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

The Freedom Programme!

I don’t often post on here. I think the women are amazing. As a teacher, trade unionist, mother and grandmother, I am astonished how the moderators bend over backwards to men. It would be good if they could do training on coercive control. Who offers that?

Roger that.

I think she used the dreaded 3 letter word which was traditionally used to describe the XY half of the population

But which one must now only use with extreme caution, once one has ascertained beyond all reasonable doubt how the subject identifies

Thanks Lang

Has MN confirmed if joking is allowed?

I'm curious to know what Ziggy posted (without anybody risking a ban).

I'll give it a go!

Ziggy said that she finds the word "identify" offensive and thinks it should be prohibited. And that "pretend" was her preferred alternative. It also included a word pertaining to human sexual dimorphism, which I imagine was the problem.

Sorry MNHQ - how could I resist?! Please don't smite me! Also, pretty sure Ziggy was joking.

Ziggy posted the kind of post that would likely have been screenshot and shared on twitter. Or at least that's what the first one was.

Dunno HandsOff but the fact that it was deleted within 2 minutes shows MNHQ are reading the thread

It would be great if that could translate into engagement

Re the mods being accused of coercive control - I compared it to the family courts, if that is what you mean? I'm fairly sure nobody explicitly said that MNHQ are abusive?! To elaborate - the judges in a family court aren't performing coercive control directly. But they are being used as a proxy for the abuse received from the (more often in that case, namalt, etc etc) bloke.

MNHQ are the family court judges here, following a seemingly sensible procedure in which the abusers behaviour looks very reasonable, fair and considered from the outside, but it is salient that their behaviour is viewed out of context - they continue to be subtly abusive towards the recipient and that abuse is reinforced by the officials of the court.

Thank you for the response Justine, but it doesn't answer a number of the questions raised, does it? And indeed, raises further questions about "the rules"

With regard to coercive control, I agree with @BernardBlacksWineIceLolly comment

Moderators are acting as agents for people who are exercising coercive control over posters here, not exercising coercive control themselves

It appears the moderators are being used to shut down reasoned, cogent debate on here. The end result is still the same though, we are trying to stick to the rules, but we don't know what they are, and they keep on changing.

Just dipped back into this thread.

I want to see Orchid reinstated and I'm curious to know what Ziggy posted (without anybody risking a ban).

If you were reading a thread and finding it difficult to work out what it was all about, OrchidintheSun's posts would be the ones that would help you find which way is up.

Which is the reason that so many of her posts would end up being reported.

A great many posters have to change name on here to avoid being targeted so it makes it difficult to keep up some time so I am very grateful to the ones that manage to keep going with an identifiable name.

The people who benefit from deleting posters for innocuous expressions of sympathy, misinterpreted are certainly not those like me who pop in here to read, learn and understand.

And one last question: do you have any answer to how to deal with the vexatious reporting by known TRAs who publicly admit they monitor this forum and report messages that they blatantly just don’t like what is being said? I think we all know many posts are deleted here not because they break any guidelines. This thread is full of examples.

Yes. There are the women like us, Orchid, Barracker, Maryz, who have been on this site for years supporting other women & generating content for you. Then there are the TRAs whose only interest is in silencing us if they don't like what we're saying.

You must see the difference?

Thank you for the response.

I would still like an explanation of why Orchid was banned. Decisions like this are part of what makes us feel we are treading on eggshells.

Sadly we are finding it impossible resource-wise to send an email about every deletion we make on the boards

Can't you automate this?

While many sites have not been able to continue to host this debate, thus far we have, despite fairly significant cost in terms of time and money

This, as well, Justine, completely ignores the point we've made to you several times on this thread. To whit: sites with a reputation for censoring feminist much bigger than this one have hosted posts you have deleted, where they have gone viral. Posts you have issued strikes for and, in Barracker's case, even banned users for, then had to backtrack several times. And we have no idea how many women you have banned and have not told us, so we were unable to shame you into reinstating.

I am very sad to see that the issue of Orchid’s suspension for a post that was so innocuous, that was not intended in any sense that would break the guidelines - far from it - has been completely ignored.

Yes, me too.

I am very sad to see that the issue of Orchid’s suspension for a post that was so innocuous, that was not intended in any sense that would break the guidelines - far from it - has been completely ignored.

Posters who simply believe that trans people are weird, or shouldn’t be allowed to express their trans identity, just aren’t welcome on Mumsnet.

You need to clarify what you mean by trans identity tho, it could mean anything.

Rapists in female prisons are expressing their trans identity. Men beating women at sports, are expressing their trans identity. Men ejaculating into women's underwear at Marks & Spencer's, are expressing their trans identity, according to them.

Yes.

It’s a very vague term, to “express [one’s] trans identity”, isn’t it?

What exactly is encompassed within it?

Posters who simply believe that trans people are weird, or shouldn’t be allowed to express their trans identity, just aren’t welcome on Mumsnet.

Justine, I don't think any of us have a problem with people dressing however they choose. But many of us don't believe males should be able to "express their trans identity" by competing in women's sports or using women's single-sex spaces.

We think it's wrong for children to be able to "express their trans identity" by taking puberty blockers with severe, lifelong side effects, and for teenage girls to be able to "express their trans identity" by taking testosterone or having mastectomies.

Is what you're saying that we're not welcome on Mumsnet?

There’s a very big difference between making thoughtful arguments (TalkingInTheDark’s post is an example of this) and posting pejorative generalisations about trans people.

Can I just clarify this, Justine?

You think Talking made a thoughtful argument but you are not persuaded by it? Is that correct?

Also: if you genuinely think that post would have remained up on any other thread but this one, you really haven't listened to a word we said.

Sorry: I'm struggling to stay within the guidelines by not being rude to staffers here. It's not easy.