Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Can we stop being obedient soon, or will this coercion continue for evermore?

652 replies

theOtherPamAyres · 25/05/2019 23:14

I know that Mumsnet moderators are hot on keeping respectful debate and for that reason does not allow misgendering, certain terms, and the like. It's their site and they make the rules and I respect that. This topic isn't about Mumsnet, it's about the growing confidence of feminists to refuse to use the terms and language of gender.

Karen Ingala Smith, speaking to the Womens Select Committee, showed how it could be done. As a result of the clarity of her language, she was able to cut through the nonsense and make her points forcefully. In contrast, Janet from Womens Aid, with her convoluted language about gender, sounded confused and muddle-headed.

When we are forced to use words like 'transwoman' and 'she' - for fear of prosecution, civil actions, job losses, imprisonment for contempt of court, exclusion, abuse and physical assaults - we have helped to normalise transgenderism. In effect, we are saying that a man can be a woman.

I believe that we can no longer support Trans Rights by default, by caving in and going with the flow. At some stage we have to assert the right to use our own terms - because we can't wait for legal precedents and government reviews. The more refusniks and recusants there are, the more confidence will grow.

What tips and tricks of language did you start using when you could no longer kowtow to the demand for obedience?
How did you write or speak about people/men/women who identify as trans? (Did you see what I did there?)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
CodenameVillanelle · 28/05/2019 14:02

In my own experience, MNHQ are harder on posters who get posts deleted if they have had several deletions and warnings before. I got a week's suspension twice for posts that were 'not in the spirit' and both times they explicitly said they were getting fed up of me. I expect that barracker has been deleted and reported many times too.

R0wantrees · 28/05/2019 14:01

I don't know. I suspect those who reported knew exactly what they were doing.

Quite possibly.

Coercive Control:
Trolling and Online Abuse - Is there a difference?
(extract)
The definition of trolling is changing.

Trolling was seen as luring others online into pointless, time-consuming arguments and to ‘get a rise’ for a troll’s amusement or to alleviate boredom.

It has now become intentionally malicious behavior to specifically cause distress (continues)

What separates them from other trolls is their sense of entitlement.

They believe they are justified in their behaviour.
And what may well have started off as kudos trolling has expanded into something much more virulent, obsessive and cruel.

This cyberbullying has included #stalking #harassment and #mobbing and has been conducted in a specific way to exact distress whilst remaining undetected. (continues)

And to better understand the motivations behind those who commit online abuse, we need to better understand the many tactics employed by abusive personality types- especially those who want to be seen as NOT abusing.
The perpetrators who reside below the radar.
As someone who has been raising awareness and better the understanding of #coercivecontrol, I have been struck by the many similarities shared by certain online abusers and coercive and controlling ex partners. This is especially true of those who partake of online #mobbing.
Put simply, #mobbing is bullying of an individual by a group. This can be family, peer group, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online.

It is almost always malicious and relies on rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation.
Mobbing campaigns rely heavily on the reluctance of bystanders to intervene which only adds to the distress caused to the targeted individual.

One of the main reasons bystanders do nothing is because they are simply not aware of how mobbing campaigns operate.
The ringleaders behind the mobbing campaigns are very secretive.

They would never admit what they are doing. They play the “I've done nothing, it’s someone else “ card.
Their aims are:
*Character assassination

  • To ensure others distance themselves from the targeted individual.
  • Recruit others to abuse on their behalf ( #abusebyproxy) using information with a special significance aimed at the targeted individual, knowing that the bespoke targeting will cause immense distress.
  • Inciting others to mock, goad, provoke the target into responding. Ringleaders will build up their network of proxies to perpetuate the falsehood that the targeted individual is the problem. It allows them to retire* some of the original proxies who are then replaced with new proxies to keep the mobbing sustained & the abuse hidden. The reason is to more effectively turn the tables and direct the abuse away from the mobbing campaign and onto the target whilst giving the impression the target is belligerent and antagonises others. Even better if the mobbing campaign has successfully provoked a reaction. They will use that reaction to make their point that the target is THE problem, the target is abusive, harassing, stalking etc etc. The ringleader relies on the knowledge that the target is hyper vigilant and will be aware of a smear campaign specifically targeted towards them

BUT
Because of the bespoke nature of the abuse, not everyone will be privy to the triggers and so will be oblivious to what is going on.

