Thread 2: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet

[VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia]

At fewer than 20 posts left, time for part two.

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5057460-a-corpus-assisted-discourse-analysis-of-linguistic-transphobia-on-mumsnet

Site Stuff thread that tipped off MNHQ: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5057903-mumsnet-corpus

Update from Justine

I cannot see the word cissexism, without recalling the woman who thought the worst thing about a Danish man in South Africa practising FGM and saving women's severed genitalia in his freezer was the cissexism.

I mention his nationality, because I find it particularly egregious that he had not been brought up with this tradition of mutilating women and was yet victimising women. It made it clear that he was sexually motivated rather than a true believer in any of the justifications for it. He was also prosecuted for having his wife assassinated, raping a minor and possessing child abuse images

You can read more about him at the BBC

Thanks @Boiledbeetle That's a good start. But I do think there are a lot more questions about exactly waht Mumsnet agreed to and whether all the use is fair use.

Scraping a dataset and then storing it forever and using it forever with no further permissions needed and no restrictions except the ones you impose on yourselves? I don't think so.

I cannot see the word cissexism, without recalling the woman who thought the worst thing about a Danish man in South Africa practising FGM and saving women's severed genitalia in his freezer was the cissexism.

I mention his nationality, because I find it particularly egregious that he had not been brought up with this tradition of mutilating women and was yet victimising women. It made it clear that he was sexually motivated rather than a true believer in any of the justifications for it. He was also prosecuted for having his wife assassinated, raping a minor and possessing child abuse images

Me too! I'm glad you posted that, I was looking for it on Google but gave up as I couldn't find it due to all the earnest "cissexism" articles. One of which I treated the thread to.

I thought you were taking the piss, but the link actually has that.

Why do they talk as if they are suffering from arrested development, caught somewhere at about 13-15, with scented rubbers*, glitter gel pens and little hearts rather than dots over the letter i.

*erasers, NOT condoms, for our American friends.

Thanks to @JustineMumsnet for pursuing this.

I am boggled at Aston Uni. How on earth did they think this whole thing was AOK?

Edited to add, I'd not come across that Danish sicko before. The story is nauseating.

Possibly because they are aiming their message at 12 year olds who think 13-15 years olds are cool and experience and knowledgeable.

Not me, I think, I was already a stroppy question-asker even at 12.

"if appropriate" may be doing a fair amount of heavy lifting there.

We'll see.

Reposting here because I know not everybody is across this and the site stuff thread...

I wanted to offer some thoughts on the doxxing threat angle taken up in this and the other thread, and give some potentially helpful info on other corpus linguistic technicalities... NOT to excuse or explain the PhD in question (because wow) but because this is my field and some of us have research integrity not reflected by this PhD and people at Aston. I'm livid that this kind of research is what gets corpus linguistics more known and people then think we're all unethical twits. Ehem. So:

The whole point of corpus linguistics is to look at a dataset as a whole. There are no individuals.

Forensic linguists might be looking at authorship identification but it is a whole different field to corpus linguistics.

The fact that the Mumsnet corpus held by Aston has/could be used by both forensic and corpus linguists makes this confusing.

EPs PhD looks to be squarely in the corpus linguistics wheelhouse, likely without any access to any usernames at all. The data you use in corpus software is just the post content. Usernames are miles away.

It is likely that ethical approval has been given for EPs PhD already precisely because the dataset already exists at Aston. In a kind of "I'm using an approved internal dataset, nothing to see here". But any researcher worth their salt should CHECK that the rules haven't changed. Should check the rules of the website in question. So that's a failure on the supervisor and the student. Ethics is a big thing. Not getting informed consent from participants is a massive thing. And the rules on online datasets are changing rapidly and it is vital to stay informed.

The big issue here is the ethics of the Mumsnet dataset existing in the first place as it contravenes the T&Cs of the site.

To be clear, I am not affiliated with Aston or the PhD in question. Just someone else in the field watching with interest in how this all ends...

Is @JustineMumsnet aware of the other instances of Aston using MN data that have been unearthed by MN sleuths? Could someone list them for her?

I think this deserves a round of applause:

ArabellaScott · Today 09:58

Mumsnet estimate around 6,000 women have been helped to leave abusive relationships in the past three years.

^https://www.mumsnet.com/articles/violence-against-women^

There have been posts from women in a house waiting for the police while their ex tried to get in the front door. Posts from women in refuge with their children. Posts from women setting up a new life elsewhere in an atttempt to keep themselves and their children safe. We've had many, many posts from women discussing the dynamics of abuse, trauma, and recovery, as well as discussing the best ways to tackle MVAWG, including, shock horror, the need for single sex services.

Scraping Mumsnet risks their safety, as well as very definitely traumatising/retraumatising them.

Stick that in your 'sandbox', you unethical lowlifes.

My local refuge (I won't give further identifying details) publishes a regular newsletter for the public, in order to encourage donations. The newsletters feature what you might expect: thank-yous to particular donors; information on what the refuge is doing with their funding; articles from women given refuge.

