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=

Pratchett your think so but Justine is unlikly to be doing modding where Kate is.

It’s not “safe” to follow either Justine or Kate’s guidelines. It’s never safe to censor yourself.

I've just started reading germain Greer's 'the whole woman' and I find myself getting more and more angry with this whole sham.
I will never say that a man is woman and I will never call him she, ever.

I can't help feeling we have some foxes in the hen house....

--Waves at former Intern "I define as queer" Emma and her friends.

That said I find most of the mods incredibly fair wrt how they apply the rules (even if I don't agree with some of said rules). Hebe is a favourite mod of mine for example.

It's a challenging time for them and us.

I am interested in whose head Mod though?

Is that Kate?

As the cunning disguise chosen by said foxes seems to be a mask depicting a fox, it's quite easy to spot them and not engage.

Don't feed the fox.

Dear @MNHQ.

This is what I was just about to post on the Lisa Muggeridge thread with 250+ posts on with some really good points from a lot of people incl Lisa Muggeridge. The whole thread has been locked and pulled.

I saw your note saying the OP was not in the spirit, because it linked to (but did not quote) something that was not in the spirit. I feel the new guidelines are being expanded beyond a workable way of managing the discussion on MN if we have to apply new MN guidance to what is linked to. Have I misunderstood something?

SophieLMN please do reconsider and don’t take the thread down, this is a really important discussion. Did you mean that the OP’s opening post was not in the spirit?

The OP’s own post did not quote or use non-preferred pronouns. She linked to someone else’s post (not on MN, so clearly not subject to new MN guidelines) to start a discussion.

We really do need to be able to point to other non-MN hosted material for discussion which by definition may well not be in the spirit of MN guidelines because not subject to them. I imagine this is happening right now all over MN in multiple different areas of discussion.

I can only imagine the pressure you are under to take this thread down but please do reconsider, it is so important to let women speak about these issues. Please don’t hold us to a higher standard than the rest of the site. Thank you and to MN mods doing a hard job.

Exactly chatty.

How can we discuss positions being taken more broadly on this matter if we can't even raise them?

For example - what about articles using the now banned "cis" and "terf"?

How can we talk about the prevelance of this more widely if we can't link to relevant content?

Atreides I would really like clarification. I’m OK not to quote something non-MN-compliant in a post if that’s the requirement. But not to be able to even LINK to MN-compliant stuff is impossible to manage.

Posting my message from the other thread, as its obviously relevant here

----

I don't understand why male people are getting 'special treatment'. I have seen so much more abuse against, for example, disabled people that is left to stand on here. Parents of disabled children are told that its better to let the abuse stand and they should 'educate' the people posting it...moron, and many other words such as that are not deleted either.

Disabled people, and parents of disabled children have been pointing this out for years and nothing. But male people start kicking off about being called male and everything changes in a second. Its ridiculous really. Expected in many places, but I did not expect it of MN.

Also TIM is not a slur. It is a word that encompassed all male people with a trans identity. Saying we have to refer to these people as transwomen is actually quite excluding, as many male trans people do not identify as women anyway.

I would say that TIM is not on a level with TERF. TERF is a slur, TIM is not. The equivalent would be 'tranny', which interestingly enough seems to be allowed as I have reported a few posts previously with that word and nothing has happened, and its not mentioned in the new guidelines either.

-------

I would like clarification on many things, but this is the main one, how come disabled people and parents of disabled children are expected to educate people who say discriminatory things about disabilities, but MN mods will now remove any mention of male people being male, or seemingly random discussions about this?

I can imagine the pressure on MN to comply with the postmodern religion...but surely MN has faced such pressure before, one that comes to mind is the attacks from F4J, which is eerily similar to this whole trans ideology stuff tbh, given MRAs and TRAs overlap in their behaviour and wants. Its almost like MRAs have found a new way to attack MN, but because the magical 'trans' word is mentioned, this time MN complies instead of standing strong as they have in the past.

I hope this doesn't come over as an attack on the mods, as thats not what I mean. I am just really confused by this whole thing, and HOW these (vague) new guidelines are being applied by some mods.

Everything that Person said so eloquently.

Why have HQ not clarified any of these points yet? Are we just to be ignored? The lack of information is frustrating posters. Are they just waiting for people to give up trying and go away?

Justine is not a complete moron. I expect she doesn’t know what to say in the face of such eloquent articulation of the irreconcilable.

Then why the need for new guidelines? The existing ones were perfectly fit for the purpose.

Other than outright banning of certain terms such as TERF, cis, TIM, etc. there was no need for a long ambiguous announcement that has just left everyone confused.

Most people are happy to stick to the rules. We just want to know what the rules are.

When people are being deleted for typing the words acronym and redacted, it makes HQ look like fools. And as though Justine was not telling the truth when she advocated free speech.

She should be turning round to her detractors and saying no, of course I can't possibly delete people for using neutral words, fool.

Quite evidently, she is forcing people into a bottleneck of approved language.

Approve language is not free speech.

No part of it is.

What if we type it backward [mynorca]

I'm at this stage

The water in mynorca don't taste like what it oughta yes I'm aware it was Majorca

Why have HQ not clarified any of these points yet?

Kate posted a "clarification" post. Which basically brought all their non-clarifications into one place.

Yeah the clarification post didn't help me at all tbh. But I've given up asking now, what's the point.