Advanced search

Oh look, it's those guidelines making no sense whatsoever again!

(692 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

TheProdigalKittensReturn Mon 04-Nov-19 17:09:48

So, I got an email about a comment in which I said that I wanted to know why genderists keep comparing trans identified males to black women and lesbians being deleted. I think this is absolutely barmy, and have said so to HQ. I'm also baffled as to how this breaks any guidelines and thought perhaps it was time for us as a group to revisit the guidelines and explain once more to MNHQ why they're not working.

What's actually happening here is the the obsessive trans activists who monitor this site are attempting to pick off posters one by one. We lost Orchid last week, and she was just the most recent of many. I'm not sure in MNHQ realize that's happening and welcome it or if it's somehow escaped their notice, but it's a pretty messed up thing for them to be allowing to happen to their users, in my opinion. Are they going to allow this to continue until the only commenters left in this forum are the TRAs who want the entire site shut down?

I know the people who despise the women here would very much like this to all happen under the radar, and that's exactly why I'm not allowing it to play out that way.

OvaHere Mon 04-Nov-19 17:20:29

Well said.

ErrolTheDragon Mon 04-Nov-19 17:21:16

You've used a phrase there which is pretty much explicitly banned by the guidelines, kitten, I'm afraid. There is some explanation of MNHQs thinking on that. Not saying I agree, but imo it's best to just steer clear of own goals.

littlbrowndog Mon 04-Nov-19 17:21:42

Yes exactly kittens

TheProdigalKittensReturn Mon 04-Nov-19 17:25:14

I can't quote the comment that was deleted here in case they delete it again but it really was completely banal and not in any way in breech of the guidelines, unless we're not allowed to say "trans identified males", in which case that's ridiculous and an attempt to compel speech. I have of course emailed a response but I disapprove strongly of attempts to handle this in a way that isolates each woman being targeted and leaves her without the ability to discuss what's happening with other women. We need to be discussing this as a group.

TheProdigalKittensReturn Mon 04-Nov-19 17:28:03

Well, if the phrase "trans identified males" is banned then here I am very publicly registering my objection to that, because it's absurd. If that's the policy it needs to be changed. They also need to start explaining precisely what they're objecting to in comments they delete rather than a waffly "this breaks guidelines" with no explanation as to why.

HandsOffMyRights Mon 04-Nov-19 17:30:00

Agree wholeheartedly.
The smear campaign against Mumsnet and picking off posters shows how desperate MRAs are to silence us.

LangCleg Mon 04-Nov-19 17:30:53

Initial thought on the specifics: genderists ≠ transpeople. Genderists = all people who subscribe to postmodernist/queer theory ideology. Many such people are not trans. So the rule about not generalising about transpeople does not apply.

Have the rules changed? Is it now not permissible to criticise a particular socio-political ideology?

Also: it's fucking racist to compare black women to people who aren't women. RACIST. Are we not allowed to name racism if it offends the sacred caste?

LiterallyProblematic Mon 04-Nov-19 17:32:25

I've had two posts and a thread deleted recently. I think they are really clamping down. I think peaktrans might be another term they are automatically deleting.
It's a shame. It must be about advertising revenue, but censorship is surely counterproductive.

LangCleg Mon 04-Nov-19 17:32:45

Oh, and placing an obligation on women to endlessly self edit for fear of causing offence about phrasing - there's a name for that: coercive control.

ErrolTheDragon Mon 04-Nov-19 17:34:32

Pretty sure from what kittens said it's not 'genderists' which was deemed problematic, Lang.

Here's what's probably the relevant section. Maybe we should have a thread under Site Stuff to critique specific parts of the guidelines?

^ ^*Can I use the expression ‘TIM’ (trans-identified male) in conversation with one another, as long as we don’t use it in conversation with someone who is themselves transgender?*
We're likely to delete this term however it's used. 'Trans-identified' seems pretty goady – people generally don't identify as trans, but as the opposite sex. As someone said on this threadd^^, one person can't really tell another how they identify, even if they disagree with the logic.
‘TIM’ also focuses heavily on natal sex. We don’t wish to prevent anyone from asserting as part of their gender critical position that transwomen are born male, and as ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment. But we think trans people will feel unwelcome if users habitually use a collective term which defines them by an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected, so we’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people which centre on natal sex.^

LumpySpacedPrincess Mon 04-Nov-19 17:36:20

Yes, I've had similar recently. I used men with a trans identity so is that banned?

TheProdigalKittensReturn Mon 04-Nov-19 17:37:58

That term isn't goady, it's factual. I hadn't noticed that it had been added to the guidelines but again, that's ridiculous and it needs to be removed. Adding that forces women to use the term "transwomen", which is compelling people to say something they don't believe to be true. Absolutely not on at all and nobody should be given a strike for that.

