then?

You can do a PhD in Mumsnet??!!

SIGN ME UP

I have reviewed ethics applications in a university: consent is relevant. Even in this case, where people’s words are being taken from a publicly accessible website.

The Daily Mail does not have to comply with a university’s ethics policy. But they are signed up to IPSO so have journalistic ethics to comply with.