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 believe there is a MN option to put a trigger warning on a thread?

Is this right?

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

Given that the last food item I referred to was weetabix I'm wondering if we should ban all pronouns....

I believe there is a MN option to put a trigger warning on a thread?

I'm not sure it's an 'option' as such, but you can ask them to edit a title (maybe only the OP can do this, not sure)

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that.

I can't edit the title - sorry Rowan.

Haven't read this whole thread, but just to say yes I think MN should be giving clear reasons for deletions and where appropriate offering alternative terms/suchlike.

It's actually quite cruel imo to delete the posts of women discussing issues that are a challenge to our rights and often very distressing to us actually, under a system where if a mod decides we have broken the guidelines even if we haven't used a banned term that's one strike, and if this happens three times we get banned without giving us the opportunity to understand where we went wrong and how to avoid it in the future.

@MNHQ are putting us in a distressing position, that much is obvious from many posts on FWR, we should be completely clear on the terms we can and cannot use.

I have been using 'men who say they are women' since the guidelines came in, and if talking about straight men who say they are women I just would say that, or gay men who say they are women etc. I don't see anything at all in the guidelines to say we cannot say this. These are terms relating to sexuality not gender identity. And yes, many trans people wouldn't term it this way but also many would. Anyway if I'm wrong and this isn't okay, MN should tell me that and discuss with me the terms I can use. But if I'm just deleted without explanation and given a strike, that'd be quite cruel imo.

It should be reinstated

In the last few days I have seen people say that male people are actual, real, biological and natal women, that they are women with a "slight physical difference", that they are being discriminated against as women with a physical disadvantage. I have seen them state that they are infertile women. I have seen them compare being trans with being an adoptive parent (apparently adoption is a legal lie, who knew?).

I have seen them demand special treatment because they are more disadvantaged than women.

I have seen them dismiss disability as unimportant, and something that disabled women should just "get over" or "try harder" with.

Unfortunately many of the more ridiculous claims are deleted, meaning that we still get new people posting "don't be silly, they don't think they are women".

It's now impossible to refer to a woman, a real woman, a biological woman, a female person, female anatomy, a vagina or many, many other terms without being told that male people are/have all those things.

We are being forced to collude with lies.

PS - I still can't log in as Maryz.

leyat I will admit I was really shocked when I read the email yesterday. I have posted it in it's entirety elsewhere as I really do feel the strike I received was unfair. I admit, I did not refer to an [acronym] in the terms prescribed in the new guidelines but I didn't use a banned term either. It was a term that I didn't want to post as it appeared but a quirk on the forum means if you post -- to do a strike-through you can't put a letter net to the - as the strike-through doesn't work.

I feel I was slapped down for a word not on the banned list and a forum quirk. How can anyone call that fair?

spontaneousgiventime

Its fine, I was just wondering if as the basis for Ghost's deletion is the distress it causes to other women who are dealing with their fertility issues, perhaps a 'trigger warning' might be an option....

I don't really know the ins and outs of some MN conventions.

spontaneousgiventime yup not fair at all.

Re the thread and the deletion of ghost's posts it's a tough one to answer, basically I think the mods have to mod all posts equally, so that means a lot will get deleted that we would prefer remained up so people could see the awfulness of what we have to deal with and also understand what is happening in the thread. I think what women have done here in mentioning the comparison that was made and deleted, is probably all we can do really....

Or, if you're going to moderate then put a bit of effort in.

They obviously read the post to make sure it's delete worthy, so why not just asterisk out the offensive word or phrase so that the general meaning of the thread doesn't become disjointed.

I agree leyat that it is a tough decision to make and respect MN's position.
I chose to disclose my personal situation being aware that other women had similar circumstances. Some of whom have voiced the distress they feel when similar claims are made. Many of whom may not feel emotionally robust at the time or inclined to respond.

I do not intend to do this regularly.

I think on this thread, in this context, it matters.

@MNHQ - I also feel that the deleted post should be reinstated. It was directed at R0wantrees and she feels very strongly that the offensive attitudes expressed should be there for all to see, even though she was the one hurt by them. At the very least, a detailed and specific reason for the deletion should be added to the deletion notification on the thread. You aren't protecting your users by hiding these vile messages and attitudes: you are protecting the perpetrators by obscuring their words.

I understand you're trying your best and I'm not being rude or shouting at you but I think R0wantrees should have the final decision here and it wouldn't be a big climbdown for you to make.

I think that post should stand too.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3282635-Can-we-discuss?watched=1&msgid=78783122#78783122

@MNHQ
I do understand the principles of duty of care.

They are nuanced though.

I believe that in banning the poster, MN have applied these principles and I am grateful for that.

I also believe that in reinstating the post by Ghost Tess with comment and perhaps an addition of a 'trigger warning' to the thread you would be extending that duty of care to members who may be distressed by the comment.

By deleting the comment, some of us who have challenged the distressing nature of the comment are disempowered.

I have reported before when I thought it was a troll being transphobic so that they could take a screenshot and show how nasty we all are.
I also reported the ghost because I wanted rid of the fucker.
I believe in free speech and letting things speak for themselves so I will only report the first type in future.

I am not and was not distressed by the deleted comment.

I am distressed by its deletion.

I was subjected to a nasty post last night which I think on reflection should be reinstated.

The private message the poster sent me has not been deleted, despite me having reported it 15 hours ago.

Prior to the deleted comment I posted:

"GhostTess

I was briefly on the thread you refer to (which is closed because it has reached the maximun capacity of 1000 posts.

I would like to make this comment:

I was diagnosed with gyny cancer during treatment for fertility issues.

The total hysterectomy that I had was neccessary to save my life.

I am both an infertile woman and a woman without a uterus, cervix, ovaries (and a few other parts of my anatomy.)

My (male) partner and I will both be unable to be parents as a consequence. We share this sadness.

The specific consequences for me with regards the medical intervention are uniquely female.

I find it upsetting and uncivil when this is appropriated with so little empathy."

this was in response to comments that GhostTess made on the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3277047-I-am-S-p-a-r-t-a-c-u-s?

the thread was closed due to reaching 1000 posts. GhostTess's comments remain there (as I believe they should)

I did miss the comment. FTR, I am an 'infertile woman', having had a premmie menopause in my late 30s. No regrets though, what a relief not to have that monthly disruption. Still pretty chuffed about that part tbh.

Still very much 'all woman' though. A change in the reproductive cycle does not change that at all.

I specifically asked Ghost to consider my comment above:

"@ GhostTess (& yes I am deliberately using this device)

I would be grateful if you read and considered my post on this thread at Mon 18-Jun-18 14:16:56"

this was done in good faith and they replied as a consequence.

I think hiding with an option to view would be my ideal too.