Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Civility, reasonableness, and those rules

260 replies

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 20:35

So, since I'm most likely on my way out anyway, why not start a conversation about this? I just received a warning/threat for posting a Widow Twanky joke (not directed at any specific person) in a thread. Not sure which one, because the very keen to enforce deference upon women person who sent it forgot to include a link to the thread they were complaining about, maybe Munroe Bergdorf and the silly FB ad? Anyway, apparently this breaks the guidelines, which does rather raise the point of whether those guidelines are in any way fit for purpose. You're trying to ban jokes? On this site? On any British site? You are aware that our pointed humor is somewhat of a national trait and something we're often admired for in other parts of the world?

I think that this is neither reasonable nor constructive, and I do not agree that it in any way helps to facilitate debate. I also do not think it's reasonable or constructive to have moderation that enables the targeting and therefore harassment of specific users with the aim of preventing them from participating in the debate. Numerous longtime commenters have been picked off this way, the most recent one being Lass (a person who I often disagreed with but respected, and who deserved the right to speak). This space is less interesting and less useful as a result of their being removed at the behest of angry TRAs and/or regular old blokes who don't like women critiquing the sex industry (which I assume is what happened to Lass).

Apparently MNHQ recently had a big internal conversation about this (or at least they said they were going to), and what has emerged is a continuance of the special rules that only apply to feminists being applied in a way that censors women's opinions and stifles debate in order to avoid upsetting male people with delicate egos. Do we think this is reasonable?

(If I vanish you know why - suspended for insubordination. If I can peak a few more people on the way out then I'm absolutely fine with that. I am still Spartacus.)

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 24/09/2019 12:01

wow

the term "special men" is deletable now?

am I alone in thinking this looks like elitist policing of language?

If you're a middle class type like me you can dance around referring to 'some males with autogynaephilia'. In fact I quite enjoy using 3 long words where one short one would do

but what if that's not a way you feel easily able to express yourself? what if you see a man being treated with special deference and say what you see - "special man" ?

then you get censored?

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 12:01

I hereby award Lang the Mumsnet Linguistic Contortionist award for 2019. Which is saying something cause there's been a lot of competition.

OP posts:
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 12:00

You have a user base in rebellion against the special rules for trans people, MNHQ. Stop reacting in an instinctive "how dare you question my authority" way and think about why that's happening.

OP posts:
NotBadConsidering · 24/09/2019 11:59

Should we have a sweepstake on who is doing the reporting? Or should MNHQ have the guts to admit who is controlling and bullying using the report button?

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 11:57

And explaining why a comment was deleted gets deleted too. Why? Because the mods don't want users to know why comments are being deleted? This really is getting ridiculous.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 24/09/2019 11:55

I think "special men" is disallowed on the basis that it calls an XY person who asserts a trans identity a "man". You don't have to say that an XY person who asserts a trans identity is a "woman" but you cannot say that an XY person who asserts a trans identity is a "man", special or not.

Up with which the mods surely cannot put.

You see how ludicrous the rules are? But I don't think I broke them! Yay me!

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 11:49

This reply has been deleted

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

GirlDownUnder · 24/09/2019 11:48

What did littl say to get deleted?! Shock

Bloody hell.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 11:46

And the silly deletions on this thread have begun!

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 24/09/2019 11:16

This reply has been deleted

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

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 11:14

So, MN built a USP based on women swearing a lot and not being afraid to tell arseholes to fuck off. Telling arseholes to fuck off happens all over the boards every day but is not allowed on FWR and not if that arsehole - hey, MNHQ! Guess what? NATAALT! - happens to be trans.

But if we notice this, it's derogatory and aggressive to say so?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good one!

CharityConundrum · 24/09/2019 11:03

We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

But they do allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards other people. Categorically. What a shambles of the 'by parents for parents' tagline this is. And so disappointing.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 10:56

And the problem is that what you were saying is a. true and b. very very common. I'd feel safe in a toilet with Blaire White. I would not feel safe with the demographic you're referring to. Nor would most women, because large angry aggressive males are a threat to women and we all know it. Apparently pointing this out is uncivil? Well then, I guess we little ladies better remember that our feelings don't matter at all. On a feminist forum, on a parenting site for women.

OP posts:
WrathoSWhlttIeKIop · 24/09/2019 10:54

Are the people reporting deliberately picking off posters one by one?

2BthatUnnoticed · 24/09/2019 10:53

Interesting. I got deleted for saying that I would not feel safe in the bathroom with a certain subset of TW - namely the “macho ma’ams.”

I explained that NATWALT, but this subset represents a safeguarding issue which we need to discuss. I asked how to describe this subset without breaching guidelines, but answer there came none.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 10:48

Again, to reiterate, my real issue here isn't with the deletions, silly as they are. It's with the pattern of commenters being given escalating warnings until finally being banned because a. they get reported a lot (this has happened to many of the more outspoken commenters) and b. they then show insufficient repentance and deference to the mods giving them the talking to about not being good girls.

It's just a deeply unhealthy pattern and it's led to the loss of many good people.

OP posts:
WrathoSWhlttIeKIop · 24/09/2019 10:44

Sorry my post should read...

Will there be protesters outside pantomime theatres at Christmas.
No because they don't go for the men.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 10:42

And again my question is why? If there's a legal reason then MNHQ might find themselves getting a more sympathetic response if they'd say so. Right now it just comes across as a blatant double standard and a prioritizing of men over women.

OP posts:
PermanentPortakabin · 24/09/2019 10:38

But that’s just it, isn’t it, DickKerr?

MNHQ doesn’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people

So all those other posts, on AIBU, chat, in the doghouse (does it still kick off in there?) and so on are perfectly safe, because, well, umm, double standards, innit?

Fine to post practically anything you like if it’s about a sleb, or the royals, or even towards each other, as long as it’s not towards trans people, cos, well, cos they is trans.

Pretty much proves that FWR (or posters well known in FWR) is being held to a different standard than most of the site

WrathoSWhlttIeKIop · 24/09/2019 10:37

If mentioning Widow Twanky was enough for the post to be reported, then it has really touched a nerve.

The mods should have simply rejected the reporters request.

Will there be protesters outside pantomime theatres at Christmas.

Will there be a pantomime dame appearing at Brighton this year.

No because they don't go for the men.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 24/09/2019 10:24

This reply has been deleted

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

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 24/09/2019 10:21

I do sometimes feel like going on a reporting spree in AIBU

except the solution to women being censored is not to censor other women

Tempting though

DickKerrLadies · 24/09/2019 10:16

derogatory or aggressive

Two words that sum up many posts on AIBU quite well there.

It's going to look strange when all those posts get deleted too...

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 10:07

Well!

*We're sorry we left out the link to your deleted post. We won't be reinstating it though, as it broke our guidelines - specifically:
We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

This is a challenging issue to moderate, and in order to keep hosting it, we ask users to abide by basic principles of civil and constructive debate. Posts comparing trans people to pantomime dames don't help that cause, to be honest. While we're here, we should also remind you that our guidelines also say we won’t allow aggressive or rude behaviour towards our moderation team who are doing their utmost to keep this discussion going - so please bear that in mind.*

OP posts:
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 09:49

You're eventually going to slip up and use pronouns anyway though, because it's built into the language. If this is MNs suggesed workaround it's a clumsy, awkward one that imposes and undue burden on users and hinders communication.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread