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.

So Hazardd, you think any post which isn't nuanced and might upset others due to them having different opinions should be deleted?

I prefer robust arguments where you explain the nuances in return. I think that's more productive.

I acknowledge that my tattoos and piercings are a (slightly more) socially acceptable form of self harm. I acknowledge that my smoking and drinking are also forms of self harm.

I am capable of criticising my own behaviour and not immune to others doing so either. I'd accept the same if my behaviour were another form of body modification or self medication.

testing i think in a misogynistic society caution is wise when the subject matter can be used as a tool to demean and belittle women. Demeaning some one isnt robust argument imo.

As for tattoos as mentioned I think it's art and self expression.

To say breast binding is self harm has very strong connotations of actual self harm like cutting. To say breast binding can cause accidental self harm is different because it makes it clear the intention isn't to harm but to temporarily alter one's appearance and there are consquences to that which may result in harm. Words have meaning and connotations but I understand my opinion is very old fashioned

What you're saying is not not "old fashioned", it's an attempt to force others not to discuss a possibility that makes you uncomfortable. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that others need to discuss this openly no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.

If you're one of the people policing other women's comments and reporting the ones not phrased precisely as you'd prefer then there's absolutely nothing feminist about that.

think in a misogynistic society caution is wise

I think I want to hold strong opinions about things adult women and men do. I want to be able to express those opinions.

I appreciate we all make stupid decisions at times due to societal pressures. I also think it doesn't belittle or demean women to question their actions. It's actually treating them as though they are independent people with agency.

I think one sign that a society is misogynistic is that women's speech is constrained in a way that men's isn't. I think that women who have the desire to restrict other women's speech almost always have misogynistic motives for doing so, though they often won't admit that to themselves.

Words have meaning and connotations but I understand my opinion is very old fashioned

They do. Female, woman, girl and lesbian, for instance, have very specific meanings which we’re trying to defend.

testing yes for strong opinions but when those strong opinions are on a website designed for profit then it's obvious the most extreme will be censored? And I do find the broad stroke breast binding is self harm and the connotations that go with that to much. Having said that i also find the idea of a children's program covering the subject to much. Why would kids need to know? It's an adult subject the same way tax and house prices are.

And to be clear I didn't report the thread yesterday. I was surprised it was still up because it was clearly goady.

The term "goady" really is a brilliant catch-all way to dismiss arguments one doesn't like.

What's goad for the goose isn't what's goad for the gander....

Sorry OP i should have been clearer it doesn't make me personally uncomfortable but I suppose more emphatically. I like mumsnet, I like healthy robust debate, I think being to OTT and sensationalist makes for poor debate and reflects badly on site. It's described as a hotbed for transphobia, posters described as hysterical, that thread didn't exactly combat that imo. It didn't come across as censorship to delete it given the context that this is a site which is a business.

Well, kids are doing it Hazardd - and when I say kids, I mean young, developing girls. And having a CBBC program endorsing it is very very bad - because binding causes harm to the body.

This thread shouldn't really be about binding - say I called anorexia "self harm" would you agree? If you don't agree, do you think it should be deleted? I doubt everyone would agree it was self harm - but if a discussion is to be had, people's words should not be censored so quickly.

The point is that some women do regard binding as an act of self harm. Why shouldn't they be allowed to discuss that? The deletion message said well you can discuss this but without talking about the self harm element, which is a problem because that was in fact precisely the issue that the OP had wanted to discuss.

This is at the core of what users are complaining about, the fact that MNHQ is saying we're happy to host a discussion and then preventing any such discussion from happening.

It's described as a hotbed for transphobia, posters described as hysterical,

Neither of those are true though. It's ridiculous for us to try to jump through hoops to avoid accusations of transphobia. Anyone who knows what a woman and mother is is transphobic.

We can never jump high enough.

flushedzebra yes it needs to be talked about, mumsnet as a site for parents is a good place for the discussion and HQ hasn't disputed that. I haven't disputed that.

