Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Mumsnet Grass Account

535 replies

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 06/05/2018 11:08

Have just grassed you up for banning them @MNHQ

They said "Mumsnet you left us no choice"

I think you are supposed to hang your heads in shame Grin

Mumsnet Grass Account
OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
TheUterati · 06/05/2018 17:14

@KateMNHQ - if the general context in which deletions were occurring were not so egregious and outrageous ('bless..'; 'yawn' reporting invited via Twitter; refusing to permit language to remain in accordance with empirically verifiable biological fact) then perhaps posters would not be minded to 'test the edges of your tolerance'....

My 'bless...' was deleted because it was sneering, goady and outside the bounds of civilised debate.

Frankly, is it any wonder I cannot take your deletions seriously. You all need to shoulder your fair share of responsibility for creating a situation where you feel pushed and tested.

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 17:01

[quote LangCleg]@KateMumsnet - can I clarify?

Discussing individual minors who have had trans surgical intervention? NO.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in an objective, factual way? YES.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in a way that could be seen as salacious? NO.

Have I got that right?

(I'm unlikely to discuss individual children myself but I see why other posters think it's important so want to get it straight on their behalf.)[/quote]

That's right @LangCleg. I'd add 'in a way that could be seen as salacious or sensationalist.'

TerfinUSA · 06/05/2018 16:59

"As I said above, @TheUterati, we cannot control what other adults allow children to do or say in public or on social media and we don't consider 'the public domain' to be our guide on this."

? Some of these are from doctors, parents, etc.

And the 'child' is now an adult.

picklemepopcorn · 06/05/2018 16:57

Can we avoid making Mumsnet's life more difficult than it has to be?
We could refer people to links to the information, and discuss it obliquely.

I agree, it needs talking about.
We need to find a way to do it that doesn't aggravate MN's position.

LangCleg · 06/05/2018 16:57

@KateMumsnet - can I clarify?

Discussing individual minors who have had trans surgical intervention? NO.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in an objective, factual way? YES.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in a way that could be seen as salacious? NO.

Have I got that right?

(I'm unlikely to discuss individual children myself but I see why other posters think it's important so want to get it straight on their behalf.)

Greymisty · 06/05/2018 16:57

I think the censoring is part of mumsnetHQ they go low we go high. HQ's stance is children's safety and privacy, posters have concerns over TRAs and the impact on children so it makes sense HQ would be hard line on this. Especially as child well-being is common ground.

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:55

As I said above, @TheUterati, we cannot control what other adults allow children to do or say in public or on social media and we don't consider 'the public domain' to be our guide on this. We are doing what we think is the right thing to do. I did also ask people not to test the edges of our tolerance of this - we don't want to remove the ability to post on Mumsnet but we'll have to if individuals can't stay within the line on this.

Original poster
AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 06/05/2018 16:54

That woman has some serious clout. That much is clear.

Posie, watch your step and I'll be supporting you all the way

OP posts:
TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:48

@MNHQ - why delete about Jazz?

IT IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

picklemepopcorn · 06/05/2018 16:48

That video's a painful watch, Uterati.

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:47

[quote TheUterati]@KateMNHQ So an account of what is involved in FGM would be equally unacceptable?
How does this violate the right to privacy of a child?[/quote]

A salacious account which focused on the sensational details wouldn't be okay.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 06/05/2018 16:43

The operation in question is about the genitals KateMumsnet, it's not about cancer or diabetes or any other medical procedure. The post that was deleted did not mention the child by name, and mentioned the procedure purely in abstract.

Not allowing discussion is simply obfuscation which upholds the faiytale nonsense that the kids suddenly magic into being a girl and vice versa.

There is a reason that this operation is not allowed on children.

And remember that a mother is being investigated because she dared to speak about the decisions another mother made for her child.

It's mind boggling the power these people have

OP posts:
TerfinUSA · 06/05/2018 16:42

"The rights of children to privacy trumps everything, however frustrating that might be. What others do is beyond our control."

You are referring, as I understand it, to someone who is now unquestionably an adult whose procedures were discussed on national TV and whose doctor boasted on TedX about the experimental medical procedure.

Perhaps you should delete the threads about Venables and Thompson, were they not also children?

Or perhaps apply some consistent rules across your site, not one rule for TRAs, one rule for everyone else.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:42

This OK??

Computer generated images.....

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:41

Agreed @TerfinUSA

TerfinUSA · 06/05/2018 16:40

More detail than necessary? You deleted my post about how a certain person (who openly discussed the process on TV) gave their child cross-sex hormones, this was in the context of a thread about that person persecuting a Mumsnet poster.

I'm not really sure that this detail is somehow irrelevant or extraneous given that said person was filmed on national TV laughing about the effects of these hormones on their child's genitals.

I mean this is not a case of invasion of privacy, let's not grossly misrepresent reality.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:39

@KateMNHQ So an account of what is involved in FGM would be equally unacceptable?
How does this violate the right to privacy of a child?

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:36

@theuterati - we profoundly disagree. The rights of children to privacy trumps everything, however frustrating that might be. What others do is beyond our control.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:36

@KateMNHQ - if it is factually correct, and publicly accessible, then it should not be deleted.

Just as a factually correct and publicly accessible account of FGM should not be deleted.

If necessary post a MNQH warning: contains distressing content.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:34

Popchyk - to delete evidence of censorship is also censorship.

MNHQ
KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:34

No @langcleg - we've deleted a post above which discussed the details of how genital surgery is performed on children in much more detail than was necessary, and we want everyone to understand where we're at with this. I've linked from another thread to here too, although as I said, this is not a woolly line where there is room to manoeuvre depending on context.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:33

@KateMNHQ

Where facts are in the public domain, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to these and to discuss them.

Where abuses are committed, we should not shy away from naming these. Just as we should not shy away from discussing the full significance and implications of FGM.

To insist that these discussions and the relevant facts are 'prettied up' is to be complicit.

Popchyk · 06/05/2018 16:32

Mumsnet have decided to reinstate my initial post.

But they've now deleted my second post that referred to it.

MNHQ can you reinstate my second post on this thread at 14.34 today?

Here's the thing.

I've done nothing wrong.

TheUterati · 06/05/2018 16:31

My post on the 'state your view on self ID' has been deleted by MN.

They will have to ban me....

Swipe left for the next trending thread