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=

It is all about ME!

You need a space between the joan and the reindeer, Rufus

Hang about - I've seen trans allies and activists referring to women as uterus havers or breeders, now we have charities referring to us as cervix owners (or whatever)

Can we not just call the sex who must not be named ejaculators or prostate havers. I mean they can't complain right, they set the precedent?

You need a space between the joan and the reindeer, Rufus

I was in the middle of swigging my drink when I read this so thanks for that! Just gonna go change my top now

Mn nicknames are spacephobic, otherwise you could put a space there...

Tut tut mn, I hope this will be addressed with the same vigour.

Mn nicknames are spacephobic, otherwise you could put a space there.

Absolutely beyond

No solidarity for me

Good grief. It's hard enough keeping the cat happy in real life. I usually refer to her as Weezolcat on MN. Should it really be
Weezol Cat? Am I erasing her identity?

I'm turning Joanpanese as we speak!

TRA (or tea as I autocorrect to - it knows me) is fine. I had an email confirming it. MNHQ agree that it is good to differentiate between the people pushing these things through and the old school type.

It also said that mentioning AGP is fine but not things saying the majority of trans suffer (would suffer be the right word when it seems to be enjoyed?!) from it. Although according to some stats I've seen (up to 80%) do. So that one is tricky ground.

Here's the problem - how do we know that these new rules or clarifications or what have you will be applied consistently by all mods, given that they seem to be being made up on the fly? There are already contradictions between what Justine posted and what Kate posted. That could be lack of internal communication, or it could be an update that nobody thought to post to the main here are the rules post, or it could signify disagreement that might lead to some mods deleting for things that others would consider fine. How can consistency be enforced? Given that we've been told that being "rude" about the mods is a deleteable offense, how are we meant to say, hey, I don't think this particular deletion was fair? Are we allowed to challenge mod decisions at all or is doing so going to result in being banned (FWIW that's authoritarian bollocks imo, everyone is capable of being wrong sometimes)? What is our recourse if we feel that a decision to delete is not actually supported by the rules? Why are updates not being added to the main rules post? Surely the expectation can't be that everyone is reading every thread and will therefore have seen mod comments with clarifications that might have been posted. Nobody has that much time on their hands!

I agree with you Angry. But at least (on a very small level) if someone us deleted we have some comeback. We should probably habe a thread that contains nothing but clarifications.

It's only today I caught up with this thread and learnt that the reason we can't say T*M is not to do with how some biologically and scientifically male people identify at all, it's because it upsets some biologically and scientifically male people to be reminded of their sex.

I also learnt it's not acceptable to substitute any other term that makes reference to the sex of some biologically and scientifically male people because it upsets them.

We also mustn't say that the majority of biologically and scientifically male people who get upset when reminded of their sex are AGP, even though this is true, because it upsets them.

Well I'm fucking upset.

The only reason we're discussing this at all is because of the huge impact it's having on women and children. These aren't trans debates, they are discussions among women trying to preserve our rights and safeguard our children. These should be acceptable topics of conversation on the feminist forum of a parenting website called 'mumsnet'.

If you take away all the words we need we can't discuss it. If we can't name sex we can't name sexism. We can't do feminism if we can't name sex and sexism.

'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words'

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.

'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

The new rules are clear as mud and aren't even all in one place. Most people on MN won't have even seen them.

You have us all treading on eggshells, worried about putting a foot wrong. Who does this sound like?

The posters we are having to be polite to are making the bomb threats all about them and are condoning 'jokes' about lynching women.

You're not compromising, you're appeasing. Go back and look at how you used to deal with MRAs. Please explain how this situation is different.

Lots of us would have your backs if you made a stand.

If you don't have our backs and we're all just bait for the twitter clicks I doubt I'll stick around.

Great post Pencils, particularly love this bit These aren't trans debates, they are discussions among women trying to preserve our rights and safeguard our children. These should be acceptable topics of conversation on the feminist forum of a parenting website called 'mumsnet'

Yy

If you take away all the words we need we can't discuss it. If we can't name sex we can't name sexism. We can't do feminism if we can't name sex and sexism.

This.

Exactly what Pencils said, 100 times over.