The natural reaction for a victim of #mobbing is to highlight what is going on &the common response of those around the victim is disbelief.
So, what often happens is that victim becomes increasingly desperate to point out what is happening but, because the ringleader has been able to retreat, only the proxies are visible. So the abuse is effectively invisible in plain sight." (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1110452108183195649.html

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 28/05/2019 13:59

@michaelmumsnet

Regarding this:

there seems to be a bit of concern about whether our guidelines have changed. They haven't. The temporary suspension we issued was influenced by other factors, too

I appreciate that it’s not fair to Barracker to go into specifics, but can you give more of an idea of what this means? If it’s not just whether or not the content of our posts break the special FWR talk guidelines that affects us being subject to temporary or permanent suspension, but you are taking other factors into account, please can you explain what they are so we all understand how to avoid sanctions?

ChickenonaMug · 28/05/2019 13:54

My post took so long to write that Barracker came back whilst I was writing it. Welcome back Barracker and thank you again for your insightful article.

R0wantrees · 28/05/2019 13:54

I will not contribute to the grooming of girls to ignore their emerging and fragile boundaries and instincts and I will not contribute to sexually abused girls being abused for longer because the adult world around them cannot be trusted by her, to recognise and understand the truth.

ChickenonaMug Absolutely this ^^
Flowers

No adult should prioritise the feelings of adult males over the safety of girls. Ever!

EmpressLesbianInChair · 28/05/2019 13:52

Michael this was a profound error in comprehension both by those who reported and those who made the decision.

I don't know. I suspect those who reported knew exactly what they were doing.

ChickenonaMug · 28/05/2019 13:46

I would also like to thank Barracker for her brilliant article which she ends with "And more than anything, I owe this to girls. I don’t want to play even the tiniest part in grooming them to disregard their natural protective instincts. Those instincts are there for a reason. To keep them safe. They need those instincts intact, and sharp.
And that’s why I won’t use preferred pronouns."

I will also take no part in the grooming of girls and nor will I take part in lying to girls either.

My concern is primarily for the impact on sexually abused girls, as I was a girl who was groomed, abused and raped.

One of the reasons that I will no longer use preferred pronouns is because I will not contribute to something that will add to the confusion of sexually abused children and risks them feeling unable to speak out about their abuse.

A child who has been groomed and sexually abused, perhaps from a very young age, will usually, as she matures, begin to understand that what is happening to her is wrong. She will also start to wonder how she can stop or escape the abuse. She will weigh up what might happen if she does speak up and she will recognise that she may be the only person who recognises and understands the truth about what/who her abuser is.

There are many reasons why a sexually abused girl may not speak up and they will include the fear that the result of speaking up will be worse even than the abuse, the fear of being disbelieved and the fear that the adults around her will not be able to handle the truth; that she needs to protect adults from the truth.

A sexually abused girl may also develop an acute awareness about the risks that males present to her and also develop a trauma-response to males in certain circumstances, especially when she feels vulnerable. She may have heightened awareness that what is important to safeguard herself from sexual assault. She knows that all males may pose a risk and that there is no way of knowing which one may attempt based on their demeanour, appearance, position in society or anything else.

How therefore, do we as expect her to speak up when she is being told, or it is being implied with the use of pronouns, by teachers that males can be females and that a person is whoever they identify themselves to be?

How can we expect her to feel that the adult world can handle the truth, when it doesn't even seem to understand that the males that she reacts to are definitely male, even if they identify themselves as female?

How do can we expect her to trust the adults around her if she feels compelled to use pronouns that don't reflect her own recognition of the facts?

How can we expect her to trust adults who ignore her need for same-sex spaces and who contribute to her exclusion, because of their own desires to to be progressive or their misguided attempts to be inclusive.

I will not contribute to the grooming of girls to ignore their emerging and fragile boundaries and instincts and I will not contribute to sexually abused girls being abused for longer because the adult world around them cannot be trusted by her, to recognise and understand the truth.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 28/05/2019 13:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SirVixofVixHall · 28/05/2019 13:42

he wants you to pretend he is neither male nor female,
He wants you to ignore the fact he is male

Saying it like this, out loud, proves Barracker’s point. When we hear or read this, we feel on our guard. We think “ why does this man want me to ignore the fact that he is male ? What does this man want to do, that would be enabled by me ignoring the fact of his sex ? What does this man have to gain by blurring my natural wariness of men ? “

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 28/05/2019 13:37

Hey Barracker

Flowers
LangCleg · 28/05/2019 13:36

Welcome back, darling Barracker!