I would say anorexia is a mental health condition and the by product of that condition is harming one self. But with anorexia is that self harm intentional? It's a very complex disorder which people develop for multiple reasons, some do starve themselves as an intentional act of self harm, others have distorted self image and then the by product is starving themselves which causes self harm. Is the self harm a by product or is self harm the root of the disorder? I have no clue.

And no I don't think a comment saying anoriexa is self harming should be deleted but if a group of anorexics were bombarding the site demanding mods to delete things which may or may not be accurate about anorexia then I can see why HQ would do that.

Just us saying that transwomen are not women is unacceptable and phobic.

To not be called transphobic, we have to accept that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman.

We have to accept:

-Karen White in women's prisons.

-Women having to wax Yaniv's balls.

-Lady penis.

-Men can have periods.

-Some children are born in the wrong body, and should surgically alter their bodies.

-Pink brain and blue brain.

Or we're transphobes. And our language to discuss this is becoming ridiculously restricted.

So the language is ok when describing some mental health conditions (anorexia) but not others (gender dysphoria) ?

But MN shouldn't have to delete the comment unless lobbied by anorexics, as they are currently being lobbied by tras.

So - is mumsnet a site which should just act on offensiveness when aggressively lobbied? Or is it a site that values itself on free speech and discussion? And applies moderation guidelines consistently and fairly.

If somebody objects to the terms 'self harm' they can come on here and discuss why.

People might described smoking as an act of self harm - should smokers or tobacco companies be able to lobby mumsnet and get the posts, and even the whole threads deleted?

Honestly, if you're asking "is the self harm intentional" then you're not really understanding how self harm works.

flushed i agree the word transphobia gets chucked about like confetti, it's beyond over used and perhaps everyone is becoming immune to it. But should that mean the debate here needs to spiral into sensalional, goady threads? Because fuck it they are calling you lot names anyway? It's understandable reaction tbh but hq will delete. And then posters feel they can't say anything so fuck it and go click bait the reporters with a thread. It gets deleted. Posters feel the can't say anything or have an opinion so they think fuck it....

It's a bit of a cycle.

Self harm is mostly done as a release, to make someone feel better. The activity may be harmful and cause pain, but actually the goal isn't the pain, the goal is the feeling better. The young people that I have helped move past it eventually found healthier ways to feel better. Binding falls extremely well into that category of activity.

Also, anyone can see why a site's first impulse when bombarded with complaints might be to just give the complainers what they say they want so they'll go away. What we're saying is that that clearly is not working out well so maybe it's time for a rethink in terms of approach.

I've known people to use all sorts of things as self harm. The discussion about whether or not binding is could not possibly be more appropriate for a feminist forum to be having.

The big question is how far Mumsnet will capitulate to transactivists who are lobbying their advertisers.

Because no capitulation will be enough - they want ALL the discussion stopped.

This FT article describes the Flora capitulation very well. www.ft.com/content/26475a0e-efa9-11e9-bfa4-b25f11f42901

So, are Mumsnet prepared to be the ones who capitulate to the TRAs, or will they stand firm and protect freedom to discuss issues and law changes that affect us? At the moment, Justine is saying the latter, but the moderators are doing the former.

And then posters feel they can't say anything so fuck it and go click bait the reporters with a thread.

What do you mean by that?

Why the sudden concentration on a single deletion Hazardd? Let's not derail it to be about breast binding for several pages.

It's about opaque rules being applied inconsistently.

It's about putting the interests of people who hate the site before the site's content creators.

It's about the tone taken by staffers towards members.

It's about giving no leeway to women in exigent circumstances.

It's about allowing frank commentary by one side of a political divide and limiting the other so much that its perspective can't be accurately expressed.

It's about the lack of respect given to longstanding members.

It's about acting as proxy agents for coercive control.

It's about holding one board to a higher standard than all other boards.

It's not about breast binding. That's just one small manifestation of a collection of problems.