Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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
testing987654321 · 18/11/2019 06:26

it's so easy to use correct (biological) pronouns, terminology and names, as the mental gymnastics required to use the incorrect (non-bio but chosen) ones are often too complicated.

Fixed that for you.

DamnYouAutocucumber · 17/11/2019 22:58

Mainly lurker, occasional poster but frequent namechanger here.

I can see the tightrope MN have to walk and appreciate the difficulties for a commercial venture, which has to make money to survive.

Sometimes I have to go to another place (brown furry fruit cultivators), because I need to see people referred to by their actual sex, to see facts stated without censure and see some ideas and speculation which are probably true, but might equally be libellous. However I don't think anyone posting there has ever changed anyone's mind about issues, it's for conversing with people who already have certain viewpoints.

Mumsnet have a position where they can change minds, people see a random thread on active and follow the threads until they find something showstopping, which makes them aware there is an issue, where they'd never have thought to question some of the ideas before. I never knew about any of this until I saw the Olympics threads years ago.

Anyone searching MN will see hundreds, or thousands of reasoned, logical, thoughtful posts. When asked to point out actual transphobia on MN, a poster had to admit you can't, because genuine transphobia is always deleted. It gives MN a quality of debate, which is sadly lacking on KF, even if they have refreshing honesty.

I think having and applying fairly strict guidelines does make MN a better place, however I also think there should be a lot more leniency before wielding the ban hammer, it's so easy to use incorrect pronouns, terminology and names, as the mental gymnastics required to use the correct ones are often too complicated.

No-one has to use MN, we can all choose to 'go well' somewhere else, but despite the losses, MN still has the most amazing women you'll find anywhere, so there's nowhere else on the Internet like it. On the one hand I think there are too many for them all to be picked off, but there will be a tipping point where people will go elsewhere because too many of the great voices have been lost.

LangCleg · 17/11/2019 22:49

I checked my email over the weekend. I had a similar email to others. Turns out I had a strike for a deletion in April. I pointed out nothing in the deletion email indicated it was a strike rather than a standard deletion. They’re discussing how to make this clearer apparently.

I thought it was if you get deleted and don't get an email, you haven't been stricken/struck. Only emails are striking things but any email is a striking thing even if it doesn't mention striking things.

But who knows?

NotBadConsidering · 17/11/2019 22:39

Yes, TBF they did say that so I’m no longer on a 6 week tightrope but I had no idea I ever was Confused

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 17/11/2019 22:35

Also aren't the strikes supposed to work in a within a 6 week period way in terms of counting? Unless MNHQ are using an alternate calendar April was more than 6 weeks ago by quite a bit.

OP posts:
EmpressLesbianInChair · 17/11/2019 22:32

In the words of Commander Waterford: “Better never means better for everyone. It always means worse, for some.”

Under His Eye.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 17/11/2019 22:27

So, if there is a group of people who spend massive amounts of time monitoring everything said on this board and reporting whatever they can in the hopes of garnering deletions and getting users banned (and we know that they are doing this because they have very publicly said so) we are not just expected but indeed required to assume that their motivations for that behavior are entirely benign?

OP posts:
FloralBunting · 17/11/2019 22:24

My email had the form of words that they know I will be disappointed.

To paraphrase so many mothers, I'm not disappointed with you MNHQ. I'm just angry.

EmpressLesbianInChair · 17/11/2019 22:22

I had a strike for a ‘negative generalisation’ questioning the motives of the monitors too.

I was wondering what would drive people to spend so much time & attention reporting posts in a website where women were discussing their rights. I won’t say any more because I don’t want to be struck again.

NotBadConsidering · 17/11/2019 22:19

I checked my email over the weekend. I had a similar email to others. Turns out I had a strike for a deletion in April. I pointed out nothing in the deletion email indicated it was a strike rather than a standard deletion. They’re discussing how to make this clearer apparently.

EmpressLesbianInChair · 17/11/2019 22:12

I had a strike for a ‘negative generalisation’ questioning the motives of the monitors too.

LangCleg · 17/11/2019 22:09

Just reposting what I said on the other thread.

If I'm understanding this correctly, Floral has been given a strike for a sentence in a post that made a "negative generalisation". The rules say no "negative generalisations" can be made about either trans people or GC feminists.

The subject of this sentence was the monitors. This is a term used hereabouts for a small group of extreme Woke activists (some of whom are trans, some of whom are not trans) who keep up a constant monitoring of FWR for perceived wrongthink. They organise to report such instances to the mod team. We know this to be true because not only do they boast about it on Twitter, they also write blogs about it.

I am, therefore, at a loss as to why a strike has been issued. I can only think of two possible scenarios:

A: one or more members of the mod team are unable to identify the subject of a sentence written in English.

B: the monitors now form a third group about whom negative generalisations are strikeable offences on FWR but the rules have not been updated to reflect this.

Oh, there's a third!

C: we're in the Upside Down.

MNHQ - what on earth is going on?! This is a thread about the safeguarding of children on a parenting website! Sort it out!

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 17/11/2019 19:40

It seems that the targeting of prominent posters continues apace and the current target is FloralBunting. I suggest that anyone else who feels targeted keep the rest of us updated here. We will not be leaving any woman to face that kind of gaslighting alone.

OP posts:
NotBadConsidering · 17/11/2019 04:51

So, again, what's the difference between a deletion that counts as a strike and one that does not? Are they ever going to explain?

And how would one know if there had been a mistake and a strike was meant to be just a deletion or vice versa?

And why can people use the term “peak trans” on AIBU but not here?

Aaarrgghhh · 16/11/2019 12:07

So, again, what's the difference between a deletion that counts as a strike and one that does not? Are they ever going to explain?

Right? It’s almost like they haven’t a clue.

TwoBoxers · 15/11/2019 22:17

@MNHQ, you've taken the time to email me about my deletions that counted as a strike, you've also emailed me about deletions that didn't count as a strike.
I see that the difference between a deletion/not a strike and deletion/Strike is clearly to do with the specific guidelines on FWR.
Strikes only happen on FWR.
It's extremely unfair and definitely Not In The Spirit to hold a specific group of women to a different standard.
Please read talking's post again, print it out in large friendly letters, stick it on the wall in MNHQ and try to work out why you are so in thrall to the Activists.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 15/11/2019 20:27

So, again, what's the difference between a deletion that counts as a strike and one that does not? Are they ever going to explain?

OP posts:
TheChampagneGalop · 15/11/2019 10:17

I also got a detailed reply from MNHQ for which I'm grateful. I got no emails about strikes because I had no strikes. However, I got suspended after I had a dumb moment and made a post that they considered trollish. In this case, I wished they would have contacted me about that, and I hope HQ will in the future message long-term posters if they get suspended about what happened.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 15/11/2019 10:09

Obviously we don't work for Mumsnet, though sometimes given the level of expectations placed on us it kind of feels like we do. When I'm at work I manage a team of people. If I spoke to any of them like that, or even made them feel as if I had, I'd want to know about it. MNHQ otoh don't seem to want to know.

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 15/11/2019 09:41

I don't think you want to be the kind of people who behave this way MNHQ - so why are you?

what pressures are you under that you are allowing to turn you into Delores Umbridge?

Datun · 15/11/2019 09:38

Surely the person who wrote this is aware that it reads as "stop making us hit you" to the person on the receiving end? Why are you talking to your users that way?

Well yes. Which ever way you cut it up, it does indeed come across exactly like that.

Why are you making me treat you this way, is an awful thing to say to somebody.

Many of the members here will have sought out this site for support and advice, precisely because they are spoken to that way.

HandsOffMyRights · 15/11/2019 09:34

That's an accurate analogy Prodigal

I've pondered their phrasing and the more I consider it, the more disturbing it reads.

HandsOffMyRights · 15/11/2019 09:28

It is verbatim Lang

As Dolores Umbridge might say: "Tut, tut!"

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 15/11/2019 09:01

And that is exactly what I meant about the tone that messages from the mods often take and how very not OK it is. My parents never talked down to me that way. My ex tried to, and that is why he is my ex.

This, for example.

Obviously we'd hope you won't need to receive any more anyway

Surely the person who wrote this is aware that it reads as "stop making us hit you" to the person on the receiving end? Why are you talking to your users that way?

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 15/11/2019 08:57

I can’t predict what is a interpreted as a misdemeanour on FWR

And this is the point @MNHQ

Reasonable, cooperative women who have posted here uneventfully for years and want to stay inside the rules find themselves unable to

What’s wrong with your rules for this to be the case?