Lisa Muggeridge Suspended by Twitter and Quoting her breaches MN Guidelines

[R0wantrees]

I posted news that another woman has been suspended by Twitter. This seems likely as a result of targetted mass reports

Lisa Muggeridge comments at idgeofreason.wordpress.com

& recently spoke at the Inconvenient Women: We Need to Talk meeting in London.

I posted the quote by Lisa because it concerns me that women are being silenced.

My background is English Literature so my style is to leave a writer's words for others to read for themselves.

There were a number of apparent attempts to derail the thread and so when this happened, I quoted further comment by Lisa Muggeridge. To let her words speak.

I believe in the importance of free speech.

I have many books on my bookshelf, which I am sure may have contentious comments in. I don't though believe that books are dangerous or should be burned.

I also read authors who had serious failings.

I wasn't advised that there was an issue with the OP but understand that within the quoted comment was misgendering.

I felt that it was not for me to edit Lisa Muggeridge's words.

I believe in [REDACTED] speech!

Brief pause from SIGHing to piss myself laughing

OK:

Can't quote people that non-biological females decide they don't like.

Can't use terms non-biological females decide they don't like.

Can't claim spaces for biological females that non-biological females decide they don't like being excluded from cos of penises, and all that. (For new readers, 80% of 'trans' women do not have surgery).

Can't define sexuality based on criteria that non-biological females decide they don't agree with.

Can't safeguard children because all children should have the right to go straight to puberty blockers without passing go, cos otherwise 'transphobia'.

OK, I capitulate. Those non-biological women people must be right, cos of all the noise:-
-I agree that transwomen are women.

• Transwomen are biological women who have been so since birth, cos they say so.

• I agree that anyone who has any concerns are a TERF, and should
• die in a fire
• suck my dick

-be punched

• be hung.

That OK for you? Oh, probably not - you'll be along in a minute to tell me another part of my experience, or language, or body is too transphobic for you.

(PS: Not giving up, just going elsewhere. You make me stronger, you little lovelies!)

Wackadoodles is an interesting word

And the tautological joy of typing 'non-biological females' to hopefully stay within guidelines was fun!

I believe in [REDACTED] speech!

Me too

Abuse is abuse is abuse - no matter at whose hand it is administered and under what guise it is dealt out. Administrative abuse and abuse by proxy is still abuse and still extremely harmful.

Fight for the fight to have [redacted] speech - great brand positioning

I always thought (when i was young and stupid) that feminists changing words was a bit dumb

But i quite like womyn as a word now

Im going to use it from now on

Wheni remember obviously

Ethic cleansing of women from social media - join in why don't you - thx

I cannot seem to find any sign of the original thread - that is very weird, surely? I have seen other threads before, they leave the placeholder and say it has been deleted.
Is this the new thing - delete the entire thread and leave no trace?

This is disgusting. Mumsnet you are sinking lower than I think any of us could have imagined. The tide is turning and you are going to regret your stance as more and more women realise that you were enabling violence against women, and sterilisation of children. Your recent decisions have been shameful and I hope an honest journalist soon gives you the attention you deserve.

I will add that on a number of occasions, the posters who seemed intent on de-railing were making allegations about Lisa Muggeridge.
See also Venice Allen as well as Miranda Yardley and Hope Pink.

She did join the thread on occasions but wasn't here to challenge them.

As I started the thread to highlight how another woman had been targetted by Twitter users, it seemed important not to let the same thing happen here.

This evening, Twitter seems to have hidden #WPUK tweets and many accounts of people who support them appear to have been shadowbanned.

This is in the context of the WPUK Hastings meeting receiving threat of a 'hidden device'

This is the message:

Message from MNHQ: We've had reports about this thread, and having had a look - the OP post does quote an article that misgenders as well as using the wrong name; which isn't really in the spirit. On that basis, we think we do need to take the thread down.

JoanSummers I absolutely hate to see this with every fibre of my being but...

I agree with you!

MN the bastion of all things woman has seriously lost it's way.

say not see.

Its just a load of arse isnt it

I really wasn’t attempting to derail.

Not surprised that MNHQ deleted and they explained why. It was a link to a specific post, the content of which breached these new guidelines.

With all that in mind, the trans woman referred to their former name, has said on Twitter that her using it doesn’t bother them and that they put it on their Wikki page because they published stuff prior to transition. Which does put an entirely different gloss on matters. If RK has openly said they don’t mind their old name being used, why does the thread need pulling?

I still don’t think LM’s Twitter suspension is an outrage. What was it sparked the tweets/post about RK?

Fuck me. Grizzly is back to derail and make the thread all about them, them, them.

Prof. Michael Biggs (Oxford) outlines the ways in which WPUK meetings are targetted.

'Free speech at Oxford:
Do women have the right to meet to discuss legislation?'

concludes:
"I have entered this debate not because I am a feminist but because freedom of speech is one of the highest values of a democratic society, and the basic foundation of university life.
Transgender activism poses a grave threat to freedom of speech. I think of the young MPhil student who had to disguise herself to attend this meeting because she feared the reaction of fellow students. This is the generation that we have educated."

users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/FreeSpeechOxford.pdf

Oh wait....im confused again

So did rowan 'misgender' or did she just link to a post that 'misgendered'

Given the rationale for deleting the previous thread: can I test this another way.

The Trump stuff at the moment re children being separated from parents.

The US government has a certain point of view, that there is a strong rationale for separating children from parents when they are suspected of being illegal migrants..

If someone writes an article that goes against that point of view.

And someone here links to that article.

Does that warrant a deletion, as that person has mis-represented the Trump government's point of view?

(I suspect probably not. What makes this issue so different? Who's owning the agenda here?)

Fuckity fuck fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. For some reasons.
(Thank you for your patience - back to calm and rational posting yet again in a few minutes :-) )

So it was the link that was the problem...not any actual quotes

ARE YOU HAVING A FUCKING LAUGH

I believe it was an objection to the quoted matter, Rufus