Mumsnet moderation - response to yesterday's feedback

I suspect that we've been singled out by e.g. Pink News not so much because we're largely female but because they know that Mumsnet/ Mumsnetters have that influence and so yes, they'd love to have the world (and in particular the lawmakers) believe we're a haven for shouty transphobes and will do their best to discredit our forums.

I'm so pleased to see you say that, JustineMumsnet. One key virtue of maintaining Mumsnet standards in discussion is that it prevents TRA from doing what they do in every other forum. Elsewhere they silence debate because they can't afford to debate.

Because when you compare gender ideology to gender critical feminism coolly and in detail, it's clear that gender ideology appears to be faith based; a belief that people can change sex through wishful thinking. That wouldn't matter if the ideology wasn't the biggest threat to women's rights for a hundred years.

And then there's the kids ..

Pink News attacks us because our civilised, measured argument threatens to reveal that the Emperor has no clothes.

I apologize for letting myself be drawn in, again. And yet again.
I am still struggling to resist saying what I see.

You can't, and shouldn't try, to tell someone else what to say or what to think.

Kitchenrollin

You said this four pages back and yet you've gone on to do this, repeatedly.

Its a significant thread. An important one.

Have you read it?

Do you see how different your style and content is?

You clearly have stongly held beliefs and opinions. Why not start a thread?

Yeah, so now you're troll-hunting too.

You illustrated beautifully that extreme feminists are the first to oppress women with less extreme views.

There are some awesomely condescending, self important and holier than thou commenters tonight.

It actually doesn't change the point thebewilderness.

FYI, I was describing a classic trolling style, not Godwin's Law.

Again, your attitude doesn't go unnoticed and it's not to your credit.

"We're very disappointed in you".

No one is wondering anything any more at all. They don't know or care what you are blathering about.

mogleflop Well yes, you are. And you clearly don't care. Which is what I'm interested in readers of these threads having an opportunity to see.

bewilderness

So there is a sneering reference to Godwin's Law. As there is any time the war is mentioned on a feminist thread as evidence for any point. And the point is always ignored. There is simply a rude agreement that oh you knew it, bingo, Godwin's Law has struck again. You use Godwin's law as a way of ignoring whatever point has been made that you don't want to hear. Yet if the point proved Godwin's Law, it must have been referring to the war and some learning opportunity for humanity that is related to that experience.

And yet, despite responding to anything referring to the war in this incredibly irreverent way (or anything to do with war or, bizzarely North Korea, it seems now) it is a 'galloping assumption' to think you are not interested in learning from it.

Disingenuous doesn't begin to describe you.

There is a difference between the content of a suggested political way forward being based around a 'just be nice' model (which is not what I'm suggesting) and 'just being nice' at the expense of assertively making your point. No one is asking you to do either. But yes, if you're looking for an oppression narrative (and an excuse not to be civil) it is helpful to interpret a suggestion to 'be nice' that way.

I meant there is a way to be civil and respectful towards other women, men, Justine and whoever else you think you're talking to. There's a way to talk that recognises the need to listen to other positions in a way that fosters real debate and increased respect, even if you are not prepared to make compromises. One way you should interact civilly is by not doing something that you are currently doing. You shouldn't silence other women and then pretend you have a larger consensus than you do. Women aren't behind you in the streamlined way your echo chamber would suggest. If I was a radical feminist and genuinely cared about women, I'd want to hear from the ones who didn't agree and work out if there was a genuine difference in perspective or just a misunderstanding for my learning and theirs. You haven't done this. You refuse to allow less extreme views a voice (often through 'low' tactics such as name-calling, troll-hunting, man-hunting, shaming, and teasing).

Yet you wonder why people holding different views privately message posters to say thank you when their views are expressed, rather than expressing those views themselves? I think that's disingenuous. Who would want to get on the wrong side of a group who turns abusive when challenged?

You're often nasty to people who don't agree with you, deliberately missing points because, of course, you're not interested in the debate or the view of any woman who doesn't agree with you. You want a full thread putting forward your own propaganda. No wonder you don't like long posts from people who disagree!

Something that puzzles me is: why are you keen not to learn anything from some of the gravest, most harmful and relevant mistakes of the last century?

Here's the thing.
When people make these galloping assumptions, in the form of an accusation framed as a question, everyone here recognizes what is being done. Very obvious, you are.

Should I slink away now that it has been revealed that I cannot spell women's? Criminy!

And you wonder why posters aren't leaping at the thought of a 'debate' with you.

The women here prefer discussion to debate.
It is MNHQ and the transgender advocates that keep insisting we debate woemen's right to say no.

So ... "You're mean"?

Well argued

What intellect, what reason, what logic.

And you wonder why posters aren't leaping at the thought of a 'debate' with you.

Something that puzzles me is: why are you keen not to learn anything from some of the gravest, most harmful and relevant mistakes of the last century? Godwin's law says nothing about what a discussion about the war might offer, only the likelihood of the subject coming up (not that I was planning to bring it up). I cringe for you that you say this like it's clever and funny. But humanity made some terrible mistakes and there is a great deal we still need to learn to avoid repeating some of them. But no, have an in-joke and miss the point. Again, your attitude doesn't go unnoticed and it's not to your credit.

To be fair, westboro set the awfulness bar high.

‘He’s a Jong ‘un’

(I think you need a Yorkshire accent to make this amusing...)

Is Kim Jong-un the new Godwin's law do you think? I've seen him cited a few times now.

Westboro Baptist Church getting quite a few mentions.

Is Kim Jong-un the new Godwin's law do you think? I've seen him cited a few times now.

But yeah, if you can't articulate what you mean, it's hard to discuss it.

I think that's half the problem though: essentially the TRA movement and mantras are illogical and based on "be nice".

I doubt people can easily articulate why gender critical points of view are wrong (for example, "you can't really change sex" or "the current statistics on transgender suicide are manipulative and incorrect") because the other side isn't really about facts, it's about feelings.

This is why the two sides will never meet I think, and why a debate is difficult, if not impossible. It's why it's easier to shout "terf" and "transphobia" than say "yeah okay you have a point there, but..."

Not playing very nicely either. And I think you know it.

Women must be nice eh?

Many perspectives may exist, but in any objective discussion they will not all be of equal validity. ‘Which is the best flavour of ice cream’ would be an example where anyone’s opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. ‘Can humans change sex?’ Is an objective question and the answer is no. So while people may have all sorts of views on spectrums and what have you, their opinions are not in fact equally valid.

THIS

Ha! You should think twice about why people don't do as you suggest. Kim Jong-un probably thinks people should air their views more also

kitchenrollinrollinrollin earlier on this thread you commented, "You do not have the political corner or the media corner."

I responded, "This statement of yours is true and therein is the central issue. Its about power."

Worth considering?