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.)

A woman is the only person who can be a mother

Ah, but will MNHQ special rules for FWR allow us to say TT is YY’s mother?

Perhaps they will allow us to talk about acquired gender as per The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane?

Perhaps they will allow us to talk about acquired gender

I'm pretty sure they always have. It's an accurate, nonjudgmental description.

Speaking of the special rules in FWR, on a thread in AIBU I saw a poster complaining about the use of 'they' in FWR, which the poster claimed was a way of dodging round the guidelines and misgendering. 🙄 Not good enough. 🙄

Just wanted to say I agree with you lot and thanks for this thread and for challenging the double speak etc

Speaking of the special rules in FWR, on a thread in AIBU I saw a poster complaining about the use of 'they' in FWR, which the poster claimed was a way of dodging round the guidelines and misgendering

Yeah

And me using ‘they’ so I didn’t give away the sex of the the child i was referring to was an example apparently ..even though i have referred to my own children as ‘they’

That poster has form though

Which just proves that the people MNHQ was attempting to compromise with by imposing those rules don't do compromise, so all of this monitoring and censoring and pissing off their loyal userbase was a complete waste of time. Unless pissing us off enough that we just leave was the goal.

There is no compromise

I have used ‘they’ many times on mumsnet

Sometimes its to hide the ‘identity’ if the person im speaking about, sometimes its habit, sometimes its because i dont know the sex of the poster, sometimes it’s because i dont know how someone identifies

But that doesn’t stop some random on the internet taking offense and insinuating some utter bollocks

And is it making me think about what i type and trying to be careful?

Does it fuck..I’m the person you want on your side...middle of the road, not wanting to upset anybody...but telling me i now can’t use ‘they’???

Do one

I'd think a lot of people on a parenting board would use "they" for their children out of a desire to protect the identity of their children from potential predators as much as possible. Which is something that you'd expect everyone to understand on a parenting board. Which does rather raise the question of what reasons some of those monitoring us may have for being here and why they're so unfamiliar with the norms of groups in which parents may want to discuss their children online without putting those children at risk.

(And no, stalking monitors with your fingers on the report button, I don't mean that you're pedophiles. I mean that the reason you're here is to try to prevent women from discussing feminist issues like same sex spaces, the sex industry, etc).

They've been digging at neutral pronouns since the guidelines came in. Because they got their concession from MNHQ and they did what they were always going to do when concessions were made - push further beyond forbidding speech to compelling speech. Because that is what totalitarian bullies do.

This is the one time I will ever agree with Thatcher - don't negotiate with terrorists.

"Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
You take a step forward, they take a step back.
Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man."

Just a PSA - you do not receive an email if you are deleted.

I only realised I’d been deleted because I happened to scroll back through a thread, and noticed. So I “reported” my deleted post and asked for the reason.

This is why people end up getting suspended “out of the blue” - they had no idea their posts were deleted.

I wonder if we should be noting (in Bunbury or somewhere) if we notice someone has been deleted!? Like a community service type of thing.

Just a PSA - you do not receive an email if you are deleted.

I noticed this, because there were only a couple of new posts after mine on one thread.

Why would you choose to not inform users that they had broken your rules?

I got 2 emails, both hinting at suspension, so my best guess is that they only email you if they're building a case to do that.

I got 2 emails, both hinting at suspension, so my best guess is that they only email you if they're building a case to do that.

This would seem to be the case since others have reported exactly the same thing personally to me. And goes completely against the Special Shut Up the Feminists Rules themselves:

Will you let posters know if they have had a post deleted?
Yes – we'll mail posters when we delete one of their posts.

You're probably breaking the "don't be rude to the mods" rule right now, you know.

Another thing I wanted to point out: recently on this board something highly suspect has happened. A suspect thing that could potentially put highly vulnerable women at risk. Any regular on here would be able to spot the red flags and warning signs.

Such is the lack of trust and confidence in the mod team here and the security of the site generally - this has been dealt with by a flurry of private messages on other social media.

We can't trust MN PMs to warn each other because #emmagate. We can't trust the mods to deal with potential risks to MNers. We have no confidence that the mod team even has an understanding of the dynamics of their own website. We have multiple threads pointing these things out. There is no acknowledgement.

Something has to change.

So is the use of ‘they/them’ acceptable or not under the new-improved-subject-to-change-without-notice-and-or-at-the-whim-of-mod-on-duty rules? It’s like playing snakes and ladders with a toddler who’s suddenly decided to go up the snakes and down the ladders. I can’t keep up any more.

Something has to change
Well, a reasonable person might think that but I guess we’re not dealing with entirely reasonable people.

The guidelines currently only have this to say on pronouns, as far as I can see.

it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them

I'd read this as saying that we should only fall foul of 'misgendering' if we actually know if someone has 'consciously rejected' a particular pronoun or pronouns - we're not psychic, lacking other evidence surely 'they' should be considered a safe neutral option?

Cf - I wouldn't expect a post to be deleted if someone called me a 'Cis woman' - I don't expect other people to note my preferences. However, if I asked them not to call me Cis and they persisted in doing so then I'd expect those subsequent posts to be deleted and counted as strikes.

I'm reminded of that old poem we used to teach schoolchildren so they'd feel resilient if anyone called them names:

"Baseball bats and grease fires
Will break your bones
But a misgendered pronoun
Is literal violence that will erase my entire existence"

It was something like that, anyway.

got deleted for an allegedly racist post. I'd made a self-deprecating joke about the British being renowned for their bad cookery. I am British! It got reinstated when I queried it, with an apology.

I remember that! Even if you weren't British you're surely allowed to say our cookery is bad, it's just an opinion I'm sure we'll get over it!

I think you only get a message if the mod team is working their way up to suspending you. Which is lovely.

When I questioned my second known deletion since I joined MN (so years) because I got an email, I was told I “As this certainly isn't the first time that we've had to look into your posts, we will need to consider a permanent ban in future, should your posts continue to cause concern.” which was news to me.

That is so bizarre Girl as you are one of the most affable posters. I’ve noticed safeguarding posts tend to go (on a parenting site!?), it’s a worry.

Lang perhaps you and other well knowns like Datum might need to form a (very polite) private delegation to HQ... I’ve seen mods address you on threads quite politely, so they might be receptive - no pressure