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

That video's a painful watch, Uterati.

@MNHQ - why delete about Jazz?

IT IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

That woman has some serious clout. That much is clear.

Posie, watch your step and I'll be supporting you all the way

As I said above, @TheUterati, we cannot control what other adults allow children to do or say in public or on social media and we don't consider 'the public domain' to be our guide on this. We are doing what we think is the right thing to do. I did also ask people not to test the edges of our tolerance of this - we don't want to remove the ability to post on Mumsnet but we'll have to if individuals can't stay within the line on this.

I think the censoring is part of mumsnetHQ they go low we go high. HQ's stance is children's safety and privacy, posters have concerns over TRAs and the impact on children so it makes sense HQ would be hard line on this. Especially as child well-being is common ground.

@KateMumsnet - can I clarify?

Discussing individual minors who have had trans surgical intervention? NO.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in an objective, factual way? YES.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in a way that could be seen as salacious? NO.

Have I got that right?

(I'm unlikely to discuss individual children myself but I see why other posters think it's important so want to get it straight on their behalf.)

Can we avoid making Mumsnet's life more difficult than it has to be?
We could refer people to links to the information, and discuss it obliquely.

I agree, it needs talking about.
We need to find a way to do it that doesn't aggravate MN's position.

"As I said above, @TheUterati, we cannot control what other adults allow children to do or say in public or on social media and we don't consider 'the public domain' to be our guide on this."

? Some of these are from doctors, parents, etc.

And the 'child' is now an adult.

[quote LangCleg]@KateMumsnet - can I clarify?

Discussing individual minors who have had trans surgical intervention? NO.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in an objective, factual way? YES.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in a way that could be seen as salacious? NO.

Have I got that right?

(I'm unlikely to discuss individual children myself but I see why other posters think it's important so want to get it straight on their behalf.)[/quote]

That's right @LangCleg. I'd add 'in a way that could be seen as salacious or sensationalist.'

@KateMNHQ - if the general context in which deletions were occurring were not so egregious and outrageous ('bless..'; 'yawn' reporting invited via Twitter; refusing to permit language to remain in accordance with empirically verifiable biological fact) then perhaps posters would not be minded to 'test the edges of your tolerance'....

My 'bless...' was deleted because it was sneering, goady and outside the bounds of civilised debate.

Frankly, is it any wonder I cannot take your deletions seriously. You all need to shoulder your fair share of responsibility for creating a situation where you feel pushed and tested.

I'm sorry you feel like that @TheUterati.

I think we've said a few times that we're thinking hard here about clarifying how the talk guidelines apply in practice on this general topic, and we're going to come back soon with more detail. We want to get it right, so we're keen not to rush it.

However, I think we've been very clear about what can't allow in relation to the discussion of children's genitals - only you can decide whether you can cope with these rules, but in all honestly if you can't take our deletions seriously then MN is not the place for you.

Agree with Greymisty and picklemepopcorn

@KateMNHQ

No. I cannot take you seriously when you invite reports via Twitter.

No. I cannot take you seriously when you delete 'bless...' on the grounds that it is outside the bounds of civil debate. Ditto 'yawn...'

No. I cannot take you seriously when you delete posts stating biological facts, yet allow the converse to stand. I cannot take you seriously when I am permitted to state 'God does not exist' or 'Jesus Christ was not the son of God' or 'religion is a system of delusional beliefs', yet I am forbidden to state 'trans does not exist', or 'transwomen are men' or 'trans is a delusional belief'. (NOTE: the complete absence of calls to persecution in such statements - whether they be related to religion or to trans...)

No. I cannot take you seriously when there is such a delay between the data breach and you taking the action you are required to take.

If you believe that this means that MN is not the place for me, then you may take whatever action you wish. But, do me and the other users the courtesy of allowing this post to stand, so they may read what may be my final post on this forum and understand the reason why I have been banned, should that be your decision.

CuriousaboutSamphire

I think the full lyrics might be interesting for the young folk (It was written in 1966)

Who Lyrics
"I'm A Boy"

One little girl was called Jean-Marie
Another little girl was called Felicity
Another little girl was Sally-Joy
The other was me
And I'm a Boy

My name is Bill and I'm a head case
They practice making-up on my face
Yeah I feel lucky if I get trousers to wear
Spend days just taking hairpins from my hair

I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But my ma won't admit it
I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But if I say I am
I get it

Put your frock on, Jean-Marie
Plait your hair, Felicity
Paint your nails little Sally-Joy
Put this wig on little boy

I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But my ma won't admit it
I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But if I say I am
I get it

I wanna play cricket on the green
Ride my bike across the street
Cut myself and see my blood
I wanna come home all covered in mud

I'm a boy I'm a boy
But my ma won't admit it
I'm a boy, I'm a boy, I'm a boy
I'm a boy, I'm a boy, I'm a boy, I'm a boy
I'm a boy, I'm a Boy
I'm, A, Boy!

The song was originally intended to be a part of a rock opera called 'Quads' which was to be set in the future where parents can choose the sex of their children. The song is about a family who "order" four girls, but a mistake is made and three girls and one boy are delivered instead. The boy dreams of partaking in sports and other boy-type activities, but his mother forces him to act like his sisters and refuses to believe the truth ("I'm a boy, I'm a boy, but my Ma won't admit it")

there's a better video

@theuterati, there is nothing in that post which breaks TGs so of course we would allow it to stand.

@KateMNHQ - I am afraid that is manifestly not the case, because you deleted my post on the 'State your belief about ID' thread.

Yay. I've been reinstated for the second post.

Thank you, MNHQ.

I suspect that my posts will be reported again, mind. Will keep an eye on them.

@KateMumsnet

Why was my post of 11.34 deleted? Was it simply down to that ridiculous twitter account reporting it?

I did not talk specifically about a child. My wording on the procedure was abstract and mostly the post was concerned with SG's decisions and her moves not to have it discussed, despite having spoken about it on a TED Talk.

@KateMumsnet

So we can't talk about individual kids? I agree with that.
We can discuss SRS of young people in a respectful and not salacious manner? Ok.

What about if the point we want to make is in a published article and is perhaps a little outside of what we would be allowed to write. Could we link to that article to make our point?

@TheUterati You aint going anywhere bossy mode

@spontanous

I'm not leaving of my own volition, but I am not going to 'shut up' and be censored in what I can say in order to stay.

@TheUterati Exactly what I said on the Guardian thread. I will not shut up. These are far too important issues to to sit in silence over.

I'm curious. If SG were posting on this thread and talking about her child's op (which she has, extensively), would that be allowed?

You know @katemumsnet one thing that is very unclear is what the guidelines actually are. And how the mods apply them. There has been some massively inconsistent modding over the course of the last few days. On Friday, there were loads of deletions. Yesterday, loads of stuff that would have been deleted on Friday was allowed to stand. Today, the decision seems to have been reversed.

Can you tell us - and your fellow mods - what the rules actually are?

I don't want to leave MN over this because then the TRAs will have got their wish. But you need to be a lot clearer about what is and what isn't acceptable.

@spontaneous - not bothered to check whether I have been deleted from the Graun thread.....

On the other hand that my posts have been Screenshot and posted to Twitter means that they have legs on a platform that I don't use. So I should probably be grateful for that .