Oh look, it's those guidelines making no sense whatsoever again!

Just us saying that transwomen are not women is unacceptable and phobic.

To not be called transphobic, we have to accept that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman.

We have to accept:

-Karen White in women's prisons.

-Women having to wax Yaniv's balls.

-Lady penis.

-Men can have periods.

-Some children are born in the wrong body, and should surgically alter their bodies.

-Pink brain and blue brain.

Or we're transphobes. And our language to discuss this is becoming ridiculously restricted.

flushedzebra yes it needs to be talked about, mumsnet as a site for parents is a good place for the discussion and HQ hasn't disputed that. I haven't disputed that.

I would say anorexia is a mental health condition and the by product of that condition is harming one self. But with anorexia is that self harm intentional? It's a very complex disorder which people develop for multiple reasons, some do starve themselves as an intentional act of self harm, others have distorted self image and then the by product is starving themselves which causes self harm. Is the self harm a by product or is self harm the root of the disorder? I have no clue.

And no I don't think a comment saying anoriexa is self harming should be deleted but if a group of anorexics were bombarding the site demanding mods to delete things which may or may not be accurate about anorexia then I can see why HQ would do that.

It's described as a hotbed for transphobia, posters described as hysterical,

Neither of those are true though. It's ridiculous for us to try to jump through hoops to avoid accusations of transphobia. Anyone who knows what a woman and mother is is transphobic.

We can never jump high enough.

Well, kids are doing it Hazardd - and when I say kids, I mean young, developing girls. And having a CBBC program endorsing it is very very bad - because binding causes harm to the body.

This thread shouldn't really be about binding - say I called anorexia "self harm" would you agree? If you don't agree, do you think it should be deleted? I doubt everyone would agree it was self harm - but if a discussion is to be had, people's words should not be censored so quickly.

Sorry OP i should have been clearer it doesn't make me personally uncomfortable but I suppose more emphatically. I like mumsnet, I like healthy robust debate, I think being to OTT and sensationalist makes for poor debate and reflects badly on site. It's described as a hotbed for transphobia, posters described as hysterical, that thread didn't exactly combat that imo. It didn't come across as censorship to delete it given the context that this is a site which is a business.

What's goad for the goose isn't what's goad for the gander....

testing yes for strong opinions but when those strong opinions are on a website designed for profit then it's obvious the most extreme will be censored? And I do find the broad stroke breast binding is self harm and the connotations that go with that to much. Having said that i also find the idea of a children's program covering the subject to much. Why would kids need to know? It's an adult subject the same way tax and house prices are.

And to be clear I didn't report the thread yesterday. I was surprised it was still up because it was clearly goady.

Words have meaning and connotations but I understand my opinion is very old fashioned

They do. Female, woman, girl and lesbian, for instance, have very specific meanings which we’re trying to defend.

think in a misogynistic society caution is wise

I think I want to hold strong opinions about things adult women and men do. I want to be able to express those opinions.

I appreciate we all make stupid decisions at times due to societal pressures. I also think it doesn't belittle or demean women to question their actions. It's actually treating them as though they are independent people with agency.

testing i think in a misogynistic society caution is wise when the subject matter can be used as a tool to demean and belittle women. Demeaning some one isnt robust argument imo.

As for tattoos as mentioned I think it's art and self expression.

I acknowledge that my tattoos and piercings are a (slightly more) socially acceptable form of self harm. I acknowledge that my smoking and drinking are also forms of self harm.

I am capable of criticising my own behaviour and not immune to others doing so either. I'd accept the same if my behaviour were another form of body modification or self medication.

So Hazardd, you think any post which isn't nuanced and might upset others due to them having different opinions should be deleted?

I prefer robust arguments where you explain the nuances in return. I think that's more productive.

/derail

HQ, you don't allow edit buttons. We get one shot at a post

This is such a good point. telling someone they are no longer welcome on the site is such a serious sanction. It really shouldn't be done on a whim as was done to Orchid this weekend, but particularly when we can't edit to try to avoid misunderstandings

and acquaintance of mine had a boob job. she said the pain was incredible. she had to wear a surgical corset for months. she went under a general anaesthetic for an entirely unnecessary procedure, which we all know carries a risk of death, despite having two young children

I would not do what she did, because my desire for youthful looking breasts does not outweigh my desire to avoid harm.

footbinding

Is painful both short and long term and causes disabling disfigurment. Can it be described as self harm when there are outside pressures influencing the practise? I don't know.

plastic pouches

Is an interesting one and my go to for that as a feminist issue is less about the surgery and more about medical science doesn't seem to understand the long term consequences of implants so women cannot make informed decisions over the choice to have breast augmentation or not.

I would be uncomfortable and support a delete over any comments which labelled women who have plastic surgery as self harmers. Its not nuanced it's broad strokes of judgey pants that could result in the belittling of women.

Obviously people insert plastic pouches in their breasts to make them look bigger not better ffs

jeez talk about missing the point. obviously to those people bigger = better

and in fact plenty of people have boob jobs to make them sit higher on their chest, not bigger. because higher breasts look more youthful and that is perceived as a good way for women to look

Obviously people insert plastic pouches in their breasts to make them look bigger not better ffs, our bodies are perfectly fine as they are.

To say breast binding is self harm has very strong connotations of actual self harm like cutting. To say breast binding can cause accidental self harm is different because it makes it clear the intention isn't to harm but to temporarily alter one's appearance and there are consquences to that which may result in harm. Words have meaning and connotations but I understand my opinion is very old fashioned 😂

I suppose foot binding was just designed to make feet small and pretty and it would be awfully nasty of me to describe it as harmful to women?

What about women self-harming by inserting plastic pouches in their breasts to make them look better. Completely unnecessary medical procedures.

I expect mumsnet would allow robust arguments about those topics.

But apparently we're not allowed to get angry at girls being encouraged to damage their bodies.

Mostly I think mumsnet is most concerned that women don't express anger forcefully. It's not always polite and sometimes sarcastic. What is normal elsewhere on this site isn't allowed on here because men don't like it.

There are women like Orchid, Maryz, all the others, who spent years on Mumsnet supporting other women & helping to generate ad revenue.

Then there are people who only interact with the site to report posts they disagree with and get the above women banned.

Which group are actually more use to Mumsnet, long term? Really?

I posted yesterday about breast-binding being openly displayed on CBBC and normalised to children. It was deleted today and I got a nonsensical email that said they wanted the issue to be discussed, but it was the term 'self-harm' that was problematic. How can we discuss breast binding without referring to it as self-harm? It is extremely harmful, and it is women doing it to themselves - i.e. it is self-harm!

The genderist interpretation of breast binding: a positive affirmation of one's gender identity/a protection against dysphoria arising from one's gender identity.

The feminist interpretation of breast binding: an iteration of female self-harm (like other iterations of female self-harm before it) brought on by a suffocating patriarchal environment leading to internalised misogyny and a rejection of a healthy body.

This is the perfect example of what is happening on this site. Mumsnet declares it wants to host both sides of the discussion but it's not true: only one side is allowed to post its analysis frankly. And it is not the feminist side.

I note on your deleted thread, Sunkisses, that MNHQ found it quite acceptable for someone who binds to refer to their binding days as "male" and their non-binding days as "slutty" - with all the rank misogyny that entails - but not for feminists to rebut this by talking about self harm.

That is the state of affairs hereabouts.

As if those who have power always find new ways to hold onto their power in the face of attempts to make things more equitable; patriarchy always reinvents itself and find a new way of expressing that same old male supremacy, whatever obstacles feminism and the “march of progress“ throw in its path.

Preach.