Late night surprise about reputation of FWR

[IwantToRetire]

I was on Site Stuff to report back on ongoing freezing and noticed another thread about whether Mumsnet should apologise about deleting threads about ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

And there were some comments about there being a border line between legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and anti semitism. And it is this last that get these threads deleted.

So was surprised to see some comment on this thread saying it was as bad as some threads on FWR, and those particularly at fault are thos with a GC view point.

(Funnily enough AI suggested a title for this thread along the lines of "Are FWR debates judged differently ..... " but now it has hidden its suggestion, just when I was going to use it.)

Oh its come back

"Are sex and gender debates on FWR judged by different standards?"

The problem here is that you appear to see disagreement as criticism. So discussion is fine, as long as it's agreement, and in a tone you're happy with.

I think this board is just fine as it is. I've learned a huge amount from the very knowledgeable women on here, and I'm eternally grateful to them for putting so much of their time into the discussions.

I think it’s really just a matter of take it or leave it. Engage or don’t. The board dynamics are what they are.

“The point being, everything is criticised. Every phrase, down to each word.”

Language and words are often imperative to clarify to then counter if misinformation appearing. If someone is being questioned even down to a particular word they use, the word will generally be highly relevant to the person questioning the poster. It has a high likelihood of being relevant to the point being discussed.

This particular board is one where accurate information is vital to many who are gathering it for their campaign actions. So, yes. Even one word may be questioned. Particularly if that one word is not accurate and changes the meaning of intention of the point being made.

And if you are making a point on this particular discussion board on this issue, surely you want to also get feedback if you have posted something inaccurate. If questioned, surely it is a simple matter of providing evidence to support your posts or to support your interpretation of a situation?

Er, no.

I didn't imply you had one.

I was more thinking of the high-drama accusations and defensiveness tbh.

Absolutely 100% this. The reason why FWR is so hot on being crystal clear about what posters mean is because we have multiple examples of the word women being used to mean women and also some men.

the report yesterday on the women's charity sector is awash with examples of charities describing themselves as for women and using that description to fundraise but when you dig down, you discover they are for "anyone who identifies as a woman" so for women and some men

its endemic and if something is described as "for women" doesn't very clearly define that they mean actual biological women and only them, then I'll assume it's fir women and LARPing men and the ppl who run it will be of the TWAW variety

you can't defend what you can't define - so yes ppl will be nailed down as to what they actually mean because vague hand waving is how we've ended up with things originally for women now being 'and also some men'

ItsNotOrwell

If a lot of people here are surprised that you do agree with them, then presumably, it's your posting style that implies you don't.

It does happen. A poster doesn't initially signal any kind of agreement with what the women here are saying, but criticises how they're saying it, or a small part of it, and it's assumed, rightly or wrongly, that they disagree with the basic premise.

If there's no opinion from that poster on whether they support the women here, a criticism of tone, or a side argument, is all they've got.

If that's what's happened, you could absolutely name change and start again.

See if it all follows exactly the same path.

edited to add, that yes, as Helle points out, words are important. I don't know which words particularly you were speaking about, but, for instance, if someone uses the word cis, it will absolutely draw focus.

The bedrock of trans ideology is language. So yes, it's imperative that it is constantly questioned.

The pattern though MyAmpleSheep is even clearer when you realise that it only takes a small number of name changing users, all focused on making these declarations about hostility, aggression, hate, hive activity what ever they wish to accuse the regular posters of to make other posters who might not be aware that the posters have name changed to think there is greater numbers making the accusations than there really are.

In other words, as you say, this is the effect of sock puppeting. It is a way to increase the credibility of the accusations but it is artificial. It is, of course, what we are told that we do by extreme transgender rights activists. That we are just all sock puppets and that our opinion is the minority when, of course, it is not the minority opinion, our opinions and discussion points are supported (as per the polls) by the majority of people in the UK.

What I suspect happens here is that if posters regularly name change then non-regular posters will read about the accusations which may or may not be true representations of the behaviour of other posts but they will think it is a greater number of posters making the accusation as they will have seen those made by the same poster in the past and not connect the posters.

Particularly if the posters now make claims to be 'as GC as can be' when the reality is, under previous usernames they would not be viewed as being 'GC' at all. That poster can say anything they want including posting answers that are not true. Yet, no one can check.

Of course, people can name change as often as they want. However, as mentioned up thread, staying around and posting under a name that provides a continuous history requires a conscious decision. Particularly if your user name appears regularly for derision on other social media platforms. Often by those who name change and make accusation on the board.

When you consider what can be happening, it is a very interesting scenario.

The bedrock of trans ideology is language. So yes, it's imperative that it is constantly questioned.

Is a good point @Datun i hadn’t thought of it that may.

In over quarter of a century on the Internet, the only question I've ever had about any of my usernames is 'What's a binturong?' Plenty of arguments about what I've said, but never about what I'm called. Clearly I'm being insufficiently controversial.

I remember a few years ago, there was a ruckus here, because of swear words in usernames. Happy times.

I'm just disappointed how few people have clocked where my name comes from over the years I've had it. The only time anyone has said they recognise it was one of MNHQ responding to a report, who commented when she emailed me!

Blackadder?

ETA- I'm not a French pot. LOL!

Winner!

Remarkably literate for a French pot. 🤣

The point being, everything is criticised. Every phrase, down to each word. Previous posts, on the current thread and older threads. The username. Whatever my ideology might be, of course. Everything. Any infrequent or new poster on the board knows this.

