Oh look, it's those guidelines making no sense whatsoever again!

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

So, I got an email about a comment in which I said that I wanted to know why genderists keep comparing trans identified males to black women and lesbians being deleted. I think this is absolutely barmy, and have said so to HQ. I'm also baffled as to how this breaks any guidelines and thought perhaps it was time for us as a group to revisit the guidelines and explain once more to MNHQ why they're not working.

What's actually happening here is the the obsessive trans activists who monitor this site are attempting to pick off posters one by one. We lost Orchid last week, and she was just the most recent of many. I'm not sure in MNHQ realize that's happening and welcome it or if it's somehow escaped their notice, but it's a pretty messed up thing for them to be allowing to happen to their users, in my opinion. Are they going to allow this to continue until the only commenters left in this forum are the TRAs who want the entire site shut down?

I know the people who despise the women here would very much like this to all happen under the radar, and that's exactly why I'm not allowing it to play out that way.

They didn't get back to me and his posts remain

To be fair to MNHQ, I’ve reported a TRA troll in the past and had a brief return email conversation with MNHQ about whether to leave all their posts. In some instances I think the aim is to make the thread Swiss cheese and have the whole thing pulled so it’s occasionally better to let things stand. Good for lurkers too. Not saying it was the case with your example, but just offering a counter point.

Lots of non-answers, outright avoidance and 'gentle' reminders that men are more important than women in a space meant for us.
I'll likely be deleted for this but as @TheProdigalKittensReturn says, it'll be because I've stood up for myself and other women.

Perfect illustration of what I said about the strike system earlier. Oh, were you perhaps a bit too honest? Did you fail to show sufficient deference to the only class of people we're required to show that deference to? Even if what you said was correct, did you not couch it in apologetic enough language? Better not do that again or we'll have to remove your ability to speak at all. You're making us do this to you by being a Very Bad Girl!

I think MNHQ need to have people outside their bubble (friends, family) read the messages they send to us and give them some honest feedback, because I don't think they realize that they read as 100% coercive control. Reading that email exchange reminds me of the ex who I stopped talking to because he was so controlling, who then proceeded to stalk me. MNHQ talk to us like he talked to me. Are they aware that they're doing that? Cause if not, this is me telling them.

If they say the sky is green then it is, and we are unreasonable to challenge it.

How dare we deviate from our tropes 🤔(which TRAs only serve to enforce if they think sticking on a frock and calling yourself a hyper-feminine name makes you a woman!)

No, I won't be meek and subservient anymore. We don't need to be nice.

Witchy, bitchy me is in full swing

And I don't really understand it. I totally get that you might want to pull a comment, but because it doesn't exactly violate your guidelines, you're not willing to discuss it.

It's their site, they can do what they like.

But what I don't understand is the internal analysis that results in this.

What is their assessment of the situation that means they, invariably, err on the side of censorship?

They obviously have some kind of goal in mind. But what is it? If it's to appear fair to their sponsors and advertisers, I don't understand why they can't do that, with less censorship.

We give them all the words necessary to justify what we are saying. Always.

Do they have a specific advertisers who are constantly on their back, I wonder? Who look at the comments themselves, maybe?

Is it literally a decision between pulling a comment and losing an advertiser?

Justine said she puts the people before profits (or something like that). Which sounded amazing. I wonder if she was sending a warning to advertisers, not TRAs.

I'm just trying to think it all through. Most women here understand that this site is a commercial venture. And, given the nature of the site, I can't imagine that most people working at HQ do not understand what is going on re women's rights.

Ironically enough it's the tone used when communicating with us that really sets my teeth on edge. It really does remind me of my ex. I've never actually had another woman talk to me the way the mods here do before.

Three strikes and you're out (a horrible policy that sent millions of black men to jail in America) means that everybody is walking a tightrope. It's far too easy to get deletions, if you're just a bit too honest or say what's on your mind or name reality.

kittens

Do you think that's because they are actually controlling? Or because they can't formulate an effective framework to satisfy TRAs/advertisers so they end up saying just do it ffs, out of desperation?

The other thing I've noticed is how on other threads, businesses, public bodies, organisations and representatives of political parties are 'fair game' but if you criticise certain charities, CEOs or people working in non exec roles for say a political party or a national student body, then your post may be removed or the thread pulled.

Yes, it's all quite 'calm down dear' as though I am a petulant child. No. I am an adult who is also physically disabled and, therefore quite vulnerable to the physical threat that men can pose. I am absolutely within my rights to express concern.

The email exchange I had was very much a 'know your place' sentiment.

I frequently find myself wondering what the actual point of the Equality Act is. Men seem to have replaced women as the protected sex.

But that might be just due to reporting, hands. Obviously people sit there, and relentlessly report.

The HQ deletion strategy must be one that is not affected by the number of reports.

The decisions must rest entirely on the nature of the comment, and not the number of people who disagree with it.

I have no idea. It reads as coercive control. Perhaps they're trying to control us because they can't control TRAs, but again, that is not reasonable or fair. If they have decided that we are the problem then they are incorrect. The fact that they're attempting to compromise with people whose only mode of engagement is scorched earth is the problem.

If they have decided that we are the problem then they are incorrect

Yes, I agree. I also think they know that.

I hope this thread results in them evolving their guidelines to be something that actually work properly and fairly.

I hope they take a step back, read through some of the emails they've been sending users, and go "holy shit, we sound like we are on the controlling side of the kind of relationship where we'd normally be urging the person on the being controlled end to LTB - why are we talking to our users this way?"

I mean, I most likely hope in vain, but there really does need to be a reassessment of the way the mod team interact with users, because right now they're demanding a lot of us and giving very little in the way of kindness or consideration in return.

Mumsnet always say they are considering what is said on threads like this and then there is a long long silence, followed by a bland statement about guidelines which usually means you can say even less of the truth than before. As a biochemist and teacher I find not being about to state facts extremely hard to swallow.

Did you fail to show sufficient deference to the only class of people we're required to show that deference to?

Indeed, Kittens. Let’s be very clear that this is about compelling female people to show deference to male people.

Another aspect of female people having to cede their rights to male people, acknowledge that male people take precedence over female people.

That’s what this “civil rights” movement is all based on.

I frequently find myself wondering what the actual point of the Equality Act is. Men seem to have replaced women as the protected sex.

Yes. They actually have in all those places where the EA (with lots of help from Stonewall, GIRES eat al) is being unofficially rewritten to replace sex with gender and gender reassignment with gender identity.

And in the USA, where that biologically male trans person succeeded in changing the NY Democrats’ rule on one person of each sex to one person of each “gender”.

Got to protect the male people after all these years of female people oppressing them and doing unspeakable things to them.

Oh, wait...

Maybe everybody should complete six months in AIBU before they're allowed to post or report posts in FWR.

Plenty of monitors would happily do that. They are fully committed to silencing women. 6 months waiting wouldn’t bother them at all.

Perhaps they're trying to control us because they can't control TRAs

Well, yes. Nail on head. Fairness and reason don't come into it, sadly.

It somewhat gives the lie to the whole trans activist “most marginalised and vulnerable group ever” narrative, when you see how much power and reach they have compared to mere women.

There are several women on this thread saying they have had no deletions, no emails, and yet have suddenly been unable to log in.

When this happens you cant contact Mumsnet, because your email gets sent to the same mod who banned you.

I think this needs scrutiny. And I think all mods need to complete The Freedom Program.

Inebriati It happened to me too. It was a very confusing experience.