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

I’ve always understood that bias can involve presenting only one side of an argument.

From Eve Livingston's article that Eden Palmer referenced

In March of this year, former intern Emma Healey publicly criticizeded_ the site’s stance on trans rights and shared private internal communications on the subject. Healey alleged that the “vast majority” of trans discussion on Mumsnet “descends into scaremongering and hate speech,” claiming that the company dismissed staff concerns about the offensive tone of the posts.^

This was illegal doxxing of the IP addresses of members, not "sharing internal communications".

In April, former Mumsnet employee Hannah Woodhead wrote inin Huckck magazinene_: “The anti-trans community on Mumsnet is something of an open secret. It has been present for years, and it appears that there has, for a while, been a lax approach to tackling this particular form of hate speech.”^

Eden is a grown-up. She is old enough to have gained a degree and been accepted to do a PhD. She is therefore, in my view, old enough to understand ethical questions about using people's internet posts without their consent and about labelling those same people as "transphobes" before having even begun her research.

Yes, I agree.

It definitely strikes me as very unethical to be publicly linking usernames of individual posters across multiple sites based on forensic linguistic techniques.

We don't definitely know they are doing this. It's a concern.

Me too.

The first thing that Eden's supervisor did when this story broke is change her TwiX banner from suffragatte photo to massive trans flag. I infer from that non-verbal communication that said supervisor thinks that research ethics don't apply when the subjects are accused of wrongthink.

Actually no, I am angry with them. Yes they have revealed a rotten hornets nest, and should have been supervised better, but they also have responsibility in slandering mumsnetters as transphobic hate criminals. Those in their early to mid twenties can be expected to take responsibility for their actions too. Just because I think Aston is the principal baddie here doesn’t mean postgraduate students are absolved of their own culpability.

Given that Nicci's non-verbal communication to us was to change her TwiX banner from a vintage "votes for women" photo to a massive trans flag with "trans rights are human rights" on it, it's clear to me who's the puppet master in this.

I am not sure Nicci is the puppet master here either. I think she is dancing to the tune of others too. But again, has responsibility for her own actions.

The thing is, this PhD isn’t supposed to be about whether or not gender critical views or transgender beliefs are correct/incorrect morally superior/inferior. It’s about the linguistics. The research should be judged on the methodology and execution of the study rather than on whether or not other academics agree with gender critical views or transgender views. It would be a waste of time and pages for the student to pretend to be able to keep a neutral stance on the issue. So yes they have an obvious bias but it’s not the word I would choose to describe the situation because we think of bias as something that needs to be corrected - that we should maintain neutrality in all situations. But that’s not always a good idea when we have strong feelings on a subject. Sometimes it’s better to own our own viewpoint and acknowledge it’s incompatibility with the opposing viewpoint rather than pretend to be neutral or capable of balance on the subject.

The first thing that Eden's supervisor did when this story broke is change her TwiX banner from suffragatte photo to massive trans flag. I infer from that non-verbal communication that said supervisor thinks that research ethics don't apply when the subjects are accused of wrongthink.

Me too. Extraordinarily tone deaf and crass thing to do. Basically thumbing her nose at the women concerned that hostile people were picking through the posts they made when they were extremely vulnerable and posting about sensitive issues such as baby loss, bereavement, infertility, domestic and sexual violence.

I read the article on mumsnet by Hannah Woodhead in Huckmag and wondered if she re-read it herself whether her views had changed in light of more recent events.

There are lots more examples in the news of the things she thought would never happen. The thing is, the old you get, the more likely you have experience that they do.

I'm going to be honest I'm annoyed that my glorious outfit to disguise real life me will no longer be required

Why did Eve Livingston feel the need to downplay what Emma Healey did?

@Boiledbeetle There's another mystifying example of nonverbal communication

"And I agree with pp that someone could definitely write a paper about what happens when users publishing comments on an internet forum realize those comments have become the subject of research."

Working title: The Abyss Is Gazing Back

Nonsense. If you are not capable of balance that means you are not capable of weighing the evidence impartially. Which means your research is also nonsense.

What happens when vipers become aware of your presence and that you carry a big stick?

I'd read that thesis.

Hola! New username. Throwing in Espanolese which I had never studied to confuse le dredgers.

No, because this research isn’t trying to answer the question of whether gender is real or whether women’s rights or transgender rights should be given priority in X situation. The research seems to be about how language use that the student deems to be transphobic spreads and evolves within a speech community. So one super important thing the student needs to do is define transphobic language. We don’t have to agree with whatever definition they come up with to be able to follow and understand the research. That definition does need to make logical sense and also be workable. It needs to be clear to anyone reading the study what counts and does not count as transphobic language using a that definition.

I want credit in the acknowledgements, I could do with another paper to add to my cv.

Ok I see your point on that. But the bias still causes issues because it still means evidence is not weighed up equally. When you start from a point that there is mumsnetters are committing hate crime and you are looking to study that, you give more weight to evidence that upholds your definition of hate crime than evidence that disputes it. You will have put greater effort into discarding that which goes against your beliefs and give more leniency to than which confirms to them. And you might not even be aware you are doing it. That is why amongst the blindings on the ‘gold standard’ RCTs in medical trials is that those assessing the outcome measures are blinded to the treatment received.

I wish to distance myself from those socks but the rest of it - dang we're busted.