"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"?

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

Thanks!

I find Mumsnet a really difficult site to navigate and for working out how to do certain things.

I did re-name the second thread with the exact same title - which I considered the perfect one for my purposes, and the area proposed for discussion and exploration.

I don't want to get a third strike by starting another. t would be good if the moderating team could offer some advice. I want to call it Being Trans: The Performance of Gender. Should I just call it Performing Gender

Yes, perhaps that would work - performing gender is of course a wider issue than just trans, however much some people might think they are the centre of the universe.

We are not allowed to discuss people who have voluntary placed themselves in the public arena by appearing on TV? Is MNHQ going to delete all the Love Island, ‘I’m a Celebrity, X Factor, Britain’s got talent, etc etc threads too?

The moderation really isn’t anything to do with trans rights but rather everything to do with women’s rights.

The threads were entitled Being Trans: A Studied Performance

I didn’t see your threads but I can now guess as you’ve made it on to Twitter.

You can be quite nasty can’t you. ‘Let’s all laugh and point at the trans person!’ Save it for the farms.

You can be quite nasty can’t you. ‘Let’s all laugh and point at the trans person!’ Save it for the farms

Are you talking about me here? I don't use twitter. And no, I'm not nasty at all. In fact if I'm honest you seem to have taken to interpreting all of my posts in the most weird way possible. Was it you who was suspicious of me for questioning the boycott of J.Lewis, for example..Then you had a go at me today because I had a light hearted exchange with someone about their username.
Apologies if wrong.

We are not allowed to discuss people who have voluntary placed themselves in the public arena by appearing on TV? Is MNHQ going to delete all the Love Island, ‘I’m a Celebrity, X Factor, Britain’s got talent, etc etc threads too

That's what I thought.....and I hadn't even named anyone in my thread starter. I guess it got reported from the sounds of it...if, as the poster above suggests, it has made its way on to twitter.

It was just the 2 points today. I wasn’t having a go.
Someone has copied your original deleted post (I assume, your username is on it but not thread title) and reposted it on twitter.

Save it for the farms.

LOLs that Field thinks the farms are a more receptive place for women's rights than Mumsnet. Cos it's actually true.

(And no, dear, I've never posted there. Nor do I read it.)

Fieldofgreycorn I wasn’t having a go.

As my old granny used to say, I believe you, thousands wouldn't.

It was just the 2 points today

Which two points?

You mean my sharing of a Liverpudlian' in-joke' with another member? Or my creation of a thread to discuss Performances of Gender Performance of Gender, as you will know, is a well established term in Queer Theory.

Someone has copied your original deleted post (I assume, your username is on it but not thread title) and reposted it on twitter

You didn't even read my thread starter. It was a well reasoned and considered post, which I stand by. Clearly, someone has been trawling Mumsnet to report 'infringements'.

I now recognise your username, and will be conscious in future of your particular 'take' on things. You seem very quick to offence, and not afraid of insulting people yourself.

You didn't even read my thread starter. It was a well reasoned and considered post, which I stand by.

I didn't see the original thread, but was curious as to what it was about with you saying it was fine - yep, I've just seen it on Twitter.
The usual argument on here is posts should be allowed to stand because it's important to talk about women's rights (I agree there) but in this case the post I saw was very let's all gawp at the trans woman and dissect her mannerisms - just why?
Just saying I can see why it got removed.

but in this case the post I saw was very let's all gawp at the trans woman and dissect her mannerisms - just why

I guess my post must have touched on some very 'sensitive' spots to have accrued such reaction and seeming outrage.Even though it was really just intended as a stimulus for discussion on performances of gender.

Incongruence is very hard not to notice. Anything incongruent immediately draw attention. . My post was not what twitter is probably used to, as I don't use twitter and my thoughts and reflections are not written in sensationalist style. I imagine it was edited by whoever for the precise purpose of shock and outrage.

I repeat: the performance of gendered constructs and stereotypes, when performed with out any semblance of naturalness or instinctive ease, is always noteworthy and bound to draw attention - regardless of who is performing that 'act'.

We all 'perform' to an extent - in order to present a persona or face; one that we'd like to be representative of us to the general public - but most of the time the mask or persona flows quite naturally from the self - and so is not quite so incongruous.

To have to spend so much time cultivating and maintaining a persona, at the expense of just being and expressing yourself naturally, must surely lead to an over-identification with superficialities and presentations.....at the expense of developing a core sense of self and value.

Interestingly just finished reading Debbie Harry's biography ( if Mumsnet will permit me to discuss), called 'Face It'. Named for two reasons....firstly the biographer's 'facing up' to their own past ( have to say I was disappointed with the lack of obvious reflection or analysis in the biography); and secondly on account of the biographer's face being the most memorable thing about her.

The book is full of photographs and drawings of herself; and of very little else.Debbie Harry's face became the whole meaning of 'Blondie'. And a lot of the band's success was solely down to her face. To become known and valued primarily for your beauty, or for a certain type of appearance, must be very difficult. Debbie Harry now has cosmetic surgery to try to preserve her looks for as along as possible.
Dolly Parton does that too.....but somehow she seems to be far more in control of how she wants to be seen in public.

*I didn't see the original thread, but was curious as to what it was about with you saying it was fine - yep, I've just seen it on Twitter8

Could you post a link so we can all see what you are talking about?

Maybe this issue should be taken onto its own thread rather than derailing this very focussed thread about the sticky at the top of this board??

There have been many threads discussing these speech-restrictions, and MNHQ never engage or change their rules. I wonder whether they would respond differently if enough individual posters emailed them directly about it?

Only in the alternative universe in which we all seem to have found ourselves these last few years could "You can be quite nasty can’t you." be deemed "not having a go".

I've made an attempt not name individuals, and have tried to keep the discussion observational and theoretical.

You didn’t manage this very well, given that you said what show it was, when it was aired and on which channel, and the names of the individuals are literally on the screen for the whole show, and their place of education is also prominent.

You cannot seriously contend that you were commenting in a general way about gender, when your remarks were specifically about an easily identifiable person, commenting negatively and very personally on their body position, features and behaviour in detail.

I’m not at all surprised MNHQ deleted it, twice.

*You cannot seriously contend that you were commenting in a general way about gender, when your remarks were specifically about an easily identifiable person, commenting negatively and very personally on their body position, features and behaviour in detail8

Actually, it was being used used as a springboard for further reflection and discussion, and touched upon many other observations I've made in recent times; but you want know about that because you seem prefer the shock and outrage of twitter to real engagement.

My observations stand and are true. We all know it, but are not permitted to say it.

Still waiting for the link.....

but you don't want to know about that

I 100% agree OP

you seem prefer the shock and outrage of twitter to real engagement.

I read your post before it was deleted and don’t use Twitter, so not really, no.

Using those personal derogatory remarks about a totally identifiable person as a springboard for more general remarks doesn’t make them magically not break the TGs.

Still waiting for the link...
Why? It'd be a bit daft to re-post seeing as it's already been deleted twice

You didn’t manage this very well, given that you said what show it was, when it was aired and on which channel, and the names of the individuals are literally on the screen for the whole show
Exactly

Maybe this issue should be taken onto its own thread rather than derailing this very focussed thread about the sticky at the top of this board??

Yes. But not before I've pissed myself laughing at the idea writing about the performance of gender is transphobic. Are we reaching the event horizon when there's nothing else left but to make transgender itself transphobic?

Fuxxake.

Anyway. Yes. The guidelines need changing. I wonder how the office meeting went?