The managed silence of women in politics

[IwantToRetire]

None of this needs a censor’s red pen. It takes venue policies, “values” statements and security theatre – and a legal climate ambiguous enough to chill – to make people police themselves. That’s how self-censorship becomes the house style.

You don’t need prohibitions when you have process. Venue terms. HR protocols. “Dignity at work” rules stretched past their purpose. Security assessments that become vetoes in all but name.

Layer in legal fog – see the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, with its elastic definitions of “abusive” speech – and the effect is predictable: people trim sentences, swerve topics, decline invitations, and ladle on caveats until the point collapses.

Result: careful words, careful silences, careful disengagement. The oxygen leaks out of debate and everyone learns to breathe shallowly.

... watch where the stage literally disappears – where apologies are issued for a guest’s presence, and “security” is the pretext for cancellation. It clusters around women who speak plainly on sex and gender, or whose faith informs their politics.

For years they were told to take up space. Now the instruction is different: mind your tone, moderate your beliefs, make yourself smaller. That’s not equality; it’s an equal-opportunities gag.
Hard censorship is obvious: a cancelled event, a withdrawn platform, a disciplinary.

Soft censorship is subtler and more corrosive: “we can’t support the impact of hosting you”; “let’s not distract from priorities”; “for unity, could you not raise this now?” None of those measures bans content. All shrink the space where women can contribute. ...

Continues at https://thinkscotland.org/2025/11/censorship-with-paperwork-the-managed-silence-of-women-in-politics/

Honestly, if the staff felt panicky at the presence of Kate Forbes I don't know how they get through life. And the staff who refused to work at a Joanna Cherry event? Why weren't they sacked? Why do the managers give in to these people?

While I get the chilling of speech angle, I don't see how this is just exclusive to women in politics. It's not as if any of us who don't self censor to some degree don't get pushed to the fringes if we are deemed 'offensive'. I mean, that routinely happens on MN where offended posters tell other posters not to engage with those who don't toe the official GC line …as ironically the OP has done. You can't have it both ways.

Do people have the right to be platformed/invited everywhere or they are being 'censored'. That's ludicrous. People having the right to say things is not the right to force everyone everywhere to hear them & that applies universally.

Unless you break the site rules, you won't get deleted. Literally hundreds of your postings stand. I think you have interpreted robust disagreement as silencing. It isn't.

A recommendation that posters don't engage with you is usually an attempt to keep the thread on-topic and stop people from filling up the 1000 post limit with replies to your derailing. Unlike the policies, "values" statements, and other means of silencing women mentioned in that article, a recommendation by a Mumsnet poster is just a recommendation. It has no force the way that a HR "dignity at work" policy, a security assessment that penalises event organisers for the risk of property damage inflicted by protestors, or a grievance procedure has.

"Unless you break the site rules, you won't get deleted. Literally hundreds of your postings stand. I think you have interpreted robust disagreement as silencing. It isn't."

I never claimed my posts were being unfairly deleted. MN mods are very reasonable in my view. Rather, my engagement was being limited by other posters who not only advised others not to engage but under the guise I was a perverted male getting my jollies at the distress of women.

A recommendation that posters don't engage with you is usually an attempt to keep the thread on-topic and stop people from filling up the 1000 post limit with replies to your derailing.

Except its exclusively applied to posters who challenge GC's & not GC friendly posters who routinely derail most if not all threads.

Unlike the policies, "values" statements, and other means of silencing women mentioned in that article, a recommendation by a Mumsnet poster is just a recommendation. It has no force the way that a HR "dignity at work" policy, a security assessment that penalises event organisers for the risk of property damage inflicted by protestors, or a grievance procedure has.

My point is this standard applies to everyone not just those with GC views. We are all expected to modify our speech in terms of a human right to 'dignity'.

The problem is when a whole ideology relies on not validating the existence of another group as deserving of rights, speaking about them with dignity becomes ….a 'challenge'.

howse doesn't have to post here

women do have to go to work

It's not just women who work or GC ideas that are deemed offensive & are self censored. We are all self censoring & for a wide variety of topics.

And the context of the link was politicians self censoring which is a hoot when you consider Starmer had a gun to his head regarding disavowing TWAW.

