Mumsnet moderation of trans rights and gender critical issues II

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

Follow on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3276551-Mumsnet-moderation-of-trans-rights-and-gender-critical-issues?pg=40&order=

Thank you bore, that does make sense (though as with eresh, I still disagree), but that's still a poster confirming an understanding rather than mnhq - and if loads of other posters have already misinterpreted the rules, how can I be sure that posting to your interpretation (which I don't doubt btw) is correct, when other NT posters have interpreted it in a different way?

Iyswim? I feel I have overused "interpreted" a smidge...

Clear rules I can understand, alternatively rules with wiggle room as has usually worked on mn I can understand. What is throwing me is "clear rules" that don't appear to be as clear to others as they look to me, which makes me panic about what unwritten stuff I am missing

@KateMumsnet I'd like to ask please if you plan to apply similar rules across the whole website or if it is just on FWR?

For eg. If someone was to say trans identifying male on AIBU would these rules apply to them even though that person may have no awareness of the new rule?

Also as MN has brought in special rules to protect the feelings of a particular group of mostly male people who are not themselves posters on MN, will other groups of male people who object to MN women criticising their ideology and activism also be indulged with special protections? E.g. MRAs, fathers rights activists, incels, etc.

Just want to know just how far this is going to go. I know if I was any sort of MRA or antifeminist activist (or a plain garden troll tbh) I'd be joyful right now thinking of how I could create chaos for women esp feminists here.

Excellent point, Joan

Today 13:12 JoanSummers

@KateMumsnet I'd like to ask please if you plan to apply similar rules across the whole website or if it is just on FWR?

I would also welcome clarification. 'All threads' to me means all threads on Mumsnet.

@justineMumsnet several posters including myself have asked for acceptable terms to call men who self identify as women without using any variant of the word woman because they are not women.

Despite all the talk of misunderstandings I cannot find any answer on any or the related threads to this one basic question.

Please could you clarify?

Nb just talking in general terms, can understand not calling an individual a tim

My oh my, having a rational GC discussion is going to be awfully complicated. I force some crazy word-salads ahead.

It does make me wonder - Other than being control-freaks or trolls, why are TRA even coming to Mumsnet?

Maybe when someone gets their first strike, they should start a 'first strike' thread and we can all add ourselves as and when it happens. Then, when posters are on two strikes we won't be surprised if they suddenly disappear altogether?

Yy @Fairenuff

@Fairenuff

We have the daily register here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3278360-Daily-register

There was the original thread linking the new guidelines which appeared at the top of the feminism chat board. It's no longer there - so how are people going to see the guidelines - am I missing them?

@mnhq could you email everyone with a link to this? It's a substantial change in talk guidelines after all.

I think it's telling that the regulars happiest with this new policy so far are the trans activists. And that the distress of the other regulars is being pointedly ignored.

This is going to be completely unworkable.

See here, for example, AGP is a typology that describes the behaviour of around 80% of transsexuals and, I’d suspect, a much higher proportion of transgender males. Are we supposed to not now notice this, especially given the fact the internet is awash with great examples of autogynephilic behaviour. Also, denying autogynephilic males the ability to talk about their own lives does them no favours, how will they ever attain any level of self-understanding?

This worries me.
Alongside autism-related issues and the issue of lesbians being able to define our sexuality in our own terms (which also hasn't been picked up on by HQ or indeed many posters).

AGP is a thing. It's acknowledged as a thing by lots of trans people including eg J Fae. Why gag us from talking about it?

I think it's a young people thing - to sanitise the movement so it's not weird that children are included to the degree they currently are.

The comments I'm thinking of date back to around the same time - fetishes and how they mustn't be separated from trans issues. The issue may be seeing fetishes as linked to psychological difference, rather than sexyfuntimes etc, as Fae seems to be all about performative sexual freedom.
They were comments in fb groups that may have seemed private to those within them. And I had a habit of blocking people rather than screenshotting.
So please redact the above as I can't evidence it.

I do think though that in general there is a generational divide about what to emphasise in public and what to hide.

@mnhq could you please confirm or deny if one of the new rules is writing factual statements about a certain twitterazzi? Is there a codename we can use "voldemort" for this person seeing as they must not be named?

Lol at Voldermort!! But as that is a male name I'm guessing not that name.... How about Dobby? He was a male that wore a dress.....

I'm gonna get deleted aren't I? Hey ho.....

@Ucantarguewistupid

Lol actually lobby would be more fitting. But seeing as all of my posts bout this person have been deleted because they didn't respect guidelines (factually true, using actual legal name, no misgendering and no slander in posts) I assume that the new guidelines were implmented and are policed by vokdemort thwmselves and dknt take kind at being discussed/outted/reminded.

Let's hope @MNHQ clears up the issue if factual, non misgendering posts are allowed. Or should be just all repeat pretty Polly for eternity?

Actually Voldermort was a name a man made up when he tried to stop being a human male and instead something greater. It's all about reinvention so from that aspect quite appropriate.

Leave Dobby alone. He really was oppressed.

Ooooh dobby

If it is in fact that case that we are not to be allowed to use any words for trans people that don't include the gender they identify as (so transwoman or transman) then they really ought to clarify that, since LangCleg and a few others have asked multiple times now. Commenters can then decide if they want to continue commenting on a site that's forcing them to tell what they firmly believe to be lies.

I only want clarification because all the posts I've had deleted since these new rules have come into effect, have been about the one person.

I didn't misgender, nor did I slander, nor did I deadname (except in one post).

Apparently vokdemort is the chosen person and must not be named, in any way shape or form.

Perhaps there's a lawsuit in progress from the individual references above, in which case, again, being transparent about that would be helpful.