Why is it suddenly ok to make multiple threads on the same subject over and over again?

Why was CaraDuneRedux banned? MN, I do my best to support you, I think Mumsnet is a wonderful resource and I value it highly.

I am truly gutted by this. I can't imagine Cara said anything that was beyond the pale. Another good woman kicked off here.

Things have been weird lately. The whole Twitter engagement thing was odd.

I'm delighted and happy to have a variety of views and posters, but to engage with PBPs on Twitter as happened last week felt like you were actively trying to find people who want to attack us and are going to post in bad faith. It feels like you're baiting them, and the women of MN are the bait.

I am not “ uncomfortable” with recent interactions. I am furious . Women are being silenced.

You're not allowing conversations. You're suffocating your members, inviting pile-ons from off the feckin board and you're enabling bad faith new posters to bully your regulars. It's mind blowing.

And its March 8th, International Women's Day . . . hard to tell, though sometimes. Last year. This year.

Becky, are you going to address any of the specific points and concerns people have raised about what happened and how it was dealt with?

So new inflammatory posters can say whatever they like to stir the pot/poke the nest and anyone who has been here for years gets chastised/deleted/banned for reacting to it?

I’m all for debate and I’m all for a broad church. But it doesn’t mean you should invite nippy foxes into the hen coop just for clicks and giggles.

So to clarify -

You will deliberately invite people from another platform to goad the regular posters on this site and allow them to use language which you know the majority of users of this site find offensive, while gagging the regular posters because of the very narrow, ever-changing talk guidelines which don't seem to be written down anywhere clearly, some of which are deeply subjective.

When the bad faith posters retreat to their platform, having got all the screenshots they need to 'prove that Mumsnet is transphobic', having stated this quite openly, you will thank them for coming.

That's...quite a statement to stand behind.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet you say We are committed to allowing conversations on this topic to showcase the full range of opinion.

But that's not true, because you are not allowing me to express my opinion. My understanding is I am barred from saying: e.g.
TM instead of trans woman
transwo**n as one word
pek trans
'him' where a poster might prefer 'her'

Has this now changed?

There is also a huge difference between being welcoming to newbies and MNHQ visiting a rival SM platform to invite hostile posters to join MN. That is irresponsible behaviour. I'm not clear why you think inciting conflict on your own platform is a sensible way to attract and retain advertisers or users.

So still no answer to the pretty straightforward question many have asked then? Namely:

If transwomen say that "cis" is essential language to describe women even though it offends many women, and women say that "man/male" is essential language to describe transwomen even though it offends many transwomen, why is the former accepted and the latter denied?

Is it because it's more important for TW to be able to speak freely and not be offended than it is for women to be able to speak freely and not be offended? Is it because you think TW are more offended by being called men than women are by being called cis? Either you believe us that we find cis just as offensive but think that womens feelings are less important than TW feelings, or you think we're actually lying about being offended. So which is it? Why are their feelings more important than ours? Why are you more inclined to believe them than us?

I mean, I know the answer really. For all of human history women's feelings have mattered less, and our words have been worth less, than the feelings and words of another group. I'd love to say which group that is - that's pretty central to addressing the problem after all - but unfortunately that group have requested that I be banned from naming them.

It's indefensible of course, but I'd still be interested in hearing MNHQ give it a go.

You're right, the two different subjects are different in subject matter.

I remember the Guardian had to turn off comments on their Beauty column after years of helpful discussion between users about how to tackle skin conditions, find a decent sunscreen, or replacement for discontinued product, because it got bombarded every week with people coming on to comment that you only need soap and water and it was vain and selfish to spend money on any other product. The same comments appeared multiple times every single week, clearly for the sole reason of disrupting and derailing the regular discussion. The clear parallels were the lack of engagement in good faith discussion by the troll brigade, and the personal attacks dressed up as "helpful" ill-informed comments.

Discussing women's rights and trans rights is hardly the same as a new pair of shoes or latest style of dress though, is it , so not really comparable to compare to style and beauty boards.

