Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

I've taking to typing "transactivists, and by that I mean the aggressive in your face trans supporter, not the ordinary trans people who just want to live their lives in peace" type sentences to try to avoid deletion offending anyone.

it makes posts a bit long.

bore

Yeah i get that

I stupidly posted comments as i read on a thread recently

You could tell exactly where i had reached in the thread

I actually think they must work through reports in time order. If there's a huge pile they may not even have reached Beachcomber's queries yet.

I agree with both of you

Still wouldnt have killed them to say they wouldnt get back to anyone til monday

I know im being a bit unreasonable...BUT IM NOYYED as my 5 year old used to say

There aren't many of them on at the weekend though Rufus and I really do think they are deluged at the moment.

Yy rufus. The radio silence is peculiar - they usually discuss changes a lot more than this, don't they?

That's why I wondered what was going on behind the scenes, whether they'd been advised legally that these were the best guidelines, or whether all decisions have come straight from HQ. I have a sneaking suspicion (though a bit of a tendency towards paranoia) that these changes have been pressured legally from TRAs (it was confirmed "TRA" is fine to post wasn't it? If not HQ, can you just edit it out of the post rather than delete it?) and the guidelines issued on advice from MNs legal bods. Which would explain the lack of interaction here, if they don't feel able to comment, iyswim?

Tra,s hunched over their screens. Made me laugh. The feckers should be out and about on a Saturday nigh5 enjoying themselves ffs

bore

I really think this is a steep learning curse for MNHQ

It would just be good if they could pop on with the occasional 'we are working on it' type comment

weezol

I dont think i have a brain anymore

And i really wanted to post something mean on another thread and i havent...AND ITS KILLING ME

I think you would all like my RL alter ego...im a complete cow

Which is why it makes sense for it to be reviewed. I think you might need to wait until,after the weekend for a response though, they will probably need to pass it up the line to the Head Mod.

Like I said, they'll be learning how to apply/interpret the new rules too.

Rufus, you're not alone in your confusion about the guidelines.

I am utterly befuddled by the last 48 hrs of 'clarification'. I think part of my brain has shut down in self-defence. I've just watched all three ad breaks in a recorded programme. Also occurred to me earlier that I'd been feeling cold for quite a while, but hadn't registered that I'm sat next to a open window.

I remember what I said and HQ were good enough to quote the sentence that made them delete me.

I genuinely don't understand why it merited deletion because as I said it was a comment about the ideology / movement of transgenderism. It wasn't a comment about people or maleness and didn't contain any acronyms.

No, don't risk reposting it Beachcomber

The mods are all getting used to the new rules too. When it comes to having to make a judgement call it's to be expected that they will not all make the same decision every time. Because they are human.

Couple that with the fact that they will have been deluged with reports from TRAs hunched over their screens just looking to take offence.

Ask in what way the post contravened the guidelines as you are honestly making an effort not to do so. Ask them to reconsider their decision.

OK I've reported the post above and asked HQ to comment.

I'm willing to repost what I said here although I will be deleted and it would be my second strike in one day...

Rufus, we will never get straightforward answers.

Even the original guidelines from mnhq used the words "probably", "probably not", "likely", "not too often" etc etc.

And that's before you even get into people reporting others for "intent" or "tone" or "attitude".

Beachcomber, if you remember the sentence mayby try using it with the words changed to "organised religion" or "Scientology" or "Creationism" or "Flat Earth Society" or some such. See what happens.

I do hope you called someone a cunt. I'm not even particular who

Report your most recent post and ask them to reinstate the deleted post Beachcomber.

They'll probably do it. Or they will tell you why they won't reinstate it.

They tend to take the line of least resistance in my experience. Particularly at weekends.

But critique of an ideology is NOT phobic.

Religious discrimination applies to people either individuals or groups. The ideologyvitself is up for as much criticism as you can chuck at it. The only way you can argue harm to a person is if the criticism is done in a way that either makes it discriminatory against an individual or inciting hatred against a group.

So for example tommy Robinson’s comments on Muslims recently outside a trial - wrong, incoteful etc.
Someone giving critique of Islam as a religion in a context like ‘I feel this is a patriarchal religion with disturbing views on x and y’ is NOT wrong.

