I am going to ask what is hopefully a very clear question about the new guidelines...

But the movement is cultlike, if you look at descriptions as to how cults work it is fairly obvious. RedToothBrush (think that's the right handle) has written some excellent posts in the past about how cults operate and it totally ring true. The only thing that transactivism does that most cults can't is to preach at state schools (with the sanction of the state).

Ally I don't think you are being quite honest with your categorisation. Your first statement is the sort of convoluted speech that I think gender critical femionists are being forced to make:

'[X transwoman] has said [Y] on Twitter about [Z]. I do not believe they understand the impact of [Z] on women because [eg they were raised with the benefits of male socialisation/they do not have the same reproductive issues as women/they are likely to be more physically able to defend themself from men compared to women.]'

where for all the text in [] one would normally say [they are a man] or [they are male] or [they are not a woman] but feel that this might be deleted and so can no longer be said without risking suspension.

I agree that the second statement might well be deleted and count as a strike:

'Look at what [X transwoman] has said on Twitter. He is so stupid. Did I mention that he is biologically male and always will be?'

The question is on what grounds. Is it because of the 'he', because it contains a personal attack 'stupid' or because of saying that X is 'biologically male'? or is it because X is likely to be tracking any comments that use their name and will kick up a fuss about anything that isn't completely affirming? Would the revised statement below pass:

'Look at what [X transwoman] has said on Twitter. What a stupid thing to say. Did I mention that they are biologically male and always will be?'

That has no personal attack (at least in line with mumsnet's usual guidance that you can say that someone has said something stupid so long as you don't call them stupid) and does not use a pronoun a named transperson has rejected and states a biological fact which mumsnet has said also is permissible.

If it's not OK then mumsnet has become somewhere which is policing heresy (going back to the cult affinity there, although most cults are only able to police their own members) or has been forced to moderate as if it is in a permanent state of siege, in which case it's more like the [she who cannot be mentioned] days, in which case it would be good to have a list of those who are on the attack so that they can be refered to obliquely and not put mumsnet at risk.

There are a plethora of feminist sites that barely mention trans people

And you know why this is? Because women who talk about their own oprression, and who refuse to lie about the fact that it's impossible to change sex, have been banned from those sites and their posts deleted.

It's not that women in other places don't want to talk about this issue. It's that they are not allowed to.

We do seem to have lost Gibberty snipperty though, so there are some things to smile ☺ about.

Maybe, as many actual feminists in fact do, centre the discussion on non-trans males who benefit most?

We center the discussion on women's rights. Not men or transgender.
We are actual Feminists which is why we center our discussion on women's rights, not men or transgender.

Feminists are not responsible for the frequency or transgenders and men starting threads to talk about themselves.

@garam, do you mean men?

If you do, you don't need a prefix in front of it. We all know who and what men are.

Sorry, i’ll go read the thread that possibly answers my question!

Good point science.

Does anyone know if I’m allowed to say that a person identifies as a woman? Its not mentioning their sex.

Can't remember who or where, but some clever soul made a point the other day, that I think is worth repeating, and possibly getting clarification on from @MNHQ.

The point in question was that if we aren't allowed to say transwomen are men because it's mentioning sex, then surely it's only fair that the phrase transwomen are women should also not be allowed.

See, that is what is making me antsy about posting anything. Yay for the kind of feminism where women have to police their own thoughts...

This. I thought they wanted to allow discussion?

I made a statement as to what type of ideological movement I think transgenderism is.

I know the one you mean. And agree. It's a sad day when we can't express an opinion about it.

It’s ok, ive just found the thread and of course it is the only fucking accurate acronym that we aren’t allowed to use. Of course it is. The only factual one. It’s 2018. The year of arse about face, Black is white and trump’s a genius. Of course it’s that one that we can’t say.

What acronym aren't we to use...would be a bit unwise to answer that!

deletion of posts using the acronym we've been told not to use

I haven’t read the new guidelines. What is the acronym we aren’t to use?

Yeah, OK I will. I've contacted them twice now however to ask if they could email me the content of the whole post (they only quoted the bit that got me deleted). I haven't had a reply yet but they're probably busy.

I have just posted about this on the thread in site stuff and suggested that perhaps my deletion could be used as an example on that thread to explain a little more what we cannot say.

@Beachcomber could you ask MNHQ what it is about your post that breached guidelines?

BoreOfWhabylon. What I posted was along those lines. Just without the adjectives.

Well, I think transgenderism is a regressive, misogynistic, homophobic cult.

I don't think that the vast majority of transpeople are any of those things but the TRAs certainly are.

I made a statement as to what type of ideological movement I think transgenderism is.

It was a 4 word sentence. No swearing, bad language or slurs.

I'm unclear as to which actual guideline it broke. I suppose it could come under an umbrella of "opinions which genderists don't like and which hurt the feelings of people invested in transgender ideology".

without I meant

Beachcomber can you give the gist of what you said with repeating it?

Really - 3 strikes and barred? So no free speech on mumsnet ? What is the world coming to when men can say they are woman and women are ciswomen and not allowed to talk about our reproductive biology using the word woman in case it excludes women who identify as men or men who identify as women.

No your right, I take that back. I've just been deleted on another thread for a comment I made about transgenderism (as in the ideology / movement).

I don't think much will change

I'm not so sure.
Thebewilderness had about 5 posts deleted in one thread that were nothing outside of the supposed acceptable range. Known GC names are being targeted either by increase in reports or knowingly by HQ themselves.
A lot of known GC names will be gone soon under the three strikes rule which is yet to come.

I haven't followed all this very closely but I suspect that the only new thing that will be enforced is deletion of posts using the acronym we've been told not to use (and presumably a suspension of any poster who persists in using it).

It will take up too much time and energy for HQ to trawl through all threads checking for posts that remind trans persons of the material reality of their reproductive sex.

And even if posts are reported HQ will have a hard time justifying anything more than the deletion of the usual personal attacks, etc that already formed the guidelines.

I think the policy is a bit of arse covering by HQ so that they are being seen to do something. I really don't think much will change.