Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think Mumsnet need to revise their talk guidelines?

379 replies

abeautifulmess · 05/03/2018 15:43

I have reported a number of threads recently and the mumsnet response has been 'we don't allow posts that break our talk guidelines' and nothing has been done when the whole thread has been attacking a particular (and vulnerable) group.

AIBU to question these guidelines and how they are applied?

OP posts:
DalekDalekDalek · 05/03/2018 16:05

I've hidden a number of anti-trans threads because they make me uncomfortable. I'm not sure if MN banning it would help though because I find it uncomfortable that people hold beliefs like this. MN can stop people talking about it but they can't stop people holding (what I think are) horrible beliefs.

I didn't realise until I joined MN how many people still hold anti-trans views. I thought, perhaps naively, that we had moved beyond this as a society. I don't know if MN is representative of society in general, I hope maybe my view of MN is being skewed by a few anti-trans people who are just shouting loudest.

dinosaursandtea · 05/03/2018 16:05

I absolutely agree - it’s utterly disgusting and shows where their priorities are...

greenmagpie · 05/03/2018 16:05

Sorry op I didn't see your post about pm. Happy to!

I don't tend to participate in the trans discussions actually and my views don't really fit onto a particular 'side' due to my personal experiences.

Xulishesthepilot · 05/03/2018 16:05

Agree OP. Sometimes it isn't individual posts, it's the whole premise or tone of a thread that is questionable in my eyes. Sometimes they go poof, sometimes they don't. They're more likely to disappear from Chat or AIBU than they are from Fem though - can't upset the regulars.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 05/03/2018 16:06

green

I appreciate what you are saying

But as far as i can see...and i will be honest i havent made a study so i may have missed loads...questioning on other threads does get very close to unpleasant and is deleted if necessary

So i am thinking of religion and threads about medical conditions

Again...they should be reported and deleted

Perhaps a clearer mention on threads such as 'we have received a number of reports but we are not deleting because of xyz' would be useful

Original poster
abeautifulmess · 05/03/2018 16:07

@Lovesagin perhaps what I'm wondering is whether there is a different distinction between attack/question on some trans threads then there might be for another group

OP posts:
JustHooking · 05/03/2018 16:09

It makes you uncomfortable to accept that women are women and trans women are trans women?
Does the truth that trans women were born male make you uncomfortable? Why are you denying their unique history. Surely that is not accepting

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 05/03/2018 16:10

So green (and sincere apologies if this comes over as snide...i really dont mean to) if as you say there is a fine line and some of us just cant see it

Would it be worth contacting MNHQ with some ideas of what you and others feel should be deleted

So i would like to see no personal attacks and no misgendering individuals,

Jon66 · 05/03/2018 16:12

I agree with the op. I find it pretty unpalatable to read the anti trans threads here and I think a substantial proportion of the views are discriminatory and I have been surprised they've allowed. If you substitute the word trans for black the posts wouldn't be allowed as racist. So mumsnet need to tighten up on those particular posts.

ClosDesMouches · 05/03/2018 16:13

OFFS. Not again.

Valentinesfart · 05/03/2018 16:13

If you can't define the group you deem to be vulnerable and explain in what sense they are more vulnerable than the women discussing them on a forum called "mumsnet" .. why the hell specifically do you want us to stop discussing this issue?

BishopBrennansArse · 05/03/2018 16:14

YANBU.
It's the turn of benefits claimants yesterday and today, it'll be disabled people next.

BishopBrennansArse · 05/03/2018 16:14

As well as what you're saying too OP.

Original poster
abeautifulmess · 05/03/2018 16:14

Sorry Rufus, are your replies to me or Green?

OP posts:
BarrackerBarmer · 05/03/2018 16:15

Ideology is fair game.
We should ALL attack bad ideas

People should be judged by their actions.
Also fair.

Speaking the truth should never, ever be reframed as an 'attack' so that the truth can be suppressed.
Facts are not attacks.

JustHooking · 05/03/2018 16:15

How can you compare it with black
You could only do that if a white person identified as black then went to black only spaces and called others there cis black

JamPasty · 05/03/2018 16:16

There's a difference thought between having a GRC and self-ID. Can we not discuss that?

Original poster
abeautifulmess · 05/03/2018 16:17

@Valentinesfart I have never said anything about whether I can definite the group or not. I didn't even say it shouldn't be discussed. My question concerns whether the same application of the talk guidelines is used for all groups - in this case trans

OP posts:
Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 05/03/2018 16:17

So sorry abeautifulmess

They are to you, I'm trying to do two things at the same time and failing...three if you include drinking coffees

greenmagpie · 05/03/2018 16:17

This is what I see happen on the trans discussion threads I read. Op questions a particular event or proposal. A few valid points are made questioning how xyz would actually work in practice/ get codified into law etc. Loads of ppl derail the thread with similar posts retreading the same ground ( I'm wearing trousers, am i trans male now, etc) - Not exactly an attack but not really contributing anything new or useful. Then the odd horrid post which is usually taken down. A few posts questioning in increasingly aggressive tones because the 'other side' doesn't engage or answer satisfactorily. And 99% the time no-one's views are genuinely challenged or change.

Assuming good faith, most of that would potentially be part of a rounded debate buy to someone who's trying to argue their counter point I appreciate it must be v difficult to determine which posts are genuine questions and which are flappy snippy bosom-shifting comments. However I think this is how most threads tend to go, be they about gender or parking!

Best bet is to be specific about which threads/posts you find genuinely problematic otherwise we're all just guessing.

Valentinesfart · 05/03/2018 16:18

I agree with the op. I find it pretty unpalatable to read the anti trans threads here and I think a substantial proportion of the views are discriminatory and I have been surprised they've allowed. If you substitute the word trans for black the posts wouldn't be allowed as racist

Yes, it would.

However if someone said "Rachel Dolzal should not have been allowed to work for the NAACP in that capacity while pretending to be black" that most defintely would be allowed to stand.

Greensleeves · 05/03/2018 16:18

Rufus I'm pretty happy with their deletion policy on this issue. I think stifling discussion when there is so much to discuss would be a mistake. They already do delete personal attacks.

SEsofty · 05/03/2018 16:18

Another trans one. This really only seems to be an issue on mumsnet.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 05/03/2018 16:19

It's the turn of benefits claimants yesterday and today, it'll be disabled people next

I do agree that it seems to happen on very many threads

Thats what i was trying to say...bishop said it better Smile

ShackUp · 05/03/2018 16:20

There are no 'anti-trans' threads.

Many people are waking up to the problems of self-ID. Totally different kettle of fish.