Munroe Bergdorf lands big book deal with Bloomsbury

I might be trying to illustrate that tone is absolutely impossible to glean from words alone. Now, others may look at my posting history and come to one conclusion about my post, and others may notice I've been absent/quiet for a little while and conclude something else. Still others may not have the slightest clue who I am and therefore have nothing but my post to go on.

I've said what I've said. Freely within the guidelines. MNHQ are free to decide if it merits deletion, or not.

There was something Jane Austenesque about it floral. It is so difficult to decipher the tone of delicate feminine discourse without fluttering fans or a harpsichord to help us.

I did nauticant, didn't I? Did that indicate enthusiastic compliance, or subversive performance? I don't know if it's possible to tell, but I'm sure someone who isn't inside my head will be able to be definitive.

You did write:

I think we should probably just fulsomely thank MNHQ

Bananabix, I'll leave it to MNHQ to discern my intent beyond the plain words I've spoken. I believe they consider it quite the delicate art form.

Then I’ve just read the Waterstones Facebook thread on the new Ikabod book and there was someone there accusing JKR of basically punching down (whaaaaat?) a poor wee marginalised minority group...🙄

Yes, Serenity, it really is punching down. The whole of transactivism is punching down: male status, power and privilege vs female disempowerment, lack of status and disadvantage. All flipped to give the impression it’s the other way round, in the most audacious reversal ever, as another MNer once put it.

FloralBunting

I think we should probably just fulsomely thank MNHQ for allowing us a free voice on here, to discuss women's rights freely, within an clear set
of guidelines that ensure everyone feels welcome and free to express themselves. They are, as a private business, built on a reputation of allowing women a place to talk freely and campaign about the issues which matter to women, perfectly entitled to define what is, and isn't 'free expression' on their platform and to delete any expression that contravenes that freeness. I, for one, welcome their clear, well defined guidelines that mean any visitors feel very secure in expressing freely

Damn cant tell your tone, are you being sarky? Are you being really genuine?

Throws up hands, says fuck it go to a different thread where tone may be easier to define.

No further response from MNHQ. What about using this . Derisory? Wrong tone ?

Again how would MNHQ like us to refer to the external moderators? Presumably they don’t like ‘external moderators’ as it admits they take instruction from others.

How should Tinsel express the very particular dynamic she and others have experienced ?

Talking - its 'punching down' really, isn't it? This shows the status of women in society (and we have a 50:50 stake for god's sake).

YY Talking, great post

I'm starting to feel like I've gone in a (backwards?) circle.

I've spent a large part of my time over the last few years working to amplify the voices of trans widows and enable women to be heard, precisely because I had had enough of our husbands being called the brave and beautiful synonyms whilst they destroyed our lives.

I've had a fair measure of success:

www.transwidowsvoices.org/

but it's been a hell of a slog. And it's only been possible due to brave women speaking out and supporting each other. Many people I am sure, would like to silence the trans widows again.

We are extremely grateful for the supportive environment that MN have provided for trans widows and hope that it will continue, but this previous support is in sharp contrast with this move to take away the language by which we are able to describe our oppression.

Ask yourself who wants to take this away from us? Who benefits from it? I'll give you a clue- they're described in some detail over in the trans widows threads (now at over 3000 posts).

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

I believe transactivist ideology is in and of itself a form of structural abuse against women and girls.

Anything that promotes this ideology, such as the constantly peddled narrative that all those biologically male adult people who say they identify as women are immensely courageous individuals who are to be held in high esteem for their willingness to undertake their extraordinary journey, is enabling that abuse of women and girls. In a world where all sorts of forms of male abuse of women and girls are already rife.

What do we call it when victims of male abuse are not allowed to recognise, name and, yes, deride their abusers? What kind of situation is going on when the victims of abuse are punished for speaking out about their abuse, for fighting back against their abuse? Where do those who seek to silence and punish the victims of abuse fall on that “right side of history” line?

The free witches you can't burn.

I think we should probably just fulsomely thank MNHQ for allowing us a free voice on here, to discuss women's rights freely, within an clear set of guidelines that ensure everyone feels welcome and free to express themselves. They are, as a private business, built on a reputation of allowing women a place to talk freely and campaign about the issues which matter to women, perfectly entitled to define what is, and isn't 'free expression' on their platform and to delete any expression that contravenes that freeness. I, for one, welcome their clear, well defined guidelines that mean any visitors feel very secure in expressing freely.

And actually if I was being derisory it was towards are external moderators who have you on speed dial. That is exactly who I was referring to. I believe I said ‘Our B&S external moderators’.

Can I say ‘external moderators’? Because there’s irony in there too.

I am angry at this group of activists who try to control the dialogue here and at your desire to cater to them and to centre their requests over ours. I believe you said on this thread that do act ‘when requested’ which - for a group who wish you harm, MNHQ, and who would dearly love to destroy your business, is quite something.

So I do refer to them without fondness. What would be an approved way to signal my dislike and disapproval of this way of behaving without using terms that are banned and without allowing a ‘tone’ to creep into my language?

And for double standards - MNHQ once described women on here as ‘haranguing’ people. But using gendered and negative language against your own customer base is fine. Even when they object. This is where we are

X post with Datun saying similar.

There is also no reason why a person can’t be derided for their actions, words, tweets, etc and they are also trans. Individuals (who happen to be trans) and their actions should not be above scrutiny or derision. No one has ever used “stunning and brave” to deride trans people generally - and that would be transphobic and inappropriate - but it is commonly used ironically and tirelessly about individuals because it counters the common TRA trope that all trans people are just that, instead of the trans community being made up of all types of people, including those who might invite derision, or more commonly, anger at their actions. The use here counters the fact that TRAs often fail to call out or blatantly ignore behaviour - sometimes criminal - in favour of glossing things over with pleasantries. I imagine it won’t be long before TRAs target “This never happens” for similar reasons.

Let’s be honest though, some well known people who are trans or trans allies are more likely to invite monitors here to report, and negative mentions of those people are much less likely to be tolerated by those monitors. Especially those with links to a certain charity. I’d like to see how policing of derisory ironic “stunning and brave” posts will go down on a Karen White thread, for example.

@HebeMumsnet what if you feel derisory towards a transperson? What if you think much of what they say and do is risible?

For instance, I think a TRA advocating for extreme porn and lowering the age of participants, whilst hinting that they are being consulted on girl guiding policy, should be able to be contrasted with the stunning and brave narrative that is applied to themselves and others.

It's highlighting the hypocrisy of what someone says to others, and what they say about themselves.

Why is it decided that being derisory doesn't apply to entire cohort, unilaterally?

If only derisory comments about transpeople are problematic enough to be deleted then we are treating them differently from everyone else.

That's not inclusion.

We should be equally derisory to all groups in society.

Ha!!!

Unbeknownst to you THAT was sarcasm and derisory!

(It wasnt really)