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.

R0wan, I'm going to send you the details of the other place. You can post anything there, so a record of all those posts can be kept and there are no GF.

Is that ok?

Bespin
Please stop telling us how and what we might discuss.

Its a style of posting which is prevalent on other threads by some posters.

Its really disengenous and rude.

Despite many different attempts to control what women talk about and where we will keep talking.

If you've 20 years working in Social Care, I can't believe you can't recognise the issue with this.

Oh thanks yipyap. Really needed the toad before I went to bed! Very grateful - the visual of the toad squatting on the thread hand will ease me into sleep! Just what I needed. Night!

spontaneousgiventime
Of course.

You're welcome. Night!

Shit!
Do you think that Lisa's Mumsnet account will be sanctioned because I have quoted things she has written elsewhere which breach the new guidelines?

My head is very very muddled now.

I would hope not, that would be crossing a line I think.

I don't think so, she didn't write the post. Don't worry.

Yes, Im sure.

Rowen I am not telling you what to discuss you can discuss what you want here or anywhere else you said you wanted to discuss the issues around the topics in the quotes I suggested maybe specific topics around each one. So. We can debate what is in them. The title of this thread is about twitter and now mums.net.

You will just have to take my word for at fact that I do know. The issues as I do that you also do in good. Faith. I don't question you so please show me the same respect in this

R0wan, ignore, ignore, ignore. You know why they're stirring the pot. Don't give them the satisfaction. You've done nothing wrong and owe no one an explanation.

And the toad stuff is unnecessary.

I explained I have misgivings about LM. That’s not the same as “don’t listen to anything she says”.

When I tried to back away because it’s a pointless argument, one poster, forgotten who, insisted that I ought to thrash it out.

Meh.

Oh FFS. Can't believe that thread was deleted.....

Lisa Muggeridge Comment:
(extract with bad words redacted)

"I am going to do a youtube video a week or so. The abuse and harassment I received because am a mum on twitter was just an existing media and politics culture demonstrating they had always been oblivious to the existence of people like me and the rule of law itself. Is why Labour are so * and is why I recorded it here. We are the context that changed around these people and social media added a social dimension to political communication and exposed what they would do to protect that ignorance. Worry ye not ladies I’ve known this for ages and ages and ages.

You need to not be afraid and understand this is the context of speaking up. You are winning. Will win and what is at stake is not trans rights. Although these people have possibly binned trans rights for a generation or more. Any rights lost now wont be regained for a long time. They are fighting reality cos they are and all they have done is shown they are not safe to have access to spaces of safety from male violence. Which is what this debate was. A safeguarding debate requested by trans people with the granting of legal rights and a clarification on the context in which gender recognition sits. Check out FairPlay fr women’s research. THAT is where gender recognition sits in a wider safeguarding context.

A safeguarding debate where they said lesbians should be forced to do dick, kids be taught not to have boundaries, and that adult males must have access to children and women without question, must have their identity validated without question and women must unlearn the ability to spot an abusive predatory narcissist wanker and they’ll bully, abuse, threaten, assault, and try to erase women who mention the context.

They were never ever going to succeed this way in a month of fucking Sundays."

Brill let's have the safeguarding debate then, I agree that people who have a history of trauma need the right environment and apporches so that they can begin to unpack this is a safe and supportive environment I except. That this will sometimes not allow me to work with those individuals that me being trans is triggering. This is in the equality act too and I fully support that. This is also true for other characteristics but a main one is men and I am working currently with a young lady where that is a issue and the fact that she as questioned her identity due to her disassociation as ment that she as related to me and we are building trust in professionals but going into that I was mindful. That I may not have been able. To work with her and fully accept that.

Before someone says it's not about you, I know this I wanted to demonstrate that this is a complex issue and is dealt with by professionals who weigh up the risks as they go and attempt to work with people to minimise risk this is never perfect but is not a blanket issue but an individual one an a needs lead basis

this was the deletion message just to confirm:

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.

OP post had just linked to Lisa M non-MN hosted blog. No quoting and no using bad names in the OP. Just a link put in there. We can’t talk freely if everything we link to has to be in line with MN guidelines. We aren’t in control of that content once it is linked to. We would have to stop posting all external links. Is MN going to be going back to check all historical links? This can’t work as a policy.

In case I am reading this wrong: This is the link to the deletion message in place of where the deleted thread was:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3283324-Lisa-Muggeridge-suspended-from-Twitter?msgid=0#0

This is a thread about Lisa.
Do you have any idea how creepy your comments about this girl read.

We can't link to anyone who does not use the language approved by @MNHQ
That is ridiculous.

Thank you for posting this article!

A safeguarding debate where they said lesbians should be forced to do dick, kids be taught not to have boundaries, and that adult males must have access to children and women without question, must have their identity validated without question and women must unlearn the ability to spot an abusive predatory narcissist wanker and they’ll bully, abuse, threaten, assault, and try to erase women who mention the context.

They were never ever going to succeed this way in a month of fucking Sundays.

So true.

Thank you for posting.

Rowan did quote in the OP as well as link. She didn't edit the words, not that she should have to. But rationally and going by the new MNHQ rules I can sort of see why this decision was made as on twitter I have seen TRAs retweet screen shots of violent threats made by other TRAs (and the tweets deleted) that gender critical people have taken in order to call out abuse. So that they can in effect make the threats themselves without being deleted. So it's a way someone could get around the rules. I don't think HQ thought Rowan was being goady though.

ChattyLion
I linked to that comment because that was where Lisa described her suspension from Twitter.

Rowan wanted a debate around safeguarding I had been saying this was a thread around Lisa a twitter but was told. I was telling her what to. Discuss now you appear. To be doing the same. The example. I gave is not how you put it creppy it is an anonymous discussion of how safeguarding in reality works with vulnerable people and the number of complex. Issues that need to be considered in a multi agancy way to keep the person safe and start to build. Up a working relationship with someone who is chaotic in there presentation.

I don't think HQ thought Rowan was being goady though.

I wasn't.

The otherside of the issue though is that a woman with a vast amount of proffessional and academic experience has been targetted and harrassed.

The things she speaks of are incredibly important.

The current focus seems rather ironic.

I absolutely agree.