Thank you MichaelMumsnet for the explanation.

An earlier comment:

HQ are supporting a campaign against coercive control. BUT there is a specific group of males exempt and protected so that you may not call their behaviour coercive (whether or not in reality it is the truth) and you may not use the strategies against coercive control if they in any way might dislike or be upset by you doing so.

Michael, you said:

With regards to the post deletion, the moderators at work at the time felt that the mention of rohypnol might have been a sweeping negative generalisation about trans issues, and we can see why the post was read that way by some of our users.

As you know, we have voiced concerns many times about the external monitoring of this board and leveraging of the reporting mechanism. We've spoken about this and the deliberate twisting and misreading of things said here as a form of coercive control many times. We've also suggested Freedom Programme training for moderating staff so that they can better identify patterns of coercive control and are not unwittingly used as abuse proxies.

Could you please think again on this?

And again welcome back Barracker and thanks for revisiting, MNHQ.

Cuntysnark · 28/05/2019 13:35

So happy you’re back

EmpressLesbianInChair · 28/05/2019 13:34

Welcome back Barracker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FlowersCakeWineGinStarGlitterball

R0wantrees · 28/05/2019 13:30

With regards to the post deletion, the moderators at work at the time felt that the mention of rohypnol might have been a sweeping negative generalisation about trans issues, and we can see why the post was read that way by some of our users.

Michael this was a profound error in comprehension both by those who reported and those who made the decision.

MichaelMumsnet · 28/05/2019 13:26

Hi all,
Apologies for the delay on coming back to everyone about this. We're still catching up with everything after the Bank Holiday weekend and wanted to discuss this properly in the office before we got back to you with an update.

We've discussed this thread extensively at MNHQ and we've decided to roll back on the post deletion. You'll hopefully be pleased to hear we're also going to lift the suspension on Barracker's account today as a result (edit - see above).

To clarify, this was only ever a temporary suspension and it wasn't solely as a result of this one post. We don't feel it's fair to go into our dealings with any individual poster in public, but we did feel we should make clear that the post in itself wasn't an immediate banning offence, as there seems to be a bit of concern about whether our guidelines have changed. They haven't. The temporary suspension we issued was influenced by other factors, too.

With regards to the post deletion, the moderators at work at the time felt that the mention of rohypnol might have been a sweeping negative generalisation about trans issues, and we can see why the post was read that way by some of our users. Having read all your thoughts on the thread and looked at the post again specifically in the context of the opening post, we agree that it didn't break talk guidelines.

We've been in touch with Barracker to let her know separately but we're sure she will get a warm welcome back. We hope that's answered any questions but do drop us a line if not. Thanks again for all the correspondence about it over the weekend and for your patience while we came to a decision.
MNHQ

R0wantrees · 28/05/2019 13:26

I don’t think we can blame all of MNHQ for one over zealous moderator

I don't think anyone has.

The weekend moderation patterns seem to need some attention though.
This wasn't a one off.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 28/05/2019 13:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MsJeminaPuddleduck · 28/05/2019 13:26

Welcome back Barracker Grin

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 28/05/2019 13:24

How many users have been banned unfairly and never appear again?

This. I know MNHQ have a very difficult line to walk, which they generally do with a certain amount of panache, but this has happened.

I’m glad you’re reinstated Barracker, and I’m pleased that MNHQ had the strength to reconsider on this occasion

S1naidSucks · 28/05/2019 13:23

I don’t think we can blame all of MNHQ for one over zealous moderator. Though I do agree that some posters have been very very unfairly treated. I hope that MNHQ do something to prevent this over zealous banning in future.

JellySlice · 28/05/2019 13:22

Excellent!

S1naidSucks · 28/05/2019 13:20

Fantastic! Welcome back Barracker. I’m sure that was a bloody big shock to the system. I’m glad that those in charge of MNHQ have taken the time to discuss the actual meaning of your comments. 🥳

JessicaWakefieldSV · 28/05/2019 13:18

So glad you’re back. I don’t feel like thanking anyone but us. Remember Barracker only got reinstated because she’s a bit famous here and we noticed. How many users have been banned unfairly and never appear again?

R0wantrees · 28/05/2019 13:16

Fantastic.

Many thanks MNHQ

& huge gratitude to you Barracker

Its an important thread & brilliant article

Flowers
Swipe left for the next trending thread