"Mumsnet statement on moderation with regard to..."

[RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling]

@MNHQ, I am wondering if the statement sticky at the top of this section needs a new, more accurate, less misleading title.

A large part of the difficulty that women encounter in discussing these issues comes from the framing of the issue as being about 'trans rights'. This implies that feminists are arguing against the equal rights of trans people, which of course isn't the case at all. It also disregards the fact that women and their rights have any stake in the issues being discussed - it makes it all about trans people having rights, or not having rights, and to the casual, uninformed observer that reinforces the TRA narrative that women are a privileged class denying the rights of oppressed transwomen.

In fact, women are the historically and systemically disadvantaged sex class, and so ha e a very large stake in legal and social understanding of sex and gender.

Might you give some consideration to changing the thread name (and OP as appropriate) to "...discussion of sex and gender" rather than "discussion of trans rights"?

Grimly amused this evening at a thread about to get removed for a phrase we can't use that is apparently not in the spirit (retroactively and arbitrarily interpreting the guidelines I believe), with MNHQ agreeing with the women on the thread who said "You're not wrong OP, but this thread will be removed because women aren't allowed to speak."

That was me, Floral, I missed the deletion. What did MNHQ say?

‘Not in the spirit’

Of course. "Be Kind" in other words.

I don't think the Mumsnet statement is in the spirit, quite frankly.

Agreed Jane!

YourOpinion, well, a number of posters said they agreed with you, but they thought the thread would go because that two worded term has at some unspecified point become something the mods allow complaints about I think. The comments were entirely scathing about that and made reference to us naughty women not being allowed to speak freely
Mod arrived and actually referenced the pisstaking PPs as their back up for taking the thread down as it wasn't in the spirit of the site.

So, basically, women sarcastically say "No, women are controlled and policed here, you won't be allowed to say that." And the Mod arrived and said with a straight face, "Yes, that's right." and took the thread down.

Ah, cheers Floral.

I can guess what it was.

I can’t. Could someone PM me please, so I can add it to the ever-growing list of plain inoffensive English I’m not allowed to use here?

Oh hang on! Did it start with “p - t?”

Only, yes, I think you've got it.

Thanks Floral. The air up here is rareified so good to know my thought process is still effective.

Gah. I meant to placemark that thread so that I could see the eventual (entirely missing the point, sanctimonious) deletion message.

Another big "Thank you!" to RaveOn for the proposal and to OhHolyJesus for the addition of "Identity":

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3781626-Mumsnet-statement-on-moderation-with-regard-to?msgid=92723187

Very important points too from several posters that if anyone is using the app that they don't get to see the warning that "Trans Rights Rool OK!" - so will be labouring under the misapprehension that a board about "Feminism Women's Rights" is what it says on the tin!

I have only been around here for about a year, including a couple of months lurking-and-learning as I didn't see the point in registering until I had something to say that hadn't already been said on a particular thread.

Even though I access on desktop for the most part, sometimes a mobile browser, and have never used the app I did not spot the "Pro-Trans" Rules Sticky and immediately got a strike for the verboten but unambiguously biologically accurate "TIM" term! When I read the "Be Nice, Ladies!" rules I was gobsmacked!

About 12 months ago there were regular contributions from particular TW, who still pop up now and then to say that they do not find FWR Mumsnetters to be "anti-trans" (ie. genuine FWR Mumsnetters, not shit-stirring, de-railing Goady Fuckers!)

The "Pro-TG Rules" and the NAME for the "Rules" are both responsible for allowing TG "bad actors" to close down the conversation between women and TW with gender dysphoria. So far, it seems to me, they (TG) have succeeded in driving away TW who genuinely want to engage and who do not have an attack of the vapours if anyone says "TIM".

(I am not referring, BTW, to anyone who presents as an FWR "ally" whilst "Self-ID"ing to the max and getting-off on being "reprimanded" by women - "Pass the sick bag, Alice!")

2020 New Year Resolution for @MumsnetHQ - Justine, sit back and see what this has done to debate on Mumsnet. See how this has excluded transsexuals and detransitioners from the conversation.

It has not stopped women from talking, it has just made it more difficult for us to talk and it has got women banned for being honest. It has handed the Ban-Hammer to TG activists who want more than anything to exclude transsexuals and detransitioners from the conversation - the very people who you were trying to "protect" with those ridiculous Rules.

Wake up to how you have been played FFS!!

I’m lost .. what “p .....t” word is now off limits ?

I was deleted and warned for using the adjective “macho” with reference to the noun “ma’am.”

Should we start a thread listing all the things we’re warned for? I cannot keep up

I mean, there are lots of reasons, most of which I'd be deleted for clearly laying out, but the biggest one most likely is that like every other organization they've confused what's the orthodoxy on woke social media with what the general public thinks, and thus failed to notice how absurdly out of step with actual public opinion their rules are. I wish this was unique to Mumsnet but it seems to have afflicted everything from corporations to public bodies to politicians - witness Jo Swinson's utter bafflement and lack of preparedness when reeling off the Twitter approved platitudes resulted not in admiring agreement but in pointed questions (that she couldn't answer, and nobody else can either).

Is any poster from England able to convey to us foreigners if there is a new banned term or a change in moderation policy !

I’m a native English speaker and still can’t make head nor tail if this... lord help anyone for whom English is a second language

So, I take it the office meeting came and went without any further updates, as per usual?

2B - here is a link to the blog of Maria Machlachan. Hint hint. www.peaktrans.org/

(of this)

Ah I see! thanks Lang, much obliged

I've had two threads deleted today, which I set up to discus 'Performances of Gender' - which is something I'm really interested in - and which in itself is a well established phrase within Queer theory.

I've made an attempt not name individuals, and have tried to keep the discussion observational and theoretical. any idea why they might have been removed?

From what I can see people are often discussing named individuals; indeed their are multiple threads with the names of individuals contained within. Why might my threads have been deleted? I've had no email or message from Mumsnet. The threads were entitled Being Trans: A Studied Performance

there are multiple threads

What is a TAAT? Mumsnet have said they took the second attempt at a thread down because it was a TAAT.

Thread about a thread. Perhaps have another go without referencing other attempts? It's ridiculous, because we're told we can't reference specific people, but we are also told we must not generalize.

If I were to offer a crystal ball interpretation of this guidance, I would suggest that you could talk about the way 'some' perform gender as this might avoid the general, and also the specific.

But obviously, this is a fucking ridiculously overwrought thing to have to do just to have a discussion about performative gender on a feminist forum.

TAAT: A thread about a thread

I hope that this one can stay focused on the request to change the wording of the guidelines to acknowledge that women / feminists have our own stake in the social and legal meanings ascribed to sex and gender identity, and that it's therefore inappropriate to frame our discussions on sex and gender as being about 'trans rights.'

As MNHQ have not yet come back to reply to the original request and supporting posts, I wouldn't want to see the thread go up in smoke as having become a 'bunfight' (as a previous goady poster seems to have tried to instigate - and I accept I took the bait whem I should have ignored) or a TAAT.