Hey FWR - "We need both sides to live with some compromise "

[pombear]

Warning: This thread will spontaneously combust after 10 posts!

As part of this 'complex subject' a poster started a thread to highlight that a trans activist appeared to have posted a twitter gif that implied they were 'dancing on the grave' of a prominent feminist who sadly died today.

The thread was deleted with this message:

Message from MNHQ: We're sorry to hear some users are not happy with our modding of trans discussions, and our updated Talk Guidelines.
This is a complex subject which is very hard to moderate, and since the two fundamental positions cannot easily be squared, it's likely that both sides will have to live with some compromise and even contradiction if they wish to move forward.
We realise that this will likely be frustrating to many, but we are convinced that our goal must be to support civil and constructive debate.

Civil and constructive debate?

Women point out destructive and uncivil debate from a trans rights activist,

Women also point out the biological sex of this activist.

Women are deleted and schooled in how they must refer to this destructive and uncivil 'debater.

both sides will have to live with some compromise and even contradiction if they wish to move forward

Women - shut up, compromise, live with the 'contradiction' (in this case, does it mean you must only talk about the person who is shitting all over women's spaces and rights if we use the right pronoun?)

Surely there's a less contentious board that could be used for practice with the training wheels on.

Gardening? The only DIAF that arises there is the contentious matter of heat vs herbicides.

I once clicked on a conversation about cats thinking it would be warm and fuzzy and free of blatant poo flinging. Not so much, as it turns out!

Thanks @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet and the MNHQ team.

I think MNHQ really need to think about what compromises are reasonable. Did Magdalen Berns ever post on this board? If not, was it because it just capitulates to men all the time?

A more appropriate deletion message yesterday would have been "deleted as today should be about celebrating the life of the amazing Magdalen".

So the compromise I might be willing to accept is that if a matter arises which the on-duty mod feels they're out of their depth they can do something like what the Night Watch do, and suspend a thread until senior staff can take a look.

But that would still require the on-duty mod not to leap straight into TWAW mode.

I agree with the PP's new staff member are in way over their heads at night, hopefully it hasn't scared @Flissmumsnet off, I'd imagine fire from both sides can seem quite intimidating.

Good to hear discussion is going to happen about it.

As irritating as the deletion message on the previous thread was I'm not saying this to attack, what I'm saying is that if I was in charge of moderating a conversation that's as likely to result in tension as this one I wouldn't drop my junior/less experienced/part time people in at the deep end and hope they'd manage to swim until morning, particularly if I was the person likely to come back to find a mutiny on my hands if the wrong call was made.

As someone who has been modding (both voluntarily and paid) since the days of dial - up, I've tried to have this conversation with @MNHQ a couple of times over the last few years without the courtesy of a response.

The continuing evening/weekend vulnerability of a multi-milion pound turnover organisation is at best short-sighted and naive. It the equivalent of having a fully booked restaurant from 7pm and sending all the staff home at 7.01pm.

Thanks @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet
Shame it was badly handled but I hope this will be a good reflection point

But that would still require the on-duty mod not to leap straight into TWAW mode.

To the point where they fuck up and delete a whole thread, post a lazy copy and pasted guideline that has nothing to do with the thread and not even follow correct procedure for deletions.

I think the point is that the 'rules' seem to be applied arbitrarily.

let's be clear. all men are men. it doesn't matter what they wear or what their personality is like.

people who think what you wear or what your personality is like can make a man into a woman are seriously sexist

MNHQ are compelling feminists to pay lip service to this sexist view, acting under compulsion from sexist men.

some men who want to be called women behave in a way that is beyond the pale, and at that point MNHQ will allow posters here to stop complying the compulsion of those sexist men

but the decisions as to which men may be correctly identified and which may not seem to be arbitrary.

The decisions about whether we may talk about well known motivations for men who wish to be called women, like autogynaephilia seem to be arbitrary

The decisions about whether we may talk about the risks inherent to children and vulnerable people in 'trans' becoming a protected class in the way that say priests or celebrities were seem to arbitrary

The decisions about whether MNHQ do or don't summarily ban people for saying things they don't like seem to be arbitrary

I for one would feel much less like I'm walking on egg shells if the approach was more consistent

At best a newby at worse someone getting angry for women questioning an ideology which is well within the guidelines to do.

I’m posting without reading the whole thread, having just rewatched the video of Magdalen linked by cherry
I’m so angry and sad that mnhq would prioritise the feelings of a misogynistic wanker over our over heartbreak at losing the beautiful, brave and fierce Magdalen. I’m crying as I type this. She was a hero to lots of us on here and so many of us are devastated that she’s gone. RM is celebrating her dying - that’s totally sick and screwed up so I would have thought misgendering was small fry in comparison.
Mnhq are asking us to lie about this XY person with a penis who is a blatant cheat and a bully. Where have your priorities gone??

Yes, I'm really unclear on the rules as well.

One of the points in the rules explains why it's OK to correctly sex eg. Karen White. It says that if that person had carried out crimes before their transition then they are more flexible about it. But White carried out some of his crimes, after transition, he was in a women's prison after all.

And Yaniv as well, why are we allowed to correctly sex him, but not McKinnon?

And what makes them any less 'woman' than say Shon 'enjoy your erasure' Faye or Munroe 'centering feminist discussion on female reproductive systems is exclusionary' Bergdorf? How come we can't correctly sex them?

I for one would feel much less like I'm walking on egg shells if the approach was more consistent

Cheers to that Bernard

McKinnon is a man.

Hayton is a man.

Yaniv is a man.

Blaire White is a man.

Karen White is a man.

Magdalen fucking Berns is a fucking hero.

Thanks Becky

Mod that lot MNHQ, and no I don't care if you permanently delete me. If you think speaking the truth is wrong then so be it.

That rule just reads as "if someone is nice then we should pretend to believe them out of courtesy, but if they're not nice then we don't have to pretend to care about their feelings", which is a bit funny in that surely anyone advancing that argument doesn't actually think trans women are women, they just think we should reward some of them for not being horrible by indulging their delusions as if they were small children who we were about to pat on the head and give a sweetie to. It's a position destined to infuriate both gender critical women AND trans activists, which is sort of baffling.

Been lurking this morning is disappointment and desperation. I was tempted to leave before but stuck around and kept posting. As I learnt here 'no' is a complete sentence. No. So no I will not compromise. There is no compromise to be had so I'm not going to waste energy on working out the impossible and, like with Brexit discussions in my family, straddle the increasing divide between opposing points of view.

McKinnon celebrates the death of a young woman and you want us to compromise MN? Fuck that shit.

If anyone wants me then DM me, I will hang around to share contact details and then I'm off, for a break at least. I'm up for taking action in Magdalen's name. Much as I love a good rant and a moan, now more than ever we need to take action and be brave. I'm not going to cower into compelled speech for the sake of 'talk guidelines'.

You come for one of us you come for all of us and to even suggest we should compromise, the day she died? That is the deepest betrayal of women here who love her. How dare you.