Has peak trans been added to the guidelines? If not and they're deleting people for it then again, that's just not on.

ErrolTheDragon Mon 04-Nov-19 17:41:57

I don't disagree, kittens, but I think that section has been there since the clarifications were added (19 June 2018)

There's no mention of 'peak trans', no idea why that might be deemed problematic.confused

Hazardd Mon 04-Nov-19 17:45:57

Maybe and this is just maybe...

Comparing black women's oppression or describing/suggesting black women as a "type" of woman is so utterly offensive and in poor taste.

The mere idea is so horribly racist and HQ took the stand that they will not spread such ideology even when it's spoken about unfavourable.


So maybe mumsnet is coming down tough on the spread of racist ideology and should be applauded. Maybe hmm

TheProdigalKittensReturn Mon 04-Nov-19 17:47:17

Well, I'm officially very pissed off now after receiving a generic brush off in response to my attempt to communicate directly with MNHQ as they asked that we do. And that's why this thread exists. If they're going to coercively control their users and force us to call males women then that is going to happen in public rather than women being targeted and having no way of expressing to their fellow commenters what's being done to them.

Presumably I will be banned for this but I would rather go out fighting than meekly submit to coercive control in the guise of "hosting debate".

ShesDressedInBlackAgain Mon 04-Nov-19 17:47:23

Ah 'peak trans' got added to the 'really useful phrases that describe the GC position and should therefore be verboten' list a couple of weeks ago didn't it?

ErrolTheDragon Mon 04-Nov-19 17:48:15

Here's a specific question for @MNHQ

I assume you agree with us that compelled speech is wrong? So, what form of words can be used by posters who fundamentally object to terms which include 'woman' when referring to transgender people who were born male?

If there's no acceptable term which doesn't include 'woman', then such posters are gagged, I'm absolutely sure that is not what you want.

ControversialFerret Mon 04-Nov-19 17:51:05

Dear MNHQ,

Please remember that only women give birth - and that 'Mums' specifically refers to women.

Whilst the site has grown to include all sorts of other things, it would be a massive own goal to alienate your core readership - which is women.

An adult human female.

ErrolTheDragon Mon 04-Nov-19 17:51:59

I've just reported that post of mine - and now I need to make dinner. I'd much rather have a considered response than a quick one on this so I shall be patient.

LangCleg Mon 04-Nov-19 17:52:47

I assume you agree with us that compelled speech is wrong? So, what form of words can be used by posters who fundamentally object to terms which include 'woman' when referring to transgender people who were born male?

In the many site stuff threads about the guidelines when they first came in, I asked several times for an acceptable term for people not of my sex that does not use words pertaining to my sex.

Answer came there none.

PencilsInSpace Mon 04-Nov-19 17:54:14

people generally don't identify as trans, but as the opposite sex.

This is inaccurate isn't it?

Unless we are talking about a specific individual who has stated their 'gender identity' we have no way of knowing if a trans person, who is male, identifies as a woman, as non-binary, as gender fluid, as genderqueer, as trans femme ...

And it makes not a blind bit of difference to us. The only reason there is a problem in the first place is that they are male and they are harming women's rights.

TheProdigalKittensReturn Mon 04-Nov-19 17:56:39

Answer came there none.

Hence my anger. I had thought they had seen sense about this and realized that forcing their mostly female users to refer to males as women was unreasonable. It is unreasonable.

ErrolTheDragon Mon 04-Nov-19 17:57:18

Good point, pencils.
'Male who identifies in one of the many and various ways encompassed by the Stonewall umbrella' is a bit of a mouthful, though.

StopThePlanet Mon 04-Nov-19 17:59:21

"Trans identified..." is accurate yet banned IIRC. Remember ladies, be polite to your own detriment... SMILE PRETTY now.

I recently had a thread deleted that had nothing to do with trans individuals nor any links to said individuals.

My thread was about a mainstream movie on Netflix that exposed a female child in a way I (and DH) found disturbingly inappropriate. It was obvious that I tried incredibly hard to phrase things in a direct yet careful way. My concerns were about exploitation of a baby girl and why it is okay (in media) to expose a child's private areas in the name of "Indi artsy films".

I don't know wtf is going on around here. While I doubt anyone would notice if I disappeared from MN (as of late I rarely post anything) I find the thread delete with no reason (I didn't break guidelines I didn't say anything controversial or insulting) to be highly censuring of my speech. I am concerned that my want to discuss the exploitation of a child, a female child was found to be offensive or whatever bullshit the mods conjured up to block discussion about a very important topic highly relevant to FWR. How is it not okay on FWR of all places to be concerned about a female child's inability to consent to lingering exposure of her body?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »