Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

691 replies

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 04/11/2019 17:09

So, I got an email about a comment in which I said that I wanted to know why genderists keep comparing trans identified males to black women and lesbians being deleted. I think this is absolutely barmy, and have said so to HQ. I'm also baffled as to how this breaks any guidelines and thought perhaps it was time for us as a group to revisit the guidelines and explain once more to MNHQ why they're not working.

What's actually happening here is the the obsessive trans activists who monitor this site are attempting to pick off posters one by one. We lost Orchid last week, and she was just the most recent of many. I'm not sure in MNHQ realize that's happening and welcome it or if it's somehow escaped their notice, but it's a pretty messed up thing for them to be allowing to happen to their users, in my opinion. Are they going to allow this to continue until the only commenters left in this forum are the TRAs who want the entire site shut down?

I know the people who despise the women here would very much like this to all happen under the radar, and that's exactly why I'm not allowing it to play out that way.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
ShesDressedInBlackAgain · 04/11/2019 17:47

Ah 'peak trans' got added to the 'really useful phrases that describe the GC position and should therefore be verboten' list a couple of weeks ago didn't it?

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 04/11/2019 17:47

Well, I'm officially very pissed off now after receiving a generic brush off in response to my attempt to communicate directly with MNHQ as they asked that we do. And that's why this thread exists. If they're going to coercively control their users and force us to call males women then that is going to happen in public rather than women being targeted and having no way of expressing to their fellow commenters what's being done to them.

Presumably I will be banned for this but I would rather go out fighting than meekly submit to coercive control in the guise of "hosting debate".

OP posts:
Hazardd · 04/11/2019 17:45

Maybe and this is just maybe...

Comparing black women's oppression or describing/suggesting black women as a "type" of woman is so utterly offensive and in poor taste.

The mere idea is so horribly racist and HQ took the stand that they will not spread such ideology even when it's spoken about unfavourable.

Maybe.

So maybe mumsnet is coming down tough on the spread of racist ideology and should be applauded. Maybe Hmm

ErrolTheDragon · 04/11/2019 17:41

I don't disagree, kittens, but I think that section has been there since the clarifications were added (19 June 2018)

There's no mention of 'peak trans', no idea why that might be deemed problematic.Confused

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 04/11/2019 17:37

That term isn't goady, it's factual. I hadn't noticed that it had been added to the guidelines but again, that's ridiculous and it needs to be removed. Adding that forces women to use the term "transwomen", which is compelling people to say something they don't believe to be true. Absolutely not on at all and nobody should be given a strike for that.

Has peak trans been added to the guidelines? If not and they're deleting people for it then again, that's just not on.

OP posts:
LumpySpacedPrincess · 04/11/2019 17:36

Yes, I've had similar recently. I used men with a trans identity so is that banned?

ErrolTheDragon · 04/11/2019 17:34

Pretty sure from what kittens said it's not 'genderists' which was deemed problematic, Lang.

Here's what's probably the relevant section. Maybe we should have a thread under Site Stuff to critique specific parts of the guidelines?

^ Can I use the expression ‘TIM’ (trans-identified male) in conversation with one another, as long as we don’t use it in conversation with someone who is themselves transgender?^
We're likely to delete this term however it's used. 'Trans-identified' seems pretty goady – people generally don't identify as trans, but as the opposite sex. As someone said on this threadd^^, one person can't really tell another how they identify, even if they disagree with the logic.
‘TIM’ also focuses heavily on natal sex. We don’t wish to prevent anyone from asserting as part of their gender critical position that transwomen are born male, and as ever, there is room for mods to exercise their individual judgment. But we think trans people will feel unwelcome if users habitually use a collective term which defines them by an aspect of their identity that they have explicitly rejected, so we’ll usually delete collective terms for trans people which centre on natal sex.^

LangCleg · 04/11/2019 17:32

Oh, and placing an obligation on women to endlessly self edit for fear of causing offence about phrasing - there's a name for that: coercive control.

LiterallyProblematic · 04/11/2019 17:32

I've had two posts and a thread deleted recently. I think they are really clamping down. I think peaktrans might be another term they are automatically deleting.
It's a shame. It must be about advertising revenue, but censorship is surely counterproductive.

LangCleg · 04/11/2019 17:30

Initial thought on the specifics: genderists ≠ transpeople. Genderists = all people who subscribe to postmodernist/queer theory ideology. Many such people are not trans. So the rule about not generalising about transpeople does not apply.

Have the rules changed? Is it now not permissible to criticise a particular socio-political ideology?

Also: it's fucking racist to compare black women to people who aren't women. RACIST. Are we not allowed to name racism if it offends the sacred caste?

HandsOffMyRights · 04/11/2019 17:30

Agree wholeheartedly.
The smear campaign against Mumsnet and picking off posters shows how desperate MRAs are to silence us.

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 04/11/2019 17:28

Well, if the phrase "trans identified males" is banned then here I am very publicly registering my objection to that, because it's absurd. If that's the policy it needs to be changed. They also need to start explaining precisely what they're objecting to in comments they delete rather than a waffly "this breaks guidelines" with no explanation as to why.

OP posts:
Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 04/11/2019 17:25

I can't quote the comment that was deleted here in case they delete it again but it really was completely banal and not in any way in breech of the guidelines, unless we're not allowed to say "trans identified males", in which case that's ridiculous and an attempt to compel speech. I have of course emailed a response but I disapprove strongly of attempts to handle this in a way that isolates each woman being targeted and leaves her without the ability to discuss what's happening with other women. We need to be discussing this as a group.

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 04/11/2019 17:21

Yes exactly kittens

ErrolTheDragon · 04/11/2019 17:21

You've used a phrase there which is pretty much explicitly banned by the guidelines, kitten, I'm afraid. There is some explanation of MNHQs thinking on that. Not saying I agree, but imo it's best to just steer clear of own goals.

OvaHere · 04/11/2019 17:20

Well said.