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.

Maybe this is a grand social experiment to see if being forced to suppress one's sense of humor kills.

It literally erases me!

They probably didn't realise it would affect us, it's widely known that feminists don't have a sense of humour and can't take a joke.

Hang on, mentioning the special rules is now delete-able?? I think the [thing that can’t be named] needs to be updated.

Kitten I’m alarmed that you might be on the naughty step, don’t go anywhere!

No email so far, not sure if that means no strike, there is a strike but we can't be bothered to email yo/we forgot, or some deletions aren't strikes and no one seems quite sure how that works.

Can't really explain what I said without risking it being deleted again, since it was the first time, which does rather hinder communication in terms of everyone figuring out what we can and can't say.

Lordy. Hard to walk the tightrope when you don’t know where it is!

Stay safe people!

So after reading aaaall that, I'm still no closer to knowing how I am supposed to refer to men (that claim to feel female) .... I refuse 100% point blank to call them women, she or her but I do not want a ban either.

I totally agree about coercive control of language on this one. Mnhq are compelling us to say men are women or basically Shush up. I can recommend a really good book for MNHQ that breaks down compelled and coercive language if you like.

Yes just had a post deleted for using "male" about a male and saying all males should not be allowed in women's spaces. That it has nothing to do with whether someone is "trans". How are you supposed to walk on eggshells around this. Really not happy.

Yes just had a post deleted for using "male" about a male and saying all males should not be allowed in women's spaces. That it has nothing to do with whether someone is "trans". How are you supposed to walk on eggshells around this. Really not happy.

Oh FFS.

Look, I will not have my speech compelled.

I'll try to be polite. I'll observe sensible, even-handed rules.

I refuse to walk on eggshells.

I'll try to be polite. I'll observe sensible, even-handed rules.

Exactly. I'm not going to pretend I think that MTF trans people are female. I do not. They are not. The word means something. How can we have sex based rights otherwise?

I got a strike and a deletion on Sunday for using a phrase that I've used many times, I asked why, it took a while to get an answer. We'll delete that phrase if it's reported was the answer. So every time I've used that phrase and I t's not been reported so it was left to stand. I've used it maybe15/20 times. I first used it on the thread when Barracker was banned, so that's a while ago now.
It's my second strike and I'm now on a 6week rolling period. The 6 weeks starts from when MNHQ email you. My first strike was for a post on the break it down for me thread, that post was in August but they emailed me on 25th October.
Strange logic there but, hey ho it's up to them. Not my site, not my rules.

My first strike was for a post on the break it down for me thread, that post was in August but they emailed me on 25th October.

Oh, this just gets worse.

"We couldn't be arsed to email you at the time but we've decided to retrospective just because we can."

Come on MNHQ - this is getting beyond a joke now.

So in theory they could email you and go "whoops, your three strikes are up, we forgot to email you on the first two until now but too bad, out you go"?

It’s not “in theory,” people have been banned without a single email .. Just cannot log on one day - done

Stay safe

Just to be more clear here, I posted in August but it was deleted in October.
As their email said they delete when it's reported.
As has been proven by the deletion of Datun's amazing post on that thread recently.
That particular thread is recommended to many new users and it's a great opportunity for external/internal monitors to mass report whenever it's trending.
So the 6 weeks doesn't start when the post was made. It starts when It's reported and deleted. That's some really fucked up thinking.
I've been given a strike for something I posted 3 months ago but my 6 week rolling period started from 25th October.

So the 6 weeks doesn't start when the post was made. It starts when It's reported and deleted. That's some really fucked up thinking.

And really easy to game if someone wanted to target someone.

Very true Ereshkigal, I'm not a prolific poster or a target, my post on Break it down was another name. But I thought it was worth posting what I was told.

Or maybe we're all targets. The most recent deletion and strike was on a thread when I was well pissed off with a particular poster with a name from different strokes. One to avoid in future

None of this is sensible. And retrospective striking is really really unfair.

How far back are MNHQ going to delete and strike? I mean yeah, their site and I’d say it’s pretty bad deleting something from months ago, but ok, up to them, but to give a strike toward a site ban retrospectively is crap.

So, if Butter hadn’t name changed and someone wanted to be an arse they could AS and report the 15 / 20 times Butter has used the phrase and the first Butter would know would be a ‘go well’ email from @MNHQ?

Or, obvs now they know it’s a banable phrase they could just AS that phrase and voila FWR has no posters?¿

Yeah, that’s brilliant mod’ing

The problem for websites is resources so when people complain things tend to get taken down as that's quicker and easier. Unfortunately that means people like I am who would just about never report a post as I am at the extreme end of free speech in terms of views would not be someone likely to object to posts whereas others are. So it is a bit like a playground where those with the loudest voices win out (and they might well be transwomen, not xx or men - I think we are allowed to use generalisations about men on MN - that they tend to shout down women).

Some trans people and men don't like mumsnet because women are in the majority nad have a voice, something we are usually denied in many other contexts so they like to shut us down.

i am not particularly involved in trans issues but I do strongly support our current gender laws and do not think they should be changed as had been proposed (and I believe the Tory Government has now agreed that too - I hope).

Deleting a post because you cant be arsed dont have the resources to look into context, etc. is one thing. Its ridiculous but a separate issue to issuing strikes and banning posters alongside the deletion.

I recently received a week on the naughty step for what a weekend mod claimed was my third strike.
In the interest of accuracy I messaged that te only previous strike I had received was 18 Oct.
MNmodMichael reinstated my ability to provide content because they failed to message me on the first strike they gave me.

Is it really carelessness and negligence that is causing commenters so much distress, and if it is what if anything will they do about it.

So, an update from the Posie Parker thread:

User 1: employs a logical fallacy to make a bad faith argument.

User 2: highlights the use of this logical fallacy and includes the most commonly used exemplar of it. Easily recognised by anyone, as can be seen from the many humorous replies to User 2 shortly following her post.

User 1: complains that the exemplar IS the critique (another bad faith technique - misdirection) and filibusters the board complaining that the text of the exemplar is a personal attack.

User 2: provides explanation for the hard of thinking with a helpful link to a definition of the logical fallacy showing the exemplar.

User 1: ignores User 2 and continues to filibuster the misdirection

Mod team: deletes User 2's pointing out of the logical fallacy

Welcome to FWR.

Since we are constantly told that the mod team are trained to view everything in context, how has this spectacular failure to understand a very simple set of interactions occurred?

My theory - they delete anything that's reported as long as the user being reported is a known Naughty Woman, ie a feminist.