'my engagement was being limited'

Nobody is obliged to engage with you.

@IwantToRetire

Thanks for posting. Interesting piece.

Debate is definitely more febrile now, which impacts those participating negatively, I think.

Thanks I thought it was an interesting perspective.

And also thought it would be a good topic for a thread.

Somehow I had managed to forget that one of the usual suspects would try and not talk about the hub of the issue.

But on the other hand maybe it is a back handed compliment to start a thread and for it almost immediately to have an attempt to undermine it.

Of course. But there is a group effort to prevent engagement that's purpose is to effectively restrict speech….just like the OP's link claimed was happening only to GC politicians.

As most commenters here have. I'm no different & in fact I'm one of the few commenters that consistently address the issues specified OP's posts. The derailment is initiated from other commenters who want to challenge related aspects not me.

"The problem is when a whole ideology relies on not validating the existence of another group as deserving of rights"
I have to agree with you on this one, @Howseitgoin

Scotland's Hate Crime Act really is chilling. As was how the Scottish government tried to implement it when it came into force. It provides for up to 7 years in prison for "hate speech". I think one sign of an autocratic state is criminal penalties which seem to bear no relation to any harm that is done, especially when the background to it is so clearly ideological.

If a poster routinely posts provable bollocks, their expectation that they should be taken seriously, won't be matched by those reading said bollocks.

If a poster doesn't want to be challenged for posting provable bollocks, they have alternative opportunities on forums which are all about belief.

MN remains somewhere which values evidence based biology and science. This isn't controversial. It's the foundation of liberal democracy.

MN is just about the only place on the entire internet which centres the interests of biological women. Men dominate the rest of it. God forbid women are allowed to speak for themselves about themselves without criticism by males.

And STILL MN has a more relaxed attitude to censorship which doesnt remove posts which champion provable nonsense. Unlike Reddit and Facebook etc which will happily just ban and delete any woman who states in line with Forstater (you know the law) that they don't believe in gender replacing sex.

The issue isn't that posters males think they are being silenced on MN. The issue is they don't like it when they aren't getting all the attention and they don't like it when women disagree and have the audacity to speak without permission independently of the desires and wants of males.

Women on a women's forum speaking about women's rights on the feminist section and having the nerve to centre women is not silencing men come along purely to who say 'but what about the men?'!

They just aren't pandering to the men and putting the men first in about the only time and space they are free of being viewed only as support humans to males.

And by god males don't like that, do they?

Any women who have ever turned up to anything vaguely political knows they will almost certainly will be mansplained, talked over and patronised at some point during that meeting in a way that isn't done to the men present.

It's exhausting

What is the point of constantly posting on a feminist board where there is a shared understanding that women as a sex class are oppressed by the male sex class.

Therefore all discusion is through this prism.

If you dont believe this, then it is pointless being here because we want to be to expand and understand from that perspective.

Its a dumb as joining a marxist discussion group and then every time someone post something from a marxist prespective you challenge that.

If you dont believe in feminism or women's right to self determination and just want to hold everyone to ransom because you dont like them having the perspective, then obviously you are seen as a derailer.

This is a feminist board to discuss and understand through that shared perspective.

Endless whatabouterry are on one level just plain rude.

Its like forcing yourself into a mutual support group and insisting that you have the right to stay and then whine and moan about not being part of the mutual support even though you are patently aware you dont share the bases of that mutual support.

Why would anyone spend their time putting themselves into an environment they dont agree with just to be able to claim yet again they are the victim when actually they are just not aligned with that environment.

Surely somewhere in the vast and expansive internet you can find some with fellow feeing.

Or start your own thread asking what feminism is, and why you dont believe in it.

A "This a forum about dogs."
B "I want to talk about cats"
A "The cat forum is ilovecats.com. We are ilovedogs.com"
B "But I don't like dogs"
A "We're not cat ladies here I'm afraid."
B "Catphobes"
A "No we just prefer dogs and talk about things from the dogs pov."
B "You hate cats"
A "Not really I don't. I just prefer dogs". You could always create your own cat forum".

Thank you for posting this. It's good to see the mechanisms laid out so clearly.

