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.

Perhaps we can use this thread for everyone to post about questionable deletions and/or strikes they've received

On a thread about TW in female toilets and changing rooms, I posted a picture of a TW in the ladies toilet. I even clearly said that it was a picture of a woman in the toilets.

It was deleted. It appears that providing examples of why women are concerned is against the rules 🤷‍♀️

I had my first deletion ever this week, for suggesting some males who like to wear feminine clothing and change in cubicles next to females, might have a sexual fetish.

I might get deleted again now but I'm past fucking caring right now.

The idea we can't discuss women's safety from sexual predators as it might upset a few self absorbed men enrages me.

I wish we could have a truth thread. One where we all post biological facts and logical thought processes with clearly defined language.

Let mnhq delete on mass. Let them ban us on mass. Let's shut down the feminism board for a week to demonstrate the silencing going on.

I need a picket line to shout on I think.

I've been at picket line stage for quite some time tbh. It's the part where the moderators keep putting themselves in the position of people who those on the picket line want to shout at when they could choose to be on our side that I don't understand.

I may end up the irritable zebra. I'm very irritated at the moment.

Quote from the media about the flora thing:

Last night, Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts accused the brand of bowing to pressure from 'a handful of activists on Twitter'.

She added: 'Mumsnet has turned down hundreds of thousands of pounds of advertising over the years from companies which we feel don't make parents' lives easier, so we're well used to putting purpose before profit. I do think in the end consumers will value companies which show a bit of backbone.'

Justine, we do value companies which "show a bit of backbone" - but unfortunately the moderation right now is "bowing to the pressure of a handful of activists on twitter."

I got a deletion and a strike for saying that using children in a photo to send a message was a certain type of sexual kick and that I had seen it before.

That's wordy but I don't know how to say it clearly now, I'm getting all tangled.

Prawn is right, it takes so long sometimes to figure out how to say something to stay within in the guidelines you either don't bother or you have to think it through a lot before posting.

It good to think before you speak/post but not to the point that you are self-silencing or being silenced.

What's most ridiculous is that none of this craven capitulation on MNHQ's part has given them the slightest lift among the TRAs. OfLang, mimmymum and gang still talk about MN with contempt and try their hardest to bring the whole site down. This nonsense 'middle ground' hasn't won any TRA goodwill, it's just emboldened those bullies and repeatedly punished the women who stay to try and support each other and speak truth, and we find ourselves having bizarre conversations where we talk about how psychologically bruising this eggshell treatment is but we are very grateful to the people who are deleting and banning us on bullies orders, because they let us speak if we use convoluted language that obscures the reality of what we are facing.

I'm going to add, and hope that MNHQ see this, that when the new rules were instituted, lots of autistic and otherwise disabled posters raised concerns about struggling to comply and the added cognitive/language/communication burden this places on us. We argued that the rules weren't clear and that there was too much emphasis on context and intent, which made it even harder for us.

I remember.

So, racism and homophobia must be tolerated and nothing will be done about ableism either. Lovely.

I do believe we were told that there would be no strikes for quoting posts, so we can add that to the list of questions for MNHQ, since they will apparently be taking a look at my terrible evil not properly female socialized into meek acceptance at all post.

By gad, I've got it! The strike criterion is failing female socialisation!

I think you worked it out, Lang! Failed female socialization and possibly belong to the wrong economic and social class.

We're not being kind enough. We're not putting others first - as good women should.

🤐🤐🤐

Not kind, quiet or affirming enough.

Oh well. Our feelings, our safety, our inclusion comes second to pandering. Got it.

But not

Keep on. Keep on keep on

Keep on

Don’t give up ever

Sex is a legally protected characteristic.

It's possibly a bridge too far for MNHQ to tell people possessing the female protected characteristic that they are not permitted to reference that characteristic in opposition to its counterpart, the male group.

It would be like telling gay men they mustn't mention heterosexuals. Or disabled people that they mustn't reference the able-bodied.

So. Despite MNHQ writing that people generally don't identify as trans, but as the opposite sex which is utterly ludicrous to read, sex not being an actual identity any more than pancreas is, I'd ask, politely, that MNHQ respect our protected characteristic, SEX, the eighth of the 9 protected characteristics in the 2010 Equality Act, which, for reference is defined as follows:

Sex
In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman* ;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

Woman is defined as "a female of any age"

So.
I have a legal right to talk about my protected characteristic, sex.
I have a legal right to use the correct, legal, biological terms to do that: 'woman' 'female'
I have the legal right to differentiate myself, using MY PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC from anyone who does not share it.
That means all men and all boys. All males. That is their protected characteristic, irrespective of how they identify.

I think it's time that MNHQ considered how they would respond to a challenge from women that MNHQ are censoring us for invoking our protected characteristic and using it EXACTLY as we are supposed to. That is, to differentiate ourselves from EVERY MEMBER of the opposite sex.
As is our legally protected right.

And I say this not as any kind of threat to MNHQ, but hopefully as food for thought.
That to continue to censor and ban women for trying to invoke or reference our own PC in ourselves or in others - the very nature of which depends upon us differentiating our sex from the male sex, is putting themselves in a vulnerable position.

They need to be acting equitably.

That means not punishing people with a protected characteristic for asserting it as a contrast to those who do not share it.

Keep on barracker keep on

You give me faith and belief.

Keep on

MNHQ seem to want to leave us with no way to make a distinction between ourselves and males who would like to be female other than by creating the most tortured sentence structure imaginable, turning widdershins 3 times, and praying that maybe we won't be deleted this time.

This is, frankly, outrageous, especially on a site that revolves around how babby is formed. How are people even meant to make babies if there's no way to indicate the kind of person that we'd need to find in order to make one with?

MNHQ seem to want to leave us with no way to make a distinction between ourselves and males

I don't believe they want to do that - I guess they've been relying on our ingenuity and creative writing skills. But while some of us can deal with that, not everyone can. It's not ok to add mental load to people who've got other stuff going on, it's not ok for autistic women to have to play the game or shut up.

If that's not their intention then the special rules for naughty feminists need rewriting.

it's not ok for autistic women to have to play the game or shut up.

I think we are going down a dangerous route suggesting that only autistic people can't cope with the ridiculous doublethink that accompanies pretending people can change sex.

Oh, and Mumsnet, if you want to delete me for suggesting that it is ridiculous to pretend people can change sex then go ahead.

Get your forums full of people who prefer to play pretend mummy, not us real ones.

MN is discriminating against women on the basis of sex and disability.

Errol, your magnanimity is a credit to you. I think you may well be right - MN don't actively wish us ill, and MN as a whole has a reputation for linguistic fireworks.

But the effects of being the tool of bullies aren't any different if you don't mean any harm yourself. There comes a point where decency must tell you it is way past time to say no to the bullies and support the women who you claim to support and who you are, frankly, in many cases, tormenting with your vacillating and cowardly behaviour. (Not you, Errol. I think you're definitely one of my favourites )

Why should we jump through hoops in order to make very simple points, even those of us who're technically capable of doing so? I hadn't actually realized that HQ had added yet another layer of bounce this ball on your nose like a good seal until Errol told me, and now that I do know I'm even more irritated. This is not reasonable. Over time even the most dedicated people will get worn down by the mental energy it takes to rewrite every comment to be doublespeak compliant and then they will give up if they haven't been banned first. It's shutting the conversation down by attrition.