Why does Mumsnet listen to outsiders, rather than just Mumsnet users?

[loveyouradvice]

The fact that the reporting on this board is openly led by 'members' who never post, never participate on MN, merely stalk the boards to police women talking here because of some self appointed sense of superiority and then brag about this on Twitter is in itself extremely creepy. On what other MN board are men permitted to stalk and police women?

Having read this on another board, I realise how much this worries me... why would Mumsnet listen to "anonymous" sources, rather than reports from their users? I am sure the Mumsnet community is very powerful at calling out the unacceptable... why Mumsnet do you listen to strangers?

I could write you an essay on that Gronky. But briefly, no other board has rules pinned to it where posters are held to a "three strikes" system or where certain biological - mainstream - scientific facts are not allowed to be stated.

Ideology vs science is central to many, many political and philosophical arguments on Mumsnet - but none are subject to such a restriction on language.

But briefly, no other board has rules pinned to it where posters are held to a "three strikes" system or where certain biological - mainstream - scientific facts are not allowed to be stated.

^ this is it in a nutshell. It is coercive control because they’re controlling our speech and words we use to describe ourselves and our experiences. MNHQ are responsible for implementing them though.

A transcript of Julia Long's speech was deleted from here - misgendering is deleted - a poster was banned for a thoughtful post about pronouns (not actually specifically misgendering anyone) - I'd probably be deleted for naming it. Women are being denied the language to talk about their own rights, their biology, their oppression.

Thank you for bearing with me, ZebrasAreBras, I don't entirely agree with your assessment (for example, it is specified that the 3 strikes rule applies throughout the site) but I can understand that what seems like a way to aid civil discussion to one person might seem like unfair infringements to another.

It was such a (lovely) surprise to see Karen Ingala Smith using plain, accurate language when she spoke to the Parliamentary Committee last week. Incredibly refreshing.

Gronky, as I said, no other protected group has a 3 strikes policy. Disabled people are not given so much protection on Mumsnet - why?

Coercive control is exactly what it is. It's happening everywhere not just MN (see People's History Museum thread).

If it wasn't so bone chilling it would be ironically hilarious that TRA's - a group who claim to be the most oppressed people ever, actually have their boots on the neck of a class of people who are no longer allowed to even name themselves.

no other protected group has a 3 strikes policy

The wording here suggests to me that any three strikes system applies to all comments, not specifically those made against transgender or gender critical (apologies if this isn't the right term) individuals:

We’ll be introducing a three strikes system whereby users deleted more than three times in any rolling six week period will have their membership automatically suspended and we’ll then take a view as to whether they will have membership reinstated.

in practice, three deletions would usually lead to a suspension elsewhere on site

I really don't think it does Gronky - it's under "trans moderation" not the general guidelines.

No reference to "3 strikes" on the general talk guidelines.

I agree with many of the posters on here

The reporting system can be and is gamed

FWR is held to a much higher standard than other parts of the forum

And i will never understand why random computer owners are allowed to report

MNHQ have as far as I remember confirmed that they will delete posts which have had lots of complaints made

People have been deleted for ‘yawn’ and ‘bless’

Oh sorry i should say that i also agree that MNHQ are between a rock and a hard place

You would never be deleted for "yawn" or "bless" on any other subject/board.

If I call Trump a twatbadger - it stands. The equivalent for a public figure who is trans - gone. And probably a strike. The thread on Shon Faye here was riddled with deletions - but a lot of them were innocuous insults - or even or - that seem to be allowed for any other public figure.

Or maybe nobody bothers to report the Trump = twatbadger posts - whereas the twitterati TRA are all over the posts here - either way, the women on FWR are being held to a higher standard than the rest of Mumsnet.

I think the disagreement comes down to context vs content,
ZebrasAreBras. In terms of a solution (since there's nothing to be gained from worrying about something that can't be improved or resolved), it seems like clarification from those in charge would be the best way forwards.

Go ahead Gronky. We've had threads and threads and threads on this subject.

We've had reams of women - good women, feminist women standing up for women's rights - banned from this site, because they called a male a male. Or used a male pronoun.

One thing I think we did manage was stopping the reporting via twitter. But it doesn't negate the blatant unfairness of the "trans guidelines".

I do feel for MNHQ - I believe they are under more pressure from the TRAs than they let on to us. We've seen how the TRA operate - it's aggressive, relentless, burdensome. So at the same time as all my moans here, I do thank them for letting us have the conversation here. Unfairly restricted though, IMO.

What zebra said

I think the disagreement comes down to context vs content,
ZebrasAreBras.

Absolutely this. I've seen the "yawn" and "bless" type posts.
It's the context. All done to dismiss and belittle posters in a continuous personal attack way.
To say "you're deleted for yawn's and bless" sounds ridiculous out of context - but if you saw the context you'd see the "problem" more.
Now awaits howls of "That's Not Trooooo" , yeah but no but it Is.

A can be a very vicious thing to a sensitive soul. Literal violence, I believe.

You would never be deleted for "yawn" or "bless" on any other subject/board

Absolutely...

And again with what zebra said

A can be a very vicious thing to a sensitive soul. Literal violence, I believe.

As I said - it's context. This thread doesn't have it so on the face of it it sounds ridiculous. You have to have the context, it's not the content.

Rufus

^Also can be vicious in the wrong context

I dont know why anyone would even report yawn zebra

Hardly on a level with homophobic, disabalist, racist comments, or personal attacks

But I appreciate that other people may well report the shit out of yawn

I threatened to report the shit out of something the other day...and ive quite forgotten what it was, so that was obviously an empty threat

Jeez - the Mumsnet I joined all those years ago was robust - full of strong intelligent women. Who argued and disagreed, and discussed and laughed.

Now it's heavily moderated, banning women all over the shop for speaking their mind - but only on trans issues. The rest of the site has the light-touch moderation. (Which I personally favour).

When I first joined, there was an argument about a weekend away in a cottage (!) which degenerated into someone saying the the OP "off you fuck, cunty-chops" and it wasn't even deleted.

A can be a very vicious thing to a sensitive soul. Literal violence, I believe.

Hyperbole/inability to empathise aside, just a couple of examples from the first page of topics, I would fully support the deletion of a 'yawn' comment in response to:
Murdered a woman- but didn't pose a risk to women?!
Trans Widows Escape Committee 2- The Trans Widows Strike Back..

simply because it's transgressingly uncivil (as opposed to merely rude in other contexts).

To clarify, LimeKiwi, I agree with what you said but 'context vs content' was referring to ZebrasAreBras asserting that specific rules only applied to language referring to transgendered individuals due to its context within the clarification on the rules regarding transphobia against my assertion that the content of those rules stated that they had a wider (and therefore, more even) purview.