AIBU to have done a little happy dance when I read this.

[Skarossinkplunger]

I realise that loads of people will absolutely hate this, but I had a huge sigh of relief when I read this. Well done Justine!

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/13/mumsnet-transgender-row-feminism-tougher-forum-rules

[SuburbanRhonda]

men who are woven

😂

[animaginativeusername]

Women*!!!

😬

[animaginativeusername]

Thank you @SuburbanRhonda 😊

[Bowlofbabelfish]

That makes sense bore - and actually that’s more along what I’d do if I was modding - there is a big difference between critique to / of an individual and critique of an ideology.

I’m just worried that speaking in the abstract about an ideology I disagree with, or speaking about science in general is enough to be banned. Let’s hope the modding sees the difference.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

You express things so clearly and calmly and always link back to the science Bowl. I reckon you'll be fine.

Anyway, MNHQ don't say it's an automatic ban - three deleted posts in any rolling six week period and the account is suspended while they make a decision whether it should be reinstated.

The posters I am concerned about are those who always used TIM or similar as they cannot bring themselves to use the term transwoman.

[IslaBoots]

Seems all women now have to bow down to the "women" who want to invade women's spaces.... because they wear a dress today... there We go..

When did wearing a dress make someone a "woman"??

[PositivelyPERF]

When did wearing a dress make someone a "woman"??

When a man says so.

[IslaBoots]

Positively... Yes... Exactly and it seems, again, women have no voice... 😶

[ForalltheSaints]

Regardless of any views I or anyone else has about people who consider themselves to be a different gender from that at birth, abusive behaviour towards the MN moderators is not acceptable in my view, and so no tolerance of this is a policy I support.

[HeckyPeck]

I'll be glad to see the back of offensive terminology. It doesn't help either side move towards a middle ground, nor does it help people who are in the middle be lured towards whichever side you're on. It simply causes arguments.

[thebewilderness]

I find the debate over women's right to say no to men to be absolutely exhausting.
It has been going on all my life and the myriad reasons they have come up with to assert that a woman's no is the beginning of a negotiation are every one specious and dehumanizing to women and girls.

This latest caution from Mumsnet that women must not say things that are "hurtful" to the opposite sex by using the terms that transgender people use to describe themselves is just bizarre.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

fawkes

Many posters are worried that they can no longer discuss issues that are important to them. I was demonstrating that it is possible to do that while staying within MNHQ's guidelines.

I agree that the last line was a little childish, but I disagree that it was offensive and goady. If MNHQ think differently they will, of course, remove it.

Your post to me however was offensive and does, I believe, break MN guidelines.

[echt]

Actually, I don't think Bore is the problem; she was pointing out the niggling/looking for offence tendencies of so many TRAs on MN, as is evidenced by the perceived need for MNHQ to throw women under the bus in order to placate them, in the shape the recent forum rules adjustments.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Thank you echt

[PositivelyPERF]

I agree with echt. You did make me laugh Bore. Not sure if it was your intention, but it was an important point and funny. 😆 💐

[MipMipMip]

Stop the world do I can get off.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Thank you @PositivelyPERF

I'm pleased to see that my posts remain, whist fawkes has been deleted. And also turned out to be a PBP. Quelle surprise

[Monty27]

I've heard a snippet of this on LBC. Can someone give me a very brief synopsis and what the new MN rules are? I have a vague idea of what it's about. Thanks

[Bibesia]

Stop the world do I can get off.

Pointless post. You seriously want to "get off" the world because of a tweak to posting rules in one forum? There's nothing forcing you to stay on that forum, you know.

[IsMyUserNameRubbish]

It's a shame that "negative" views are determined as hateful, I have negative views on spinach but but I don't hate it.

[greenlanes]

I think negative views are only deemed as hateful by a small minority. Normal adults can accept that we wont all agree and we will all have different opinions.

The number of times i see on here about hate filled threads on the trans threads. Nonsense. It is just that I and many others like me welcome transwomen. But we dont want self id-ing men trying to be in women-only spaces or trying to gain competitive advantage due to their sex. I dont hate them but I won't accept that behaviour. It is analogous to abusive behaviour from domestic abusers. Who consider that only they as men are allowed a voice. Aint happening on my watch. No hate here. Just strong defence of the rights of biological women and those who fully embrace that way to be heard.

[NoIWontDoWhatYouSay]

But the threads aren't full of 'I have no problem with transwomen, it's self ID I'm concerned about'.

Many of the threads are full of (insert numerous names of well known transwomen) is a MAN. So and so is a MAN. No matter what lengths anyone goes to, what diagnosis they have, what medical intervention they have (though said in a more offensive way) I will never say they are not a MAN. I will never allow them to appropriate my pronouns etc etc. I will always call them a MAN.

So it looks very much like that a lot of posters do have a 'problem' outside of proposed changes to self ID.

You (not literally you) see 'biological facts'. Others see 'hatred and transphobia'. Neither of the sides will be able to convince the other that they are wrong. One side can't see hate, the other can't not. So they are pointless, repetitive arguments.

That's why there's such a division here currently.