Please MNHQ overturn Posie Parker's ban

[Velella]

That's it really.
Add a post if you agree.

Furries

Finding it a bit weird that this thread has been resurrected after 3.5 years.

From what I’ve seen, I don’t think PP needs MN to get her point across. She’s doing just fine as she is.

She's doing just fine as she is, which is great. But we could be doing better with a forum that doesn't ban those who are disinclined to lie or walk on eggshells in order to placate bullies.

Agreed that a) she should be invited back & b) she probably wouldn't feel she needs this platform anymore!

But the amnesty should be offered. The Overton Window has shifted.

Permanently banning women for speaking the truth while allowing TRAs to frequently break the rules of the site e,g by repeatedly using terf when asked not to do so or cis when its misgendering. It's not a good look for a site that was supposed to support women.

Agree! She’s able to post on YouTube and is given airtime on national and international tv channels. There is zero reason to silence her here. Especially now Maya’s tribunal says clearly these opinions are permitted in a democratic society. If you read the recent tribunal tweets from Maya’s case, it’s more clear than ever that trans rights activists don’t even listen to what is said. They just shout transphobic and try to silence women.

What was she banned for? Her beliefs are echoed all over the site.

Yes please.
@DrSbaitso, I think she said it was for refusing to use “they/them” to or about someone.

@DrSbaitso

What was she banned for? Her beliefs are echoed all over the site.

She says why at the very end.

Janice Turner namechecked mumsnet in her recent piece. No idea why posie is still banned but any inconvenience has to be outweighed by the benefits of allowing worm to discuss this issue here. Also gc beliefs are now protected by law.

@LangificusClegasaurous

Furries

Finding it a bit weird that this thread has been resurrected after 3.5 years.

From what I’ve seen, I don’t think PP needs MN to get her point across. She’s doing just fine as she is.

She's doing just fine as she is, which is great. But we could be doing better with a forum that doesn't ban those who are disinclined to lie or walk on eggshells in order to placate bullies.

Completely agree. I think I may have had my “cynical” hat on given the poster resurrecting the thread didn’t have much posting history.

I’m relatively new in the greater scheme of things. But have observed the “Lang” references in usernames for a while. This is obviously someone who is missed.

I’d definitely support MN reversing bans, especially given recent rulings.

Yes to reversal of bans for all the posters who just spoke the truth.

Agreed

What PPs have said re: neurodivergency has made me wonder (again) why MN is privileging not even the [actual] PC of “gender reassignment” but rather the even woollier concept of “gender identity” over the PC of “disability” in their moderation policy.

I mean, to be fair the police have made it clear Gender Feelz trump the distress & confusion being expected to participate in The Lie cause many neurodivergent people; Mumsnet are hardly alone. And society as a whole seem to have bought into the “most vulnerable and marginalised” spin while continuing to determinedly overlook how vulnerable & marginalised disabled people* truly, factually, demonstrably, measurably are.

Posting on FWR can cause me to stim such that I unwittingly/unthinkingly cause myself (minor) injury. As is the way with some stims. But it is purely because of the stress caused by the fact the moderation policy for FWR is both opaque AND weighted against posters critical of genderism. I’ve never experienced it in any other online space. Directing obsessive followers of rules to the rules that they were trying to follow, with no explanation as to how they broke them is, if anything, actively unhelpful. I still don’t know (despite much contemplation) what earned me my deletion several months ago. I have been forced to conclude (for the sake of my sanity) that i. ferrets are hugely gender critical ii. ferrets post on MN iii. the MN-posting ferrets felt even a humorous association with genderism was such a slight it could not be allowed to stand iv. MN agreed to this. Am uncertain as to how iii. was expressed & thus iv. achieved, but 🤷‍♀️

Of course, we are not meant to complain about/criticise the moderation policy, so this post may well be deleted. They’ve allowed this entire thread about it though; so removing this one post would be… more than a little problematic?

• Actual disabled people I mean. Not the people who “identify as” disabled despite the absence of an actual disability. There are a quite staggering number of people claiming to be immunocompromised &/or immunosuppressed (yes, casual interchangeable use of the terms is indeed a hint they are neither) at the moment, just for example. Sick-tok & sickstagram are hugely problematic for the younger demographic; but tbh any online space for people with disabilities gets people elbowing their way in who don’t belong there. Sound familiar…?

Sorry I haven't read the whole Thread (I hate it when people do that)

I agree that any banned posters should be unbanned if they were banned for speaking true and accurate language and not abusive behaviour.

I seriously doubt that Kellie-Jay would have time to post on MN anymore but it would be nice for her to have the option.

What was Lang Cleg banned for?

Are we now able to refer to TW as men?

We need to never forget that women, on a site for discussing women's rights were banned for stating males are men.

Once this dystopian rule is overturned there should be an amnesty for those banned on these grounds.

Are we now able to refer to TW as men?

Only if they are serious criminals, e.g. Karen White was a man who was a rapist, he then identified as a woman and assaulted women in a women's prison.

Calling a non-criminal man a man if he says he's a woman will get a deletion.

Fucking ridiculous.

Oh well, the dystopian censorship continues.

Let's wait until we've overcome that, and then call for an amnesty for all persecuted under the madness.

agreed

It does seem wrong to ban a women for holding/expressing views that so many other women hold... expecially on a mumsnet.

I didn't see the posts that got her banned. I wish I had. It would be good to make up my own mind about them.

Stating things you believe to be the truth seems to be a good thing. If people disagree - they can explain why.

I don't think that most posters here call for TRA to be 'gagged' for expressing their belief that TMAM etc.

Free and open discussion isn't a bad thing on a site like this. Mumsnet - please 'de-ban' Posie.

Agreed.

I won't use the pronoun "they" either, because I'm a writer, and I need to choose the words I use. I love this site, and I think I've been on here about three or four years. Are you going to ban me too, MNHQ?

Agree

youtu.be/Pdpc2r4cBxQ

Thanks for this @Staffy1 - I'm late to this party but most impressed by Posie Parker.

Love Posie/Kellie-Jay! Bring her back - AND I agree with @NitroNine !

How many women have been banned or just given up because they could not cope with walking on egg-shells here?

How many times have we had a thread full of lengthy, thoughtful, informative contributions that is then bombarded with reports, or trolled with trolls posting stuff that is so vile it has to be deleted, then the whole thread gets zapped by the Mods "because it is full of holes like a Swiss Cheese".

It really does feel like we have the odds stacked against us even here.

As if by magic! The next thread I had opened in a tab to read:

"This thread has been deleted"

No explanation.

"Semantle transwoman is a closer guess than female for the word mother"

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4533220-Semantle-transwoman-is-a-closer-guess-than-female-for-the-word-mother

Well this has popped up so I'm going to add my please.

Gc rights are protected rights