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?)

Its tricky because MN moderation leans TWAW, while the user base is (mostly) TWATW.

Just want to pick up on this.

No, it isn't. The user base is (mostly, if we mean regulars not disruptors) TWAM. With the M being men.

I suppose MN has the additional pressure of their advertisers as they are often targeted. But whatever they do it will never be enough. Ever.

Does Birds Eye sell a lot of fish fingers to Rachel McKinnon, who resides in the US, then?

All of this

• starting with McKinnon's gloating posts
• then the cowardly attempt to deny intent to offend
• Martina's condemnation
• outrage in the deleted thread
• then pressure on Mumsnet Mods
• then the deletion of the thread
• then this one with outrage at Mod's deletion of the thread
• and outrage at the fact that Mumsnet has "special Rules" upholding "Trans Rights" on a "Feminism Women's Rights" Board
• and the nature of those rules
• and now challenging those rules

All of this is a living testament to how important and powerful Magdalen Berns was, is and will be for the foreseeable future

Go ahead and capitulate to an abuser. You will never, ever satisfy the ravenous appetite. They want this whole place shit down, @MNHQ - you know that, right? Nothing you do, nothing you say, no reactions or rules or modding decisions will be enough. They want this place destroyed. Where is the compromise in that?

Thanks SophoclesTheFox.

And yes, I agree, it must be utterly wearing, irritating, time-consuming, and worrying.

Which to me, is all the more reason to just keep saying no.

We all know what happens if a parent stands firm and unwavering. The kid learns boundaries.

Transactivists, or in many cases just out right bullies who have no interest in transactivism, would lose interest if they simply never got anywhere.

I rarely comment here, but felt I had to say something about your appalling excuse of ‘moderating’. Denying reality is not ‘moving forward’. Accepting a man celebrating the death of a courageous young woman is not ‘compromise’. Seriously MNHQ? If people were to screenshot your comment and send it to a national newspaper, you would not come out of this covered in glory. Please go and reflect, before your credibility gets trashed.

I've been trying to say this in a polite friendly way, but I give up now

MNHQ, your moderation allows controlling men to exert coercive control over women - your site users. You are acting as agents of coercive control.

Doing so accidentally is thoughtless and wrong. Doing so knowingly is morally repugnant

This is a complex subject
as many have pointed out, the thread you deleted wasn't about a complex subject at all. A thoroughly unpleasant man was celebrating the death from cancer of a young woman. Some people wanted to talk about it. You stopped them because you thought they were being too mean to the man.

If you mean the wider trans debate, that's not complicated either to be honest.

It's just men either intentionally oppressing women, or doing so incidentally because their desires are more important to both them and society than women's safety, privacy and dignity.

MNHQ you make it hard for us to discuss this fact in terms that make reality clear, but the reality is still there.

Your users, your content providers, your click generators are overwhelmingly women. how about showing a little solidarity MNHQ?

Something has gone very wrong in MNHQ if they are worried about the feelings of a man who celebrates the death of a woman.

All of this is a living testament to how important and powerful Magdalen Berns was, is and will be for the foreseeable future

Indeed. There were messages of love and support to Madgalen from all over the world. I saw women from the Middle East, Russia, Central and South America, Japan, Korea, all saying how much Magdalen meant to them and how much they'd learned from her, and how much her clear and incisive voice would be missed.

It must make certain unpleasant people absolutely mad with jealousy to realize how loved she was and how much she meant to so many women. It's a shame they can't manage a more adult and constructive response, but hey, when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

HQ - bad call, please reconsider.

McK is primarily famous as a misogynist - no noteworthy academic achievements and the only sporting accolade was gained via cheating. He should fall under your clarification guidelines for notoriety. His trans status isn't relevant - his maleness very much is.

I’m stunned at this turn of events. It’s very disturbing how Mumsnet HQ are requiring women here to walk on eggshells.

I’ve lurked on this board for years and the contrast between how the regular MRA trolls and goady fuckers were dealt with then compared to how TRA are dealt with now is stark.

Accepting a man celebrating the death of a courageous young woman is not ‘compromise’.

No. It’s grovelling submission to a particularly repulsive man & everything he stands for.

Is that really where you want to go, MNHQ?

Shame on you MN.

Once again women have to compromise to accommodate men.

it's likely that both sides will have to live with some compromise and even contradiction

And as for this: the site regulars are not allowed to state their beliefs and arguments in clear language. The "other side" is.

How is that fair?

The only concession given to the feminists who use this board is the banning of two slur terms. That's it.

Didn't see original thread that was deleted but please foster 'civil and constructive debate' by not censoring women Mumsnet.

I'm not sure "contradiction" is the word I'd use for claiming to want to maintain a space which values politeness and so on while at the same time scolding people for being angry at someone for expressing glee about a woman's death. Is being gleeful about someone dying of cancer considered polite these days? If not then it would seem that a rather stronger term is needed to express the gap between purported ideals and actual behavior.

There is no amount of “nice” that users here can be that will get supporters of McKinnon off your back. The all consuming hatred of women is too fundamental to them- they shall not suffer a witch to live. It’s not what we say, it’s that we say anything at all.

Yes, exactly.

The only concession given to the feminists who use this board is the banning of two slur terms.

Did we particularly ask for those terms to be banned?
'Let's trade the right to use correct sex and not rohypnol ourselves for the right not to be called a coupe of silly terms we can easily ridicule' I don't think so.

I missed the original thread that was deleted. How can anyone not be disgusted at someone celebrating the death of a young woman? Where is the support from Mumsnet?

I saw this comment on an article about Magdalen’s death. Disgraceful. FWIW Mumsnet, TWA MEN!

I'm still not sure they even read the thread before deleting the posts.

I agree that MNHQ could just drop the rope and say no, and the sky would not fall in, by the way.

So do I.

It’s not what we say,* it’s that we say anything at all.*

14th rule of misogyny: Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

He will be watching. He wants to see you dance to his tune. He will be celebrating the fact that you are forcing us to capitulate.

He is using your staff as his enablers.

Mumsnet are capitulating to the worst kind of male abuser and they don't even seem to see it