"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"?

Late to the party (as ever) but come on MNHQ... we need guidelines that centre women and children and no one else.

Yes we do, MNer2019.
Despite all the efforts being made to derail the discussion, let's get it back to the original idea: it is perfectly possible to want a discussion about gender that is not focused on the issues of trans people. Especially if you're a feminist.

Thank you for crediting that SpartacusAutisticus It's a fantastic piece.

for Talkinginthedark

Talkinginthedark is responsible for the post quoted by SawingForTeens a few pages ago, all credit should go to the author.

Thanks for highlighting this, SpartacusAutisticus. Magnificent work by Talkinginthedark.

Thank you for that, SpartacusAutisticus. Very much appreciated.

And thanks Uncompromisingwoman and Empress too.

Excellent post @TalkingintheDark, thank you. I read it just before going to sleep last night and it was a very satisfying way to end my day. Everything I think but am not able to articulate as clearly as you do.

That is a great post, Talking.

I'd say they don't moderate them, anyway. I see trans women being called men all the time on here.

Come on MNHQ... we need guidelines that centre women and children and no one else

QFT

I'd say they don't moderate them, anyway. I see trans women being called men all the time on here.

If this is the case, how come you were allowed to state that then? Such obia is forbidden and you should report your own post.

@MNHQ is there an update on our request to change the sticky so that it reflects the nature of the board - women's rights?

Is there more perfect example of censorship of language that Creepster’s post being removed? It’s stated the accurate sex of paedophile rapist Karen White. Someone reported it. @MNHQ complied with that report. You couldn’t make it up 🤣😡

I wondered why it had been removed (didn't get chance to see it at the time).

Case in point.

Haven't MNHQ always maintained that we could correctly sex rapists?

Just to emphasise:

I’m going to make a big assumption is thinking it wasn’t actually Karen White who reported that post. So someone else has the twisted idea that a rapist and paedophile deserves to be referred to as a woman. And @MNHQ AGREES with this. Because the rules are more important than calling a rapist by the correct sex. Why?

Thank you for correctly crediting that post, SpartacusAutisticus. I had loved that post and saved it, but stupidly credited it to "Talking" only in my file. When I searched Talking in advanced search to double check before posting, it was clearly not by them.

Posted anyway.

After posting realised I should have done a phrase search as well.
Many apologies, TalkingintheDark, and as others have said, thank you for the post.

I mean, I why does MNHQ care? Let’s imagine a discussion:

TRAs: Hey advertisers! You realise Mumsnet is a hot bed of transphobia, don’t you?

Advertisers: (concerned) Oh no, why is that?

TRAs: they allow misgendering!

Advertisers: oh no! Example?

TRAs: they allow people to call Karen White a “m*n”.

Advertisers: who’s she?

TRAs: Well...she sexually assaulted and raped a few cis women...and is a bit of a paedophile....but still! She is a woman and should be called a woman!

Advertisers: fuck off, don’t call us again.

I mean seriously? Why does MNHQ CARE that people are offended by people calling predators like Karen White exactly what they are? It’s just all sorts of fucked up. If advertisers care that Karen White is misgendered, why are MNHQ having anything to do with them?

I'd say they don't moderate them, anyway. I see trans women being called men all the time on here.

Did the post after this say that Karen White was a man and then get instantly deleted?

I've never seen posts saying TWAM being allowed to stand for more than a few minutes.

I'd say they don't moderate them, anyway. I see trans women being called men all the time on here.

Yes they do, no you don't.

But you should. Because one side of the argument says they are women; the other side says they are men. Only one side of the argument is allowed to be advanced with any clarity on this board.

Which is why the rules should be dispensed with.

I can’t actually remember exactly what Creepster wrote but I don’t even think the word “man” was used. I think it was just a “he”.

I mean seriously? Why does MNHQ CARE that people are offended by people calling predators like Karen White exactly what they are? It’s just all sorts of fucked up. If advertisers care that Karen White is misgendered, why are MNHQ having anything to do with them?

This is what I don't get.

It's a forum full of women and, as such, it is at the coalface of what trans ideology means.

Most people couldn't give a toss. They know little about it. And the little they do know is getting right on their nerves.

in fact, if the mainstream media reported that the women here were censored for calling a convicted paedophile, rapist and violent male, a man, advertisers might well have a problem with that.

It doesn't look good. It really doesn't. And I think HQ have got caught up in this loop.

To outsiders it looks pretty awful.

And as the tide turns, it's just getting worse.

Furthermore, it's rare that anyone wants to go out of their way to correctly sex someone for no reason. It's not a game.

It's imperative to be able to correctly sex someone when their behaviour and comments are detrimental to women, because they are motivated by the fact that they're not women.

It's a mindfuck to not be able to call Rachel McKinnon a man, on the basis that everything Rachel says or does is motivated by dint of not being a woman.

Likewise people like Monro Bergdorf. Being unable to correctly sex Bergdorf, when they maintain women should not talk about their biology, is awful and controlling.

And as the tide turns, it's just getting worse.

Yep. You're way, way behind the curve, MNHQ - and the censoriousness seems to be getting worse, not better. You need a course correction. Sorry, but it's true.