Does not compute.

The first part of your allegation requires recognition of consistent patterns over time:

"everything is criticised. Every phrase, down to each word. Previous posts, on the current thread and older threads. The username. Whatever my ideology might be, of course. Everything"

The second part of your allegation is an assertion that posters who do not fulfil the conditions necessary to recognise consistent patterns over time are nevertheless able to do so:

"Any infrequent or new poster on the board knows this."

Conclusion: disingenuous bollocks!

Thank you for confirming what I said by analysing both phrases of my post, even if you did so inaccurately. Even if a poster is new to this board, that does not mean posts to other boards can’t be AS and picked apart. And that does happen.

So, in effect, you’re saying here that the people that the women that don’t agree with your position must be in such a small number that they must be the same person, and a TRA as well?

I am sorry but I don’t understand your question. I read it to be a disjointed sentence.

My point is not saying that they have to be a ‘TRA’. That could be your own need to polarise the points I have made.

I have seen enough opinions of people arriving on this board who accuse women of being hateful when they partially agree or even mostly agree with the opinion of majority of the posters on this board. Whether they agree with others or not, the accusations come. And who can check?

There has been an increase over the past years of posters making declarations that because of perceived behaviours of women who support the exclusion of male people, they have changed their mind. Which in my opinion can also then be used as a tactic to control women’s behaviour.

I consider the protection of female people to be important enough to support without it being a performance of my own virtue. I, personally, will change my opinion because of new information coming to the discussion, not because a group of people rejected my opinion in a way that I consider unkind. I find those arguments to irrelevant.

I understand that there are numerous reasons for some people to find female posters on this board to be good targets for their derision and it doesn’t mean that that fully support the claims that male people can change sex to be female. Sometimes it is could be as simple as them believing they are a better and/ or more moral person than others in their own opinion.

I am also pointing out the effect that can happen with frequent name changing. Do you deny that there is logic to my point that frequent name changing can add to the perception of more people saying the same thing? If so, feel free to explain why.

@Helleofabore

So you did understand what I wrote after all? But I thank you for your introductory barb.

My point is not saying that they have to be a ‘TRA’. That could be your own need to polarise the points I have made.
But you did suggest that this is may be lurking behind the frequent name-changing - a TRA. Just one.

Sometimes it is could be as simple as them believing they are a better and/ or more moral person than others in their own opinion.
No, I don’t think this. Everyone has a slightly different world view shaped by their experiences throughout life. That doesn’t make me better than anyone else or vice versa.

I am also pointing out the effect that can happen with frequent name changing. Do you deny that there is logic to my point that frequent name changing can add to the perception of more people saying the same thing? If so, feel free to explain why.
I think that an awful lot of posters would need to be changing their names fairly frequently to be creating this type of impression. MN has a lot of posters, even this board. I can see your point, though.

“So you did understand what I wrote after all? But I thank you for your introductory barb.”

Did I? I just answered the latter half of your question. I have no idea what “So, in effect, you’re saying here that the people that the women that don’t agree with your position” was? So I skipped it.

But hey, nice bit of hypocrisy about the barb. If you think posters are ‘hostile’ to you, have you wondered whether posters are responding to the hostility in your own posts?

FWIW I don’t think you are a TRA. I have perceived your distinctive style across multiple name changes, as a regular FWR poster, and therefore I agree with pp that you do have this same conversation under multiple usernames, which is absolutely your prerogative. It doesn’t mean anyone is required to agree with you, though.

Agree with this.

“But you did suggest that this is may be lurking behind the frequent name-changing - a TRA. Just one.”

’a TRA’ seems to have been your suggestion to my post that you asked the question about. You are the person reducing whatever point you are trying to make here to ‘one’. I wasn’t assuming it was one person at all.

I did point out that I didn’t understand your sentence. I then made general points to clarify my post that you questioned.

”No, I don’t think this. Everyone has a slightly different world view shaped by their experiences throughout life. That doesn’t make me better than anyone else or vice versa.”

And my point wasn’t in sole reference to you, it was a general one.

But you did suggest that this is may be lurking behind the frequent name-changing - a TRA. Just one.
No. The suggestion Helle made was that it is possible.

“The point being, everything is criticised. Every phrase, down to each word.”

I think that this point is becoming clearer and clearer.

Even if a poster is new to this board, that does not mean posts to other boards can’t be AS and picked apart. And that does happen.

I see what you are getting at now.

This is still not true though:

"Any infrequent or new poster on the board knows this."

There are often UserNames on threads on this board that I have never seen before and I am sure that other regular posters experience the same thing.

Some unfamiliar UserNames will be regular posters who have NC for some reason. Others will be "infrequent or new posters".

It definitely does not happen that every unfamiliar UserName finds that their posts to other boards are AS and picked apart.

I agree that it sometimes happens but it is hardly such a regular occurrence that "Any infrequent or new poster on the board knows this."

It would be happening extremely frequently and would be a feature of most threads if every regular poster who spotted an Unfamiliar UserName on a thread did an AS and as a result found something that they then chose to "pick apart".

There are 55,500 threads on this Board. Over 150 threads have been updated in the last 10 days.

It is ludicrous to suggest that "Any infrequent or new poster" on any of those threads would find that their posts to other Boards were being AS and then picked apart, or even that they would observe it happening to others.

It is simply not true.