Ditto Christianity. If I abuse someone for being Christian I’m wrong. If o talk about how Christianity over history has become a patriarchal religion, criticise bits of bible etc I am NOT in the wrong.

One of the points rowan Atkinson made to get Blair’s blasphemy laws torpedoed was that the vicar of bloody dibley would have fallen foul of the law. Since that’s about as gentle as comedy gets, he had a point.

Again - PEOPLE are protected, rightly.
IDEOLOGY is not.

This is very, very important

Well I would really like HQ to let me know why my comment broke the guidelines.

I suppose they could say "it was transphobic" in a general "it's the sort of statement that genderists don't like and which could hurt the feelings of people invested in transgender ideology".

But you could say that about most of the posts on FWR about transgenderism as an ideology.

Perhaps HQ would be good enough to explain on this thread why the comment was considered beyond the pale. I think it would be helpful to all of us to understand what we can and can't say by using some actual examples.

I didn't think for one second that I would be deleted. No acronym, no mention of a specific person, no mention of even the word male or any pronouns.

I criticised an ideology and said what type of movement I take it to be.

beach

Are you sure that you didn't accidentally call someone a cunt on your deleted thread

Im just think that coukd make a difference...

I would like HQ to explain why we cannot post critical comments about ideologies and also whether we can no longer criticise any ideology or if it is only transgenderism which is untouchable.

Really, really disturbing.

I'm getting a pissed off about this

If you check my posts I usually obey the rules, i think ive been deleted two or three times, mainly for quoting a deleted post

Im snarky and irritated at times but rarely rude or mean and i spend half my time apologising

And honestly...thats not me at all!!!

But MNHQ are not being fair...at all!! Its not fair not to tell people exactly why they are being deleted. Its not fair to add...frankly confusing, clarification to previously issued guidelines

Its not fair holding one board to a much higher standard than other boards...its not fair not telling people across the site that there have been changes that apparently affect everyone

I understand that MNHQ are trying not to have hard and fast rules about this...but there are pages of people saying 'can we say....' (and to be fair to MNHQ its usually ' of course you can...dont be stupid') and its virtually radio silence

It would be nice to have one thread with questions and answers...surely its not beyond the wit of woman to arrange that

Its really not fair to delete 'yawn' or 'bless'

I appreciate that this is a self reporting site

But lets be honest...only a complete cunt would report 'yawn'

And no....i really dont need any fucker saying...1st world problems or life isnt fair

Im having another beer and sulking in the corner watching Dr Who

It’s worrying to have a post criticising ideology deleted.

Critique of ideology is NOT breaking any laws. The laws (rightly) protect the people who hold the ideology not the ideology itself. So to criticise a religious colleague or to bang on about it in front of them at work is discriminating against a person.

To criticise the ideology however is not wrong. Not only is it not wrong but the ability to do it is a cornerstone of free societies. The only places that have laws against blasphemy are countries you wouldnt want to live in in a million years.

To be banned from criticising an ideology is worrying - we do not have blasphemy laws in the uk (thank fuck, although Blair tried to bring it in...) NO ideology is free from criticism or even mockery.

People are protected. Ideologies are not.

I've been deleted for a comment I made about transgenderism.

Not sure if it counts as a strike as there was no mention of that in the email but perhaps it was just on the basis of my being notified.

I'm unclear as to which guideline it broke.

It was a short comment about what type of ideology I think transgenderism is that got me deleted. There were no slurs or swearing, no acronyms and my comment was about the ideology / movement so not a comment about any person specific or otherwise.

I would like HQ to explain why we cannot post critical comments about ideologies and also whether we can no longer criticise any ideology or if it is only transgenderism which is untouchable.

I wonder if I would be deleted for making the exact same comment about other ideologies such as feminism, Marxism, etc. I suspect not.

I'm confused. I did try to read the thread, but im lost. Would someone mind summarising what the HQ position actually is?

I've been thinking about that Lang... I did ponder on the idea of using a common name, but not only is that a bit close to what incels do, I can imagine that people called eg 'Paris' who fall in that group would very quickly take offence.