Civility, reasonableness, and those rules

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

So, since I'm most likely on my way out anyway, why not start a conversation about this? I just received a warning/threat for posting a Widow Twanky joke (not directed at any specific person) in a thread. Not sure which one, because the very keen to enforce deference upon women person who sent it forgot to include a link to the thread they were complaining about, maybe Munroe Bergdorf and the silly FB ad? Anyway, apparently this breaks the guidelines, which does rather raise the point of whether those guidelines are in any way fit for purpose. You're trying to ban jokes? On this site? On any British site? You are aware that our pointed humor is somewhat of a national trait and something we're often admired for in other parts of the world?

I think that this is neither reasonable nor constructive, and I do not agree that it in any way helps to facilitate debate. I also do not think it's reasonable or constructive to have moderation that enables the targeting and therefore harassment of specific users with the aim of preventing them from participating in the debate. Numerous longtime commenters have been picked off this way, the most recent one being Lass (a person who I often disagreed with but respected, and who deserved the right to speak). This space is less interesting and less useful as a result of their being removed at the behest of angry TRAs and/or regular old blokes who don't like women critiquing the sex industry (which I assume is what happened to Lass).

Apparently MNHQ recently had a big internal conversation about this (or at least they said they were going to), and what has emerged is a continuance of the special rules that only apply to feminists being applied in a way that censors women's opinions and stifles debate in order to avoid upsetting male people with delicate egos. Do we think this is reasonable?

(If I vanish you know why - suspended for insubordination. If I can peak a few more people on the way out then I'm absolutely fine with that. I am still Spartacus.)

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

And the silly deletions on this thread have begun!

[GirlDownUnder]

What did littl say to get deleted?!

Bloody hell.

[LangCleg]

I think "special men" is disallowed on the basis that it calls an XY person who asserts a trans identity a "man". You don't have to say that an XY person who asserts a trans identity is a "woman" but you cannot say that an XY person who asserts a trans identity is a "man", special or not.

Up with which the mods surely cannot put.

You see how ludicrous the rules are? But I don't think I broke them! Yay me!

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

And explaining why a comment was deleted gets deleted too. Why? Because the mods don't want users to know why comments are being deleted? This really is getting ridiculous.

[NotBadConsidering]

Should we have a sweepstake on who is doing the reporting? Or should MNHQ have the guts to admit who is controlling and bullying using the report button?

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

You have a user base in rebellion against the special rules for trans people, MNHQ. Stop reacting in an instinctive "how dare you question my authority" way and think about why that's happening.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

I hereby award Lang the Mumsnet Linguistic Contortionist award for 2019. Which is saying something cause there's been a lot of competition.

[BernardBlacksWineIceLolly]

wow

the term "special men" is deletable now?

am I alone in thinking this looks like elitist policing of language?

If you're a middle class type like me you can dance around referring to 'some males with autogynaephilia'. In fact I quite enjoy using 3 long words where one short one would do

but what if that's not a way you feel easily able to express yourself? what if you see a man being treated with special deference and say what you see - "special man" ?

then you get censored?

[BernardBlacksWineIceLolly]

Because the mods don't want users to know why comments are being deleted?

if you break the rules we may decide to summarily ban you

what are the rules?

wouldn't you like to know...

[LangCleg]

Is it bad to say that I fucking love posting piss-taking linguistic contortions?

Sorry MNHQ! But it's just utterly irresistible.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

See, that's because you're less lazy than I am. I can't be arsed. Tried for a while, decided that I'm not doing that unless I'm getting paid for it.

The expectation that users do so is indeed deeply classist.

[LangCleg]

Are analogies better than linguistic contortions?

It's like a thread with Christians and atheists arguing. The Christians are allowed to say Jesus is the son of God. The atheists are not allowed to say Jesus is not the son of God. They don't actually have to say that Jesus is the son of God but they're not allowed to say he isn't. And the powers that be keep insisting that this is the only way to keep debate "flowing".

[LangCleg]

am I alone in thinking this looks like elitist policing of language?

No. Piss taking aside, I entirely agree.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Are the Christians sending the atheists rape and death threats, and gloating about their deaths? Banging on the windows of their meetings, perhaps?

In other words, are these particular Christians more like Westboro Baptist Church than they are like the church you baby cousin was christened in?

[GirlDownUnder]

So, banned terms now include

Yawn
Bless
Panto
Special men
Silly
?

And yes to Lang for the wordiest explanation ever. But not deleted!

[BernardBlacksWineIceLolly]

I'm indebted to Offred (another sad loss to the board) who made me aware of the way that higher status women participate in the oppression of lower status women because it allows them to buy power and influence within the patriarchy

which is, I believe, part of MNHQs motivation for the (thoroughly mutable) 'rules'

[GirlDownUnder]

if you break the rules we may decide to summarily ban you
what are the rules?
wouldn't you like to know...

Very 1984

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

The "don't be rude to the mods" rule is sufficiently vague as to allow for deleting or banning pretty much anything/anyone.

[MoltenLasagne]

I'm not a regular poster, I tend to lurk but what I see is rules changing with no warnings as a form of entrapment. And so the forum loses the voices of women who are legally trained, or safeguarding experts, or who have lived through enough abuse to be able to warn us of techniques like gaslighting and pronouns being a word we're not allowed to say.

So the question is, who benefits when women aren't able to set boundaries and call out the damage caused by surrogacy, and sex work, and losing sex segregated rights? And why are MNHQ not concerned to be on their side, rather than the side of women?

[Patnotpending]

I am relatively new to Mumsnet. I came here for this forum and I'm really disappointed at the way we are pressured to be nice in a way that MNetters on other parts of MN clearly aren't. The way we are being policed shocks me. I was at first relieved to find this forum but I'm increasingly dismayed by the way it's administered.

Mumsnet, you need another meeting and you need to loosen up, otherwise once the tide has turned you won't be the sheroes you damn well ought to be, you'll be the half-hearted upholders of feminism who banned an awful lot of feminists who dared to speak the truth.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Imagine if they tried to apply this kind of heavy handed moderation to the Brexit threads. There would be hardly anything left.

[2BthatUnnoticed]

I agree BB, it does seem elitist. If English is not your first language, or you are from a WC background, or you have any type of cognitive difficulty, posting on this board can be very hard.

This board is often derided (unfairly, I think) as being only for “white middle class women” only - but anyone outside that group is more likely to get banned.

It’s like the Harvard entrance exam or something - not designed to exclude the disadvantaged, but it is an unfortunate double effect.

[LangCleg]

As PPs are noting: riddle us this, MNHQ:

Why are leavers and remainers allowed to go at it no holds barred but feminists and transactivists are not?