One letter I particularly noticed, because the woman mentioned that she'd contacted the refuge because of advice on... mumsnet.

She was very positive about her stay, and she's now been moved on to somewhere safe. I'd donate to the refuge anyway, but it's nice to know that my tiny donations have specifically benefited another mumsnetter.

From Justine's post in site stuff - Aston seem to be very much taking the "head pats and suck it up ladies" approach to dealing with this.

They can't have scraped previous data very well if they think we're satisfied with head pats.

Testing name changes

Did anyone post on AIBU about the data scrape in the end? Or is it considered a TAAT?

I've reregistered to comment on this! I've been a long time lurker on various threads; I was a commentator for a while prior to the stupid Scotland hate crime act. I'm back because I love Mumsnet for advice, guidance and the general camaraderie of women on here (and occasional men too). I love how the users help each other out in a crisis (like what Arabella posted further up). It's a supportive online space.

Anyway this is like a film script this thread (actually the second thread). I have read them both, and concur with previous posters that Aston have a lot of questions to answer and hopefully Justine is not patronised by them and she really fights this.

This revelation happening post Cass is significant as well I think.

I recall a thread from one evening in March 2020, a woman asking in AIBU whether she was BU travelling during lockdown to flee to her family to leave her husband whose physical and emotional abuse had escalated. She feared being turned back because she wasn't travelling to a shelter place and the further escalation that would follow if she was turned back because he would know that she'd tried to leave. We cited Liz Truss's assurances that this was very much OK. We sign-posted her to Refuge etc.

She updated the following afternoon to tell us that she'd left whilst he was out running and was safe with a relative, and that for the first time she had looked at her bruises and not blamed herself for them.

Mumsnet support doesn't just save women physically, it saves us mentally too. These threads aren't linguistic datasets, they are documentation of the worst parts of women's lives.

I decided not to because I thought perhaps MNHQ would put something out when they knew more about Aston and the situation was clearer. Do you want to?

I'm in two minds - I've had a particularly stressful couple of weeks and not sure I'm quite mentally prepared to do it yet. It's the sort of post I'd keep obsessively checking and probably lose sleep over.

Also, I'd also like to get some of the evidence together first before posting, so people can look themselves, which will take more time than I can afford right now due to work responsibilities.

I'm kind of expecting the following unhelpful responses, which I would ignore but it'd wind me up 😂:

1. FWR is transphobic so you all deserve it (I wasn't going to mention the transphobia PhD, just data scrape and the seminar analysing particular topics, but I suspect someone will bring it up)
2. What's the issue, it's a public site?!

I think most of us are in the same position though

I think if someone does do an AIBU (though I think we'd be better waiting to hear back from Justine re: the meeting), then the title in particular needs to be absolutely explicit. No mention of FWR or the PhD research (that can be detailed in the OP) but something like -

'Did you know that your posts are being scraped by universities for research, against the terms and conditions of this site?'

It won't stop the inevitable tide of 'but all posts are public!!!!!' but might help.

I think this is big but we should bide our time before drawing too much attention to it.

No doubt there are now two opposing legal teams involved and the legal arguments are from several different areas of law.

MN data is worth a fucking fortune (we all know social media companies make shit loads of cash selling our data to advertisers) it’s not ok to just take it all, make your own copy and offer access on your terms, not MN’s.

And that’s before you get into the more complicated stuff.

I also can’t wait for the next update from Justine and the VC, and the results from the beautiful FOI that was filed yesterday.

For pities sake Justine, even if you end up taking a pay off from Aston, please don’t sign an NDA - we need to know the goss!

Glad to see there are plenty of non-selfish reasons for me not to post right now 😂

I must admit I'm some what confused. The below paper admits to data scraping mumsnet but also claims to have permission (see screenshot).

Its not Aston but Lancaster and there are at least 2 recent papers on vaccinations and mumsnet using the same scraped corpus (see below). The other paper not linked is about online hesitancy re the hpv vacvine and includes some really personal and painful experiences in what looks like direct quotes from the thread in question.

Having talked about being violently raped and having had postpartum psychosis amongst other things on mumsnet, I have a few questions which include:

What exactly is the process for receiving consent to use Mumsnet for research and does anyone from Mumsnet check how they are accessing data and what conclusions they draw?

Coltman-Patel, T., Dance, W., Demjén, Z., Gatherer, D., Hardaker, C., & Semino, E. (2022). ‘Am I being unreasonable to vaccinate my kids against my ex’s wishes?’ – A corpus linguistic exploration of conflict in vaccination discussions on Mumsnet Talk’s AIBU forum. Discourse, Context & Media, 48, 100624-.

I would also rather wait for Justine. This is big so it will take time to see how the land lies and figure out a strategy. Let's keep our powder dry.

Dorriethelittlewitch · Today 15:16

I must admit I'm some what confused. The below paper admits to data scraping mumsnet but also claims to have permission (see screenshot).

They may have asked for permission to use a very narrow data set, with anonymised contributions, but they certainly haven't - according to MNHQ - had permission to rip the entire site, to use as they see fit.