MN, I first started reading here in 2001. I lurked until 2005 or uthereabouts, when I finally registered. It was a bunch of - mainly women - who were NOT AFRAID. I spent most of my marriage afraid, until I actually joined MN, and then I began to feel less afraid, until in the end I was no longer afraid at all. Because of you MN, you and Justine and Carrie. Strong women who would take no shit, who would stand up and be counted, and stand up and sayto men "YOU are NOT the boss of ME".

Gone. Lost. Where are you now? Who are you now.

The strong women are still here, still fighting, but MN and Justine, you've lost.

I'd like to highlight an issue which arose on FWR today following a reply to me by a member who was subsequently identified as a troll.

This reply was deleted, and despite numerous attempts by me and other posters to request that the post be reinstated, it remains deleted (whilst their other posts remain)

I think the issue arose because a number of members had felt the person was not posting in good faith and so a number of reports had been made.
They were reporting the poster, but this can only be done by reporting individual posts.

The post which was deleted, was the tipping point for many.

It was a difficult post to read as it was from a trans woman who asserted that she was also an infertile woman and so felt that she had commonality with my personal experiences of having to have a hytserectomy due to medical neccesity. She described the pain that she felt of not being able to have the family she had dreamt of since she was young.

This response has been asserted previously here and elsewhere and will likely be so again.

The wider context is that many women are hurt, angy and frustrated at having the uniquely female experience of hysterectomies (and the possible consequences of being childless) appropriated.

The argument that some women don't have uteruses and so therefore TW are siimilarly women has been used by prominant TRAs on two recent TV programs, Victoria Derbyshire and GenderQuake debate, on neither occasions was this challenged by the host.

I don't think we talk enough about the menopause (natural or surgical) or the realities of having gyny surgery.

The context of the deleted post was significant and focussing on the individual post has both missed the meaning and undermined the comments of women who responded.

I and other posters attempted to explain this to @MNHQ without much success.

MN mods have identified the possible distress the comment may cause to women in similar circumstances to mine as an additional reason to delete it. I am aware of this distress (which is ongoing) and it was exactly why I had identified this in my comments.

I think this matters, not just to me but for women's ability to own and discuss the (sometimes brutal) realities of our biology and sex.

link to threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3281582-3-strikes-and-youre-out
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3282635-Can-we-discuss

I tried to discuss this off thread and have found it impossible to establish communication.

I do not doubt for a second that transgender people have all sorts of very difficult issues to contend with. I do dispute, however, the frequent assertion that transgender issues, and in particular the issues arising for people who were born male but would prefer to be female, have anything to do with my issues as a person born female and delighted to be female, despite the uniquely female issues that arise across my lifespan. No trans person can speak for me.

I dip in and out of these latest threads with feelings of horror and frustration.
Would I be wrong in thinking that it's about money here?
I am sure MN is useful to many women and perhaps the occasional male, but it is unrecognisable from the site I joined way back when.
It has become the website equivalent of M&S not knowing what it's there for or what it's doing.
Perhaps some brave soul can start a different forum where things can be freely discussed.

ProperLavs - it’s a reasonably strong hypothesis that MNHQ is under significant pressure from advertisers to create a trans friendly culture and to ban conversations that could be construed as hostile to the trans agenda.

Near everything kate posted contradicts what Justine posted, so how are we meant to make any sense of it all?

Surely its not too much to ask for a post clarifying the new guidelines, that is not contradictory and actually does make sense?

Like, justing posted talking about biological fact is fine, but Kate posted we cannot refer to male people as male as it might upset them. As an example.

Wouldn't it be safer to follow Justine

I have asked to see some (non identifiable) stats on the use of FWR as I believe, like many others, that people are registering to just make trouble. I hope I'll get them - as they would be shared with potential advertisers if requested I don't think they'll be commercially sensitive- but I'm not holding my breath. But I do think it could be really useful to demonstrate how core users of mumsnet use this board and that (if I'm correct) the ones trying to shut down conversation are unlikely to be the people their advertising is targeting. In other words - they can safely ignore the TRAs as most mumsnetters are happy talking about these things.

The request is on Site Stuff if you think of extra stats info that I should have requested