But we would also all do well to remember that this product is not like ready meals or cardboard boxes or fast fashion or even farm animals or benefit claimants. In this case, if the product is pissed off enough it can just walk away. So it's in MNHQ's interests to look after its product and keep it happy.

The trick is to not make it so extremely blatantly obvious to the product that it is the product. Dangling us out on Twitter for clicks was inevitably going to piss lots of us off.

This is why I have not signed up for premium, despite regularly advocating for a paid, ad-free subscription for years before it was launched. I advocated for that because I won't turn off my adblocker and I felt a bit bad about that. I feel increasingly less bad.

People who pay MN for the service are no longer just the product, they are also paying customers. I have no desire to pay for the privilege of being so obviously held out as clickbait product.

As I have said in previous posts, MN as a whole is inclusive.

But I’m not aware of any other board which is required to tolerate regular visits from trolls with views that oppose its existence. And the regulars are then punished for protesting.

Does MN think Style and Beauty regulars should be hounded with daily threads about the inherent selfishness of an interest in fashion?

Does MN think it should invite English nationalist posters to join Scotsnet?

What about the Special Needs boards - not very inclusive of parents with children without special needs?

This is why the word ‘inclusive’ stings so much. Because the only reason we ever talk about trans issues on FWR is in relation to demands that we be inclusive of anyone who wants to use our rights, services and facilities, no matter what the cost to women and girls. Because #BeKind

Well I’m done with being kind. I’m not interested in being inclusive. My feminism includes women and girls only.

I’m putting on an ad blocker until you sort this out.

We're committed to hosting conversations in FWR that are inclusive. We know this will feel uncomfortable for many at first, but it's a really important operating principle as far as we can see.
Having been lied about on Twitter after trying to be inclusive I won't be taking part in any more of these types of conversations. You're right it does feel uncomfortable.

I do think that is most likely Wookey, after the senior MNHQers have had a chance to consider points raised.

You know what, when I started to read the reply from @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I thought 'actually, perhaps I have been a bit short sighted not signing up for premium and she's got a point' but by the end of it, the double standards have got me so annoyed, there's no way. I know it's not the point of the thread, but it's so irritating.

I do understand there will be more going on behind the scenes than is shared and they need to be balanced and fair to all, but this isn't.

Perhaps we'll get another reply once the weekend is over?

There's many an ex-internet forum that thought it could treat its users however it wanted...

You should post a link to that thread in AIBU @MaudTheInvincible

I've just joined Ovarit in preparation for MN deciding that they don't support women after all. It doesn't seem too far fetched in the context of their recent decisions, including the frankly bizarre choice to move a thread publicising the government's survey on the effects of violence against women and girls to the lonely isolation of the petitions board with just half an hour left to make submissions

Last day to complete survey on violence against women and girls.... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/4169936-last-day-to-complete-survey-on-violence-against-women-and-girls

I really hoped they'd be back especially since how serious the issue is for our safety and their bottom line is.

I want to know why some new people need to stick to the invisible rules and other new people don't. And just bloody tell us what we are and aren't allowed to say .

I'm struggling to see how it is anything other than inviting posters who would otherwise be seen as likely trolls.

The best thing anybody can ever do is stay away from bloody twitter. I do not understand why companies randomly respond too certain tweets because it only EVER leads to a complete and utter shit show.

Mumsnet should just ditch Twitter for the toxic nonsense it is. How many people actually come here from that platform anyway? Only ones to cause trouble from the looks of it.

I've read all this old thread again where internet-experienced users gave MN many thousands of pounds worth of social media advice for free and it seems that have not learned in three years. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3238536-Mumsnet-encouraging-brigading-by-Twitter-TRAs

MN are a social media business that don't seem to understand how to navigate away from Twitter troll icebergs.

It was Jeffrey and F4J before, is anime MRAs and doxers now, will probably be anti-abortionists, antivaxxers, and incels in the future. There will always be people who are desperate to shut this place down, campaigning mobilising and organising against Mumsnet specifically because it is where women meet to discuss what is important to us.