3 strikes and you're out

[spontaneousgiventime]

Sorry to start this thread but I'm livid. I'm beyond livid to be fair.

I'm now on strike two and have been warned my posting privilege is at risk.

The reason for this thread is; please don't take the new guidelines at face value. I got a strike today for calling a man who presents as a woman a name NOT on the banned list. Obviously now I can't say what it was, I am effectively gagged.

I now have six weeks of no free speech until the strikes I have are wiped - again effectively gagged.

So, you won't see me much as I will NOT refer to men who present as women as the names we are allowed to call them, so will end up banned. I will post bland banal comments that can't offend any sensibilities here and let rip elsewhere where free speech is encouraged.

PLEASE, please, watch your words or MN will use this as a reason the close the FWR board.

I think their response represented their belief.

I have heard the same view stated on previous threads here and elsewhere.

I asked Ghost to consider my comment, they did and I am happy to accept that they responded honestly.

It did though highlight a lack of empathy.

Thank you, HebeMNHQ.

Why are our rights and position second class

Because, as women, we must bow down before our lord and masters.

Illustration of the difficulty of communicating under the new guidelines - on another thread there is a trans person who is attracted to women complaining about posters engaging with a fellow trans person who is attracted to men in a different way then they engage with the former person, and about women sometimes being more comfortable with the latter variety of trans person accessing women's spaces. If we were allowed to use the words gay, straight, etc in their usual ways this would be a very easy thing to discuss. Under the new rules anyone using those words in the way most people understand them may be reported and deleted. All of the workarounds that I can think of either a. force posters to refer to a person with a penis attracted to women as a lesbian or b. risk deletion and a strike or c. will make very little sense as a result of trying to avoid both a. and b.

Can we maybe have a rethink of the extent to which the new rules hinder communication? Because really, it should be possible to say that women relate differently to one group of trans people than the other group, especially when there may be nudity involved, without a degree in communications.

Which thread AAK?

It's the Woman's Place Threatened with Device one Spontaneous. Sorry can't link on app (can I...?)

Women's Place meeting that had a bomb threat.

Can I ask anyone who felt upset by *GhostTess' reply and reported the post, if they were reporting the individual or the actual post please?

I do appreciate that it was distressing for many women to read.

I don't think deleting the post mitigates that distress and recognise that MN have now banned the poster.

I think this matters.

Ive read angrys post a few times and im lost

It woukd be better if we coukd use plain English

Errol stick them in the freezer and snack on them frozen. Lovely mini sorbet!

I was trying to make it intelligible! And am usually not a horrible writer.

It would be great if we could just say what we mean using normal words that most people understand.

I don't think even the new shonky guidelines stop us saying that there's no such thing as a lesbian with a penis.

Aah yes, I remember. Thank you!

Dear reader; Dont read this page from the bottom up. Go to the top and work your way down, trust me.

I think it would be helpful to at least have some indication why a comment was deleted. "Deleted because named a person's sex" and "deleted because quoted previous deleted comment" and "deleted because blatantly trolling in the hopes of upsetting women and making them lash out so as to harvest screencaps for Twitter" and "deleted because threatened fellow user with physical harm" are all very different things.

This is what I have been agitating for AAK. The stock standard "deleted - see guidelines" means absolutely nothing, and even within the thread, means absolutely nothing.

Frankly, it looks like a whole load of censorship on a 'free speech' venue.

We've accused the TRA's of word salads many a time, it's us doing it now to try to stay within guidelines and not using words/phrases offensive to us. It's ridiculous.

Dear reader; Dont read this page from the bottom up. Go to the top and work your way down, trust me.
Seems a foolhardy venture to me, would never even attempt it.

it's us doing it now to try to stay within guidelines and not using words/phrases offensive to us
But for completely different reasons, we are under 'penalty of forum death', they do it to obscure.

Just a post in support of rowantrees request to have that post stand - I think that needs to be seen tbh.

R0wanTrees we've dropped you a line now. Give us a shout if it doesn't turn up.

@HebeMumsnet
Thanks, I have replied to your email.

I do understand your position but would ask that you please reconsider the decision due to the wider issues.

& context.

I think this matters.

I'm behind R0wantrees with reinstating the post.

If you can't do that, could you say on the post that it was deleted for misogyny? Or whatever reason you think it was deleted. Could you be more specific than breaking guidelines. Or 'not in the spirit'.

Maybe 'directly against the spirit'?

I asked GhostTess directly to respond to my post. They did. This was not goady of them. It is their position (however difficult to read)

There are numerous other examples of recent posters who are trans women aligning their experience with that of infertile women.

On a few occasions I have engaged with them respectfully, as have other women who do not have children.

These posts were not deleted.