Mumsnet Grass Account

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Have just grassed you up for banning them @MNHQ

They said "Mumsnet you left us no choice"

I think you are supposed to hang your heads in shame

Would someone pls spell out the m word that is proscribed? For the slow of puzzling out. Thanks.

To be fair, even among those of us who are GC it can go from mildly so to really quite hard-line. As Datun said, perhaps moderating by law would help? You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

The m word people used to use for people with Down’s syndrome.

it is a word that used to be used to categorise people in asylums and is now used to mean - you stupid person!

thebewilderness Think of an Asian country remove the last few letters and add oid.

no it is not that word I don't think I think it is the word coined by Henry H. Goddard

@Datun it is stressful, but it really helps to know that MNHQ are working on how to approach this and planning to let us know once they reach a decision. I really hope they only prevent what they find to be objectively wrong, and refuse to take a position on gender politics, i.e. refuse to prevent us using sex based pronouns etc. Sex based pronouns aren't objectively wrong, and are a reflection of GC ideology in the same way that cisgendering is of trans ideology. I find cisgendering highly offensive as a feminist woman who understands I am not the gender coercively imposed on me and that to say I am is to say I am innately subordinate to men, but I would uphold the right of those who cisgender me to be able to do so because of free speech, and I would expect MN to allow people to use the terms cis and cisgender on here for the same reason.

Moron is the problem word.

PermissionToSpeakSir I googled, no, I'm thinking of a different word to you.

This is hard to follow.

Is it now verboten to point out the factual truth that MtF genital reassignment surgery entails castration?

no, i think that's fine Battleax.

but I think naming and discussing individuals who were minors at the time the procedure was performed on them is, rightly, not OK.

Ah this is about Suzy’s own child again?

It does seem a bit bizarre when she’s made a whole career of banging on about how she financed her child’s operation and where it was performed.

And just to add re modding, Twitter, which is well known for being very anti-feminist, once suspended me for 12 hours as a result of posting prison and murder stats for transwomen, and I posted these in a response to a tweet that gave false info, and in my tweet I gave links for the stats. It was literally a factual correction and nothing else. I mention this because not even Twitter suspends people for using sex based pronouns for trans people.

As Datun said, perhaps moderating by law would help?

This seems to be how other sensitive topic are moderated. As little moderation/deleting as possible, is what I used to think MN mods tried for? Obviously personal attacks and such go too..but generally, free speech seemed to win out.

There have been posts on here that I consider to be able-ist (or is it disablist? I should probably know as a disabled person ) which have been left standing. However, I would prefer the odd post I find offensive to be left up than 50 posts that are borderline deleted. If that makes sense. Obviously other members may think differently though.

Of course, private information about children shouldn’t be shared but commenting on public domain details shared repeatedly and at length by an (unusual) parent is actually a different thing isn’t it?

If someone was boasting all over social media about their daughter’s FGM and that was discussed here, what would MNHQ’s editorial line be about that @Katemumsnet?

I remember very well the decades when FGM, forced marriage and “honour” killings were considered “community matters” and therefore unassailable. I’m uneasy about this.

However, I would prefer the odd post I find offensive to be left up than 50 posts that are borderline deleted. If that makes sense. Obviously other members may think differently though.

Me too.

Thanks for the m word clarification. It jars on me when people talk like that and then I wonder if I say that sort of thing too.
Food for thought.

There's been some awful disablist/ableist threads or comments. I don't know what it is about society/groups of peole but it/we can only ever seem to focus on one "PC" issue at a time. Atm it's TRA meanwhile disabled access to life still sucks and two women a week are still being murdered. Tra la la larrr.

If I were a wheelchair user I'd be well pissed off if my hard won changing places toilet/faculties changed in the gender neutral toilets. I think people forget disabled loos always end up being used for a quickie that's why they sometimes have a key or you have to ask to use them.

Yes I am okay with being offended too. For example sexist words like 'bitch' or 'slut' - I am pretty sure on MN other posters would call it out and there wouldn't be any need for deletion.

ReluctantCamper

Part of their job is to bear those people in mind.

Yes, I understand they are bearing as many people in mind as possible. But if you ask 20 people a question, it's easy to get 20 different answers.

And if you have all the time in the world and endless resources you can assess forensically to effectively moderate. But they don't. They're stretched to breaking point, getting stressed and (it appears) all have slightly differing opinions.

And offending someone is inevitable.

I just don't get why they care. MSM is only reporting how bad it is that MN are being targetted. Articles are all in favour of MN.

Where's the damage?

Twitter, which is well known for being very anti-feminist, once suspended me for 12 hours as a result of posting prison and murder stats for transwomen
leyat -
There are some account holders on twitter who are very very busy reporting comments and accounts (& celebrating their collections of blue shields). As Twitter has some specific policies about protected characteristics, reports on this basis are often successful. The report sent will appeal to established grounds for deletion / suspension etc.

I believe, that sexism is not included!

I were a wheelchair user I'd be well pissed off if my hard won changing places toilet/faculties changed in the gender neutral toilets. I think people forget disabled loos always end up being used for a quickie that's why they sometimes have a key or you have to ask to use them.

Periodically, it has been suggested that making disabled loos available to transsexuals is the answer. I must admit that that kisses me off hugely. Especially when it comes from a feminist defending women’s spaces and attempting to broker a “compromise”.

PISSES me off

This is difficult, yes she does talk about it but does her child? I genuinely do not know. If the child does speak about it, is it with the same level of invasive detail?

Children's rights trump the rights of adults, always. Just because a parent chooses to share the most private details of their children is it ok to repeat it?

The thing is that the knowledge of that individual’s surgery is very much a “stable door” situation.

Once it’s known to have happened, then it’s known, and we can’t I know it. It was widely publicised by the parent and do if there’s fault it’s with that parent.

Obviously, prurience or unpleasantness are not on, but I can’t for the life of me see the value (to that child or society) of everyone pretending they weren’t told.

I'm in agreement with MNHQ that discussion of named children should not be allowed.

That said, I think the Green case is unique for a number of reasons.

Susie receives a very substantial salary as CEO of Mermaids, which by its own admission is not just a "support" charity, but a lobby group.

Mermaids has been invited to engage with many organisations - parliament, Miller, police etc etc

Susie and her child have repeatedly engaged the national press and social media.

The reason "we" know about Susie's response to her child's gender dysphoria (and in graphic detail) is because she has chosen repeatedly to discuss it.

So I think there is an issue here.

It's hard to discuss the motivation of Susie and Mermaids without also being open about her reaction to her child's dysphoria, her husbands reactions and the fact she decided intervene by taking her child to another country for hugely invasive surgery at the age of 16. A country that has now banned such procedures for children.

The truth is that SRS is brutal. M2F or F2M. There's no escaping the fact that in terms of surgical intervention it's hugely invasive and yet still limited in its ability to recreate a facsimile of a non natal sexed body. In terms of an aesthetic the results can be good for some people but the functionality is incontrovertibly not comparable to natal organs.

I feel an enormous amount of empathy for people who feel this is a necessary procedure for them to undergo.

I question whether any child has the maturity to make such a decision.

I question the ability of anyone whose facilitated this for their child to have a viewpoint that's nuanced and balanced about possible alternatives to transition.

I think it's important to be able to discuss this.