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

Stating that a mother is a female role IS transphobic, according to these nutters. Start capitulating to them and they will keep going until the use of any female word will be verboten. Including 'Mumsnet'

'Enjoy Ur Erasure' indeed

I wonder if HQ really did delete 90% of the reported posts though.

You mean - they might be lying?

Ho ho ho - they tried to log back into Mumsnet but MN's troll defence sheilds were up.

I could screenshot the post but, nah.

Enjoy Ur Obscurity, saddos

Having looked through the screenshots posted on that Twitter account, all I can say is thanks to them for spreading such sensible posts about basic biological fact.

Indeed.

They do tend to be somewhat challenged when it comes to reporting accurate stats..

You mean - they might be lying?

Surely not!?

I actually did not think of that I blame my meds. Of course they may well be lying. Though there HAVE been some rather odd deletions recently.

Yawn

For example?

Which just implied the op did not care that whoever it was was having a rant about Mumsnet.

HI there

Our view here is that, while we cannot control the decisions of others to intrusively discuss individual children's genitals off board, we can and must control it on Mumsnet.

When discussing this issue, please find ways to do so which do not refer to individual children at all.

Some posts on these threads have also appeared, in making their point, to revel in detailing the procedures undergone. We won't allow this about individual children or as a generalisation - there is absolutely no need, and no room for manoeuvre or discussion on this, I'm afraid.

We'll remove posts which do so and we'll take a really dim view if people attempt to test the edges of our tolerance. We know you are motivated by a desire to protect children, but the impact on them is the same no matter who is intrusively speculating about these things.

@KateMumsnet - have you put this on the wrong thread?

My post on the 'state your view on self ID' has been deleted by MN.

They will have to ban me....

Mumsnet have decided to reinstate my initial post.

But they've now deleted my second post that referred to it.

MNHQ can you reinstate my second post on this thread at 14.34 today?

Here's the thing.

I've done nothing wrong.

@KateMNHQ

Where facts are in the public domain, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to these and to discuss them.

Where abuses are committed, we should not shy away from naming these. Just as we should not shy away from discussing the full significance and implications of FGM.

To insist that these discussions and the relevant facts are 'prettied up' is to be complicit.

No @langcleg - we've deleted a post above which discussed the details of how genital surgery is performed on children in much more detail than was necessary, and we want everyone to understand where we're at with this. I've linked from another thread to here too, although as I said, this is not a woolly line where there is room to manoeuvre depending on context.

Popchyk - to delete evidence of censorship is also censorship.

@KateMNHQ - if it is factually correct, and publicly accessible, then it should not be deleted.

Just as a factually correct and publicly accessible account of FGM should not be deleted.

If necessary post a MNQH warning: contains distressing content.

@theuterati - we profoundly disagree. The rights of children to privacy trumps everything, however frustrating that might be. What others do is beyond our control.

@KateMNHQ So an account of what is involved in FGM would be equally unacceptable?
How does this violate the right to privacy of a child?

More detail than necessary? You deleted my post about how a certain person (who openly discussed the process on TV) gave their child cross-sex hormones, this was in the context of a thread about that person persecuting a Mumsnet poster.

I'm not really sure that this detail is somehow irrelevant or extraneous given that said person was filmed on national TV laughing about the effects of these hormones on their child's genitals.

I mean this is not a case of invasion of privacy, let's not grossly misrepresent reality.

Agreed @TerfinUSA

This OK??

Computer generated images.....

"The rights of children to privacy trumps everything, however frustrating that might be. What others do is beyond our control."

You are referring, as I understand it, to someone who is now unquestionably an adult whose procedures were discussed on national TV and whose doctor boasted on TedX about the experimental medical procedure.

Perhaps you should delete the threads about Venables and Thompson, were they not also children?

Or perhaps apply some consistent rules across your site, not one rule for TRAs, one rule for everyone else.

The operation in question is about the genitals KateMumsnet, it's not about cancer or diabetes or any other medical procedure. The post that was deleted did not mention the child by name, and mentioned the procedure purely in abstract.

Not allowing discussion is simply obfuscation which upholds the faiytale nonsense that the kids suddenly magic into being a girl and vice versa.

There is a reason that this operation is not allowed on children.

And remember that a mother is being investigated because she dared to speak about the decisions another mother made for her child.

It's mind boggling the power these people have

[quote TheUterati]@KateMNHQ So an account of what is involved in FGM would be equally unacceptable?
How does this violate the right to privacy of a child?[/quote]

A salacious account which focused on the sensational details wouldn't be okay.