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.

It reminds me of a song by Dylan. I can't play the game no more i can't abide, by the stupid rules that get me sick inside. How long must we suffer such abuse, let me feel your love (mumsnet) one more time before we cut ya loose...

That was just meant to be a couple of examples of unfairness in that post, testing, certainly not a full list!

I made a post today where I just used the pronouns I have been using for decades and which people have been using for centuries before me. Then I remembered we live in a new world now and the person I was referring to might have a special way they want to be talked about. So I toddled off round the internet until I found the bio they had written on social media. Sure enough the pronouns I was using weren't the ones they wanted. So I had to do a wholesale rewrite in order to avoid the report posts that might come my way.

The shorter version of this is: controlling our speech by threats of punishment, can make it look like we're on board with the whole ideology, even when we're trying to counter it. It's insidious.

It's not ok to add mental load to people who've got other stuff going on

Definitely. I have literally been up at least 10 times to my snotty, feverish toddler since she went to bed (I use the term loosely). I haven't got time for verbal games tonight. We should be able to choose to use words as they've traditionally been used in English and according to dictionary definition. That means a transwoman is a man and we can use pronouns according to biological sex. No-one here is telling anyone else what pronouns or terms to use, but women should get to decide how to speak for themselves (radical concept).

I did exactly the same on the AIBU gender neutral toilets thread earlier today, Driech - I realised Edward Lord (propagator of gender neutral toilets throughout the city of London) was in fact a "they/them" and so rewrote my post.

I say fuck it. Let them ban us all and see how much $$$ the tra's bring into the site. They clearly have no respect for the women that made mumsnet a success.

Really, the control of women's free speech here is a nightmare - and this is on a predominantly female site. The clue is in the name.

Bluntly, I don't care if Edward Lord considers themselves to be a they/them. The rules are putting me in a position where I have to either appear to care or not be allowed to post at all, and that is a political decision on the part of HQ. One that puts everyone else's feelings above those of the women who are its core users.

Why should you have rewritten?

He needs to get over his bad self and stop being utterly ridiculous. They them!

If Edward wants you use linguistic gymnastics to refer to himself, fine, but why demand others energy to do the same to pandering to a fucking FAD.

(The rules also force me to write in a way that makes my inner editor cry, as the comment above illustrates. If HQ doesn't care about us can it not at least display some concern for the dignity of the English language?)

Pronouns simply cannot function as correction fluid for those who are dissatisfied with reality.

"My pronouns" is similar to "my feminism", people trying to take ownership of something that doesn't belong to them.

"My feminism includes males" has to be the least feminist thing ever. And I thought the third wave "fun feminism" was bad!

My feminism includes reality, as unpopular as that is these days.

bell hooks wrote "Feminism is for Everybody" back in 2000, promoting the thinking that was a precursor to all this.

www.plutobooks.com/blog/feminism-is-for-everybody-bell-hooks/

Feminism is for men too!

No it isn't.

Well, in the case of Edward Lord, he's got so many public and other positions that maybe 'they' isn't inappropriate.

edwardlord.org/about/

'Edward’s pronouns are the singular ‘they/them/their’, but also accepts he/him/his. '

He probably has to deal with blokes who won't play the pronoun game with him.

I believe feminism can benefit men too - challenging the tiresome patriarchal gender norms like "boys don't cry" etc.

But t is not for men. It is not for everybody - it is the movement for the emancipation and equality of women. All women. Not men.

The world sure did get screwed up in the years I was distracted by having children I never saw this coming.

I expect he is "he" at the freemasons, Errol - good to know I can't get a strike for misgendering now

I'm happy to use someone's preferred pronouns if I've actually met them and they've informed me what they are directly ONLY IF they then accept on equal footing that I don't believe in gender, that I am genderfree and they can refer to me without the use of pronouns at all, ever. If a pronoun sneaks in that's misgendering and I can call the police....

Otherwise I'll use sex based pronouns as this is common usage.

Radio silence, I see.

Piers Morgan has been cleared by Ofcom for his "strongly held beliefs."

I wonder why MNHQ can't allow us our strongly held beliefs (within reason, of course) and stop making us dance around these ridiculous language rules - with the ever-shifting goalposts.

MNHQ properly cocked up over the weekend

Not acting in the best interests of someone claiming to be a minor, and allowing them to troll the site

Banning a loyal, compassionate and long standing site contributor for posting the words ‘how awful for you’ in response to a person claiming to be the mother of a child planning to have their healthy breasts surgically removed (and that person subsequently turned out to be lying about their identity)

On some previous occasions they’ve been big enough to back track when they’ve made a misstep

Let’s hope that happens here

Seconded, Bernard!

It seems it was a wilful and disingenuous misinterpretation of Orchid’s post - apparently trying to make out she was saying it was “awful” to be the parent of a trans child full stop, rather than “awful” to be in the position of seeing your beloved female child start T and have their breasts removed, and being powerless to do anything to stop that happening.

I will miss Orchid hugely, not just on this board but all the others she habitually posted on. MN depends on women like her. It’s an absolute travesty that she’s been banned simply for expressing empathy and compassion from one mother to another (and even worse as the “mother” turned out to be a goady troll).

I really hope @MNHQ will reconsider.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone banned for something that is so evidently not bannable.

I honestly don't get it. Orchid didn't strike me as particularly controversial.