"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"?

Now, see, the above comment really ought to be deleted as a personal attack on multiple members, but it won't be because a. feminists don't weaponize the reporting system that way and b. even if we did the system isn't designed to protect us, it's designed to protect the people attacking us.

Again I would like to gently point out to MNHQ that they don't actually have to allow that to keep happening.

Not directly above now, a few comments back. Calling people liars because you believe you know their motivations - not in the spirit at all, imo.

And you know this how ?

Evidence. The fact that the rules were brought in to counter abuse which was there for everyone to see on the site. The fact that the overwhelming majority of posts that are still deleted are removed because they are abusive.

Feminists on MN - the one group of people you can make sweeping, generalized, negative statements about, and get nothing but an approving pat on the back!

and c) prodigal if I may add... GC women here don't want this kind of thing deleted because they want all the possible sunlight on the situation, they want the information out there in plain sight for people to see and make up their own minds. Whereas those who weaponise the reporting system are trying to control and censor what others read in order to control the narrative to their particular political view.

Evidence

Unsupported assertion. This is going to get very tiring if you keep it up.

If you want me to believe that a group of intelligent women who keep me keeping on in the marathon of raising gender dysphoric children are abusive and as bad as racists, you actually have to supply to evidence.

You can't just claim to have it.

This is very basic.

Now, see, the above comment really ought to be deleted as a personal attack on multiple members

It shouldn't be because it's true and the mods know it. And the proof of what certain members are really like is there for all to see on another site where abuse is not moderated.

the proof of what certain members are really like is there for all to see on another site

I don't see how you can know this, unless you are stalking women across social media, and surely that isn't something any decent person would do?

Indeed, Michelle, I don't want those comments deleted at all. I want everyone to know what happens when women say "no", because it's the best way for the general public to get a good grasp on the social dynamics at work. The way the abuse ramps up and how rapidly it escalates when the initial attempts to shut down conversation don't work has proven illuminating for a great many people (not just women any more either, some men are starting to think about the free speech implications and how those might apply to them too).

I don't see how you can know this, unless you are stalking women across social media, and surely that isn't something any decent person would do?

Recognising a name on another site isn't stalking.

I'd honestly think that someone hanging out on websites they consider racist and abusive should find another hobby, really.

oh you mean that screen shot thing

Where people stalk FWR, take screenshots of bits out of context and post them on Twitter to make MN look bad. I seem to remember some TRAs in desperation joining MN and posting bits themselves to screenshot as members weren't actually providing any useful information.

Tbh, rather as the judge in the Harry Miller case pointed out, unless you view this through the highly specialised lense of transactivism, it isn't even in the foothills of 'abusive' or anything else. Most people not soaked in the language/politics would struggle to see what on earth the issue could be. I received a strike for a 'negative generalisation' merely for missing the word 'some' out of a perfectly factual and easily evidenced statement, but that gave someone report-happy a chance to remove a bit of reality that wasn't pleasing to them.

It shouldn't be because it's true

Something being true doesn’t stop the mods deleting it. Posts are often deleted precisely because they ARE true.

I'd honestly think that someone hanging out on websites they consider racist and abusive should find another hobby, really.

Who said this site was racist?

Feminists on MN - the one group of people you can make sweeping, generalized, negative statements about, and get nothing but an approving pat on the back!

Justine? Hello? Or are we just in the cycle of Groundhog Day where you've shown up, said "nothing to see here" and it all dies down until the next eruption of frustration at the injustice?

And the proof of what certain members are really like is there for all to see on another site where abuse is not moderated

This is creepy.

And it doesn’t matter what people say elsewhere. All that matters is what goes on here. Posts are repeatedly removed for stating facts. I linked an example. The rules put extra pressure on the mods. It’s not us causing this pressure, it’s Twitter-directed trans activists who report from below, and fear of the boss from above with the mods caught in between.

You can pretend it’s only ever abuse that gets deleted but everyone who posts here regularly knows that isn’t true and what’s frustrating is Justine has been told this repeatedly and doesn’t seem to get it.

Posts are removed for all sorts of baffling reasons. For example look at a post of mine that was removed and was able to negotiate reposting by changing one word:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3785132-What-language-are-people-allowed-to-use-around-describing-SRS?msgid=92864963#92864963

@JustineMumsnet
If there is one word in a long post like this which you believe breaks the guidelines, why can you not simply delete that word, or the sentence which contains the offensive word? Many other forums work like this, with the post allowed to stand with a note at the end that it has been edited by a moderator.

This isn't the first time that a long, thoughtful, informative post, which has clearly taken a good deal of time to write, has been deleted in its entirety because of one or two words that are not allowed on this part of the site.

snowblight I don’t recall you ever actually posting an opinion or rebuttal argument (from memory - I’m not arsed to AS you) all you seem to do is pop up on threads to snipe.

Do you have an opinion or thought or argument beyond calling other posters (who you can’t possibly know) racists / bigots / abusive blah blah

And you can’t possibly know why posts are deleted.

I don’t know what solutions there are to the money problem. I don’t understand, as a non-business non-advertising person why advertisers are only interested in consumers who think a certain way, as opposed to coming up with ways of advertising to people people who think a certain way, and I don’t understand why the powers that be at MNHQ don’t sell MN to advertisers in the way that we are rather than the way we are supposed to be but hey ho.

In the meantime I think there would significant improvement if posts could only be reported by people with an account and regular posting history. That way only the most committed Monitors would be here, and they’d be helping MN revenue in the meantime by being regular users.

*Do you have an opinion or thought or argument beyond calling other posters (who you can’t possibly know) racists / bigots / abusive blah blah

And you can’t possibly know why posts are deleted.*

I've called no-one a racist. Comparing one form of abusive behaviour to another is not the same as saying that an individual is guilty of both forms of abuse.

I've seen plenty of posts that have subsequently been deleted. The reason they were is usually blindingly obvious.

I've called no-one a racist. Comparing one form of abusive behaviour to another is not the same as saying that an individual is guilty of both forms of abuse.

Expressing legitimate concerns about women's rights issue, however angrily, is not remotely comparable with racism.

Expressing legitimate concerns about women's rights issue, however angrily, is not remotely comparable with racism.

There's a big difference between legitimate concerns and deliberately being abusive and offensive for the sake of it... which is why the rules were introduced in the first place.

Good grief the wide eyed faux innocent thing is especially goady today, isn't it? Saying the posters here are just like racists is in no way a goady thing, and why would we think it was, eh? And yeah, all our posts were deleted for good reasons and we're abusive.

Jesus, MNHQ, I don't know how you can say, with a straight face, that this is even handed when posters like this, who contribute nothing to FWR except accusations and generalised abuse towards the women here, are emboldened in that abuse by the continuation of your policies.

deliberately being abusive and offensive for the sake of it

And again. More unevidenced assertions. You are wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. I suppose that's the point. Either that, or you have difficulty understanding how 'proof' works.