"If a poster routinely posts provable bollocks, their expectation that they should be taken seriously, won't be matched by those reading said bollocks.
If a poster doesn't want to be challenged for posting provable bollocks, they have alternative opportunities on forums which are all about belief."

The issue isn't whether posters 'deserve' to be taken seriously or 'deserve' not to be challenged. The issue is a concerted group effort to silence them & silence any one who want's to engage with them.

"MN remains somewhere which values evidence based biology and science. This isn't controversial. It's the foundation of liberal democracy.
MN is just about the only place on the entire internet which centres the interests of biological women. Men dominate the rest of it. God forbid women are allowed to speak for themselves about themselves without criticism by males."

The feminism forum on MN is specifically titled:

"Feminism: Sex & Gender discussions"
"A feminism forum for sex and gender discussions, feminist chat, theory and intersectional feminism."

So you appear to be confused as to the nature & scope of relevant discussion that this forum has allowed for.

"MN is just about the only place on the entire internet which centres the interests of biological women. Men dominate the rest of it. God forbid women are allowed to speak for themselves about themselves without criticism by males."

And yet GC posters silence women with different points of view on the matter.

"Women on a women's forum speaking about women's rights on the feminist section and having the nerve to centre women is not silencing men come along purely to who say 'but what about the men?'!
They just aren't pandering to the men and putting the men first in about the only time and space they are free of being viewed only as support humans to males."

Some women would accurately argue that GC ideology is counterproductive to women's rights. The premise underlying Feminism has historically rejected biological essentialism as it limits women's opportunities.

You conveniently ignore trans men in all this 'man centring' ruse which smells exactly like refusing a seat at the table to female bodied people. Wasn't that supposed to be what feminism was against?

You don't seem to understand what the word 'discussion' entails & here's a clue:

It's not a an echo chamber support group environment which doesn't allow for opposing & challenging views.

Perhaps if its just a support group you seek then you might be best suited forming your own.

I mean the irony of complaining about censorship of discussion & then demanding a safe space on a public discussion board is mind blowing….

Make up your mind….

"You conveniently ignore trans men in all this 'man centring' ruse which smells exactly like refusing a seat at the table to female bodied people. Wasn't that supposed to be what feminism was against?"

Is anyone buying this today? Ever? No, didn't think so.

Since trans identified females (or "transmen") are in fact actually women, the women here have already included them when we talk about women, feminism and all the conversations that happen through that lens. Honestly what a stupid gotcha 😂

'What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet'

It's apparently a difficult concept for TRAs to wrap their heads around this. You can call men whatever you like, but regardless they will remain men. You can call women whatever you like, but regardless they will remain women.

Since trans identified females (or "transmen") are in fact actually women, the women here have already included them when we talk about women, feminism and all the conversations that happen through that lens. Honestly what a stupid gotcha 😂

Refusing to validate their identity as anything other than delusion & brain washing is hardly 'including' them or even hearing them. What a perverse corruption of meaning you need to justify the unjustifiable.

When the "you never think of trans men when you're talking about feminism!" gotcha is proven wrong the TRA shifts the goal posts to "No... But... Wait...Well fine!... But you don't validate them!.. Or listen to them!"

No we don't validate feelings over reality, obviously. That would be dangerous for various reasons, among other things

We have listened though. We might not always agree, and that's fine. The point remains that women with trans identities remain women regardless of what you call them, and because they are women they are included in discussions about the rights and needs of women, and feminism.

TRAs can shift the goal posts as much as they like, and they can mangle words as much as they like, unfortunately for them feminists, like reality, will persist regardless.

I don't really enjoy responding to these derailing TRA posts, especially given I know how the OP feels about it, so I will not be responding to Hows any further, I think he's a bit fragile *😂😂😂

(*He likes to call us fragile which is another "interesting" tactic - every accusation is a confession and all that.)

Edited to add that "delusion" and "brainwashing" were not words I have used, they were brought into this discussion by Hows... which is interesting isn't it? Especially considering my last paragraph 😂

I also think it's quite amusing that he usually puts word like fragile and upset in italics like that, so as to really draw attention to the insult in the hopes of hitting a nerve, it's very reminiscent of a small child having a tantrum and lashing out with words😂