Clarification on who and what we can discuss

[IfIWasABirdIdFlyIn2ACeilingFan]

Clearly Lily is on the no list.

I would like clarification from MNHQ as to why we can’t discuss Lily, who else we can’t discuss and what we can’t discuss.

Two threads regarding Lily’s public posts on twitter have been deleted this evening. According to MNHQ these were deleted for being a personal attack and a pile on. However, HQ will be aware of a thread discussing boris Johnston, a thread discussing Colleen Nolan, and one discussing Roxanne Pallett. All of which have been far from complimentary. All allowed to stand.

There would appear to be different standards being applied according to who is being discussed.

I’ve reported this thread in the hope that HA will address this issue and provide clarification. I also ask that this thread does not become a thread about Lily as it will be deleted. This thread is for clarification about what we can discuss and not a TAAT.

Another yep 👍

I wish to put a robust case for women hereabouts. I'm not up for being told that I'm impolite about it. That said, I really have little interest in the reality TV-like aspects of transactivism, so I'm unlikely to be mean about anyone's boobies on Instagram, whether they're women's boobies or not. But if other people enjoy it, have at it. I'm not going to tell you not to.

Lang that's fine and I didn't contribute to that thread. But I don't think you (one) should start a thread entitled "[controversial person's] breasts" in a controversial part of MN and then wonder why it was taken down. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. And again, I do get what the thread was about. For me, editing the title would have been a proportionate response. There you go, I'm not MNHQ.

Also, I think people saying different rules apply - of course they do. The feminism chat board is gaining notoriety. It is, thanks to all the amazing posters, having considerable effect. It has become a force to be reckoned with and that makes it a target. Which means that, yes, MN's moderation policy will be different to that on other parts of the site. We should expect that.

Post threads, by all means. I agree we don't all need to agree with everything. But if you want to start threads talking specifically about individuals, particularly when they could be perceived as focusing on appearance, expect it to be deleted. Or post it on reddit or Genderhammer instead.

But if you want to start threads talking specifically about individuals, particularly when they could be perceived as focusing on appearance, expect it to be deleted.

And it was deleted! So, as I said, be it. What I am saying is that there is no need to be importuning other women to be nicer. If women want to start threads that might be deleted, that's up to them. If I want to contribute, I will. If I don't, I won't.

What I will do always is object to women trying to mould other women into only using speech they deem acceptable.

Also: I couldn't care less what anti-woman activists think about what gets posted here. They'll call it hate speech however polite it is and however much it needs to be taken out of context and/or selectively quoted. So what? They certainly don't censor themselves so that MNers don't take them the wrong way, do they?

On a lighter note - should I start an Instagram dedicated to the saggy tits Manchester Pride is sure I have? What do we all think? Good plan?!

LangCleg, I don't disagree. But I did post on those threads, not to tell women to be nicer, but to suggest it was a royal waste of time and energy to be focused on a pipsqueak whose only noteworthy point is the fact they can still stand under the weight of the chip in their shoulder.

Yes, me too Flora and Lang, not sure if I came over as telling others. Certainly didn't mean too.

I do think it feeds LM victimhood. I really want to see LM held to account for Karen White tweets, now deleted

in a controversial part of MN

Christ alive! Feminism is controversial on MN?? Give me a break.

Glosswitch on Twitter earlier (I think she's obliquely referring to Sophie Walker but it could equally apply to my view here):

When women start to voice their concerns about gender identity politics, I do wish they'd realise you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. Every woman you consider less balanced and strategic has been where you are now.

Four years ago I thought I could arrogantly breeze in with "here's where you're going wrong, radfems - be less shouty and more respectful of pronouns and let's all talk!" On the blockbot with me in five seconds flat.

I do think it's bloody silly that MNHQ keep deleting LM threads, as LM is a public figure and should be held responsible for what they say in public forums. It seems to be one of those we made the wrong call initially and now we're going to stick to it out of pure stubbornness things.

AAK, I don't think you're wrong, but digging heels in seems to be the fashionable thing to do right now.

Evening, everyone,

Just to reassure you all, we haven't banned discussion about Lily Madigan, nor are we under the legal cosh in any way here.

We just want to be able to continue to host a discussion about these issues that is civil and helpful - something which isn't able to happen on many sites these days so we feel it is worth keeping the debate polite and constructive. We hope you agree.

It's fine to talk about public tweets and any concerns you may have - but when the we feel the tone has shifted into pile-on territory, we are likely to delete it. That's the case across all threads, so if you see something elsewhere that you think breaks the rules of the site in the same way, please do report it.

Nothing's changed though; every thread is considered on a case-by-case basis and it's not a one size fits all situation.

If you've any further concerns at all then please do just hit the report button and we'll do our best to answer any queries you have.

When women start to voice their concerns about gender identity politics, I do wish they'd realise you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. Every woman you consider less balanced and strategic has been where you are now.

Four years ago I thought I could arrogantly breeze in with "here's where you're going wrong, radfems - be less shouty and more respectful of pronouns and let's all talk!" On the blockbot with me in five seconds flat.

Absolutely this.

hebemumsnet thanks for that clarification.

I do think you made the wrong call on both the threads I mentioned in the OP. They weren’t a pile on. Certainly nowhere near as much of a pile on as threads about other people on the public eye that are left to stand. Are you moderating threads about LM differently than those discussing other politicians, celebrities etc?

Who is Lily?

Who is constellation??? I think I get the rest....

Someone help me out I’d only just got to grips with all the acronyms

IAmLurkacus, Constellation would be a gentle, fae creature who is keen on Erasure.

Got it! Thank you

I don't think that mumsnet are being particularly consistent but that's what happens when you take a case by case approach to pretty much anything. 'Pile on' in this case seems to mean not enough people said nice things about LM to counter the criticism. I can understand that in some contexts, but I'm not sure what there is to be said in praise of LM to counter the idiocy and unpleasantness. The best anyone seems to offer is that they are 'vulnerable' or 'unwell' and I'm not sure what evidence their truly is for either.

I'm also uncomfortable about tone policing. I didn't particularly like the thread title or some of the comments for that matter, but the whole 'they go low we go high' thing is getting a bit old to me. Let's not forget that however nice Michelle wanted to be the fact is that Trump won and the Democrats lost. As a personal tactic it is fine if you personally want to keep your hands clean / what you think of as the moral high ground, but being nice (or hoping not to be perceived as nasty) is in no way a guarantee of success in any endeavour.

Isn't "pile on" generally used to refer to a load of people disagreeing with one person (usually the op) on the thread?

How does that apply here?

Thing is, there are certain individuals who almost nobody in this board is going to like, so if those individuals are discussed at all surely it will end up being a "pile-on", in which case discussion of them is banned in effect even if technically allowed.

For extra confusion, there was a long thread about Shon Faye recently that was allowed to stand despite everyone in it taking the piss. So I'm confused as to why that was OK but taking the piss out of Madigan isn't.

Beyond
I remember posting 3 posts in a row commenting on how it looks for a women's officer to (i) consider it a weird standard to be expected to do something for women (LM on Twitter); (ii) obsess about one's own breast size and rejoicing in their future inappropriateness (LM on Twitter) and (iii) talking of transphobia in response of women sexually assaulted in prison - instead of taking their side.

I then pointed out that there was a pattern emerging.

Maybe that was the kind of 'pile on' that was too much? It is nonetheless true, though.

I didn't even point out that it was not a pattern of feminism but a pattern of the objectification of women by LM. But I do it now.