How is this anything to do with furthering women's rights?

Ah, go easy, you vipers. There is actually such a thing as a genuine newbie. Not every visitor is a hairy handed trucker.

I do believe we did, Trousering. But since the OP's whole aim appears to be to tell us we are feministing wrong, this is not an entirely unexpected turn for the conversation (I use that word in its loosest sense) to take.

And being on MN more because you're pregnant for the first time? It is a gateway to radicalization, you realize? (Pregnancy and MN both)

Did we just get a lecture on being able to understand the meaning of the word woman?

Bolding not holding. Bloody autocorrect.

Sparrow, no problem, that's why it's been mentioned politely. The convention here tends to be holding or part of someone's name or quoting what you specifically want to reply to.

Your continued use of @ after you've been asked not to, and politely told why it is not the done thing here, makes me think you may be deliberately trying to provoke people. Which does not reflect well on you. At all.

Well, other sites are other sites. Woman for woman works just fine here, we'll know what you mean.

Betty made the comment about you not being a regular because lots of people name change, and regulars are rather keenly aware of the posting guidelines. It wasn't a comment to send you away.

Oh, and another point of MN etiquette - @-ing people when they're actually on the thread with you is very bad form. You end up spamming their inbox. It's the equivalent of shouting "OI, PAY ATTENTION TO ME, TO ME, OVER HERE, TO ME" when you're sitting in the same room as them.

For someone who claims to have lurked on MN for ages, you appear not to know the first thing about the boards. I'm sure you're 100% on the level, OP, but you might like to note that your behaviour (however unwittingly on your part) does overlap with that of a number of much less genuine posters.

Sparrow, could I ask you not to put @ in front of my name. Just bolding Floral or something is adequate, I'm already having the conversation, which I'm perfectly happy to do, and I don't really need extra emails.

People who have gender dysphoria may well have a rough time of it, but pointing out the inherent sexist thinking behind their beliefs is foundational in explaining why the edifice they are building is a house of cards. Pretending they are marginalized because they want to wear frilly knickers is ridiculous.

Quick primer to explain to you. Note - the following is taken from Stonewall's pages, and I believe quoting banned words in the context of a political discussion about their meanings and usage is okay under talk guidelines; it's applying them to a specific poster (usually in contravention of that poster's expressed preference) that is not okay.

So here we go:

Gender
Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth.

Gender expression
How a person chooses to outwardly express their gender, within the context of societal expectations of gender. A person who does not confirm to societal expectations of gender may not, however, identify as trans.

Cisgender or Cis
Someone whose gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth. Non-trans is also used by some people.

Join the dots on this set of definitions and what you in fact have is an acceptance that gender is the set of culturally determined sex stereotypes (the ones feminists believe are the tool used to oppress women and keep us in little restrictive boxes) and that being cis involves being comfortable with the set of restrictive sex stereotypes used to oppress you. To tell a woman she is "cis" is to tell her that she is choosing to collude in her own oppression.

That's why we don't like the term very much, and that's why MN has said it's not to be used to describe particular posters. (Incidentally I don't agree with that ban - I find the term offensive, but I'm perfectly capable of articulating why it's so offensive, and if people then choose to continue to use it, they're the ones who then look like the unpleasant gits they are, not me. I think as a general rule censorship and language-policing are a bad thing.)

@SparrowNest You have to be shitting us.

Mumsnet HQ moderates the board, not other users. The link Betty posted is by Mumsnet. Its the forum rules as decided by Mumsnet.

Its actually pretty standard to have mods and rules on any forum, IDK why you have an issue with that.

@SparrowNest
Your reading comprehension skills are really not up to much are they?
I didn't say it would be funny to get your posts deleted

I thought their demo was hilarious. They are parodying something that is very easily parodied. I know those women, I've spent time with them and understand their serious points but this was a huge piss take. Sometimes laughing at the ridiculousness of males, all of whom believe they are women, displaying their AGP is spot on.

Its Mumsnet HQ who made the forum guidelines and decide which terms are banned. Not other users.
Your posts where you have used banned terms may be moderated. Don't try to blame other users if that happens, especially when they have stated that they have not reported your posts.