"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"?

Also I nominate Datun for any proposed discussion with advertisers.

Also I nominate Datun for any proposed discussion with advertisers

Seconded!

PracticallyFamous I’d like to acknowledge your very modest namechange based on the fact Glinner retweeted one of my tweets.

It was worth ploughing through this whole thread for that dog video.

Thanks kittens.

I did ask Justine how the advertisers know what content is on this site. Because I'm pretty certain they haven't read it. Or haven't read it properly.

Worried about children, vulnerable women in prisons, mental health wards or refugees, is not something that you should be against.

We know that the ideology is incoherent, because as soon as someone is questioned they crumble.

It seems unfair that advertisers may have been subjected to only one side of the issue.

There are more! So many more, I'm watching one where he's frolicking in the snow in the Cairngorms now. He also has a husky friend who he has playdates with.

The advertisers are key. I really want to know why they think that if consumers think a certain way they can’t be advertised to, unless that way of thinking changes, as opposed to coming up with the best way to advertise to people who think a certain way. I’m naive about advertising but I’ve always assumed you want to attract a certain type of customer for your brand, not dismiss them out of hand.

It seems unfair that advertisers may have been subjected to only one side of the issue.

Yep. I would love MN to take up your suggestion. You’d have to be one of the half of The Dirty Dozen FWR reps.

And I think I can safely presume no one will guess which single word I had to change in my post on the surgery thread to make it acceptable. I’ll have to just make a donation anyway.

People like John Lewis and Marks & Spencer's have only suffered from negative publicity over their change in policy. Likewise Topshop.

None of it is positive. As much as transactivists might pretend it is, it isn't.

There are more! So many more,

Sherpa's Dad is also extremely pleasing to the eye.

I'd be more than happy to sit in the room with transactivist representatives, too. Or the two people on this thread who disagree with us.

Bring it on.

I see that snow has not answered the question :

"Is pointing out that biologically male people are male in order to discuss these legitimate concerns "deliberately being abusive and offensive for the sake of it", snow? Just so we're clear."

These questions cannot be answered with any degree of truthfulness without showing up the answer for the rubbish it is.

I'd sort of like to know which advertisers don't support women's rights. So I can make sure I don't support them.

Sorry this isn't in the spirit of sitting in the room having constructive conversations, but it just occured to me that I'm quite mad at the advertisers as well as Mumsnet.

It was worth ploughing through this whole thread for that dog video.

Second this!

I see that snow has not answered the question

And I don’t think we’ll get one. Snow never posts thoughts, or counter arguments, or anything of substance. Just likes to pop in and take pot shots.

I’m not even sure what Snows actual stand is in all this. Apart from ‘FWR is wrong and awful’.

^I'd be more than happy to sit in the room with transactivist representatives, too. Or the two people on this thread who disagree with us.
^^
^Bring it on.

Yes, me too.

Thank you Girl. It's going on my CV any day now.

I hope you're staying safe down there.

And this is the thing, isn't it. The women have never shied away from discussion. They're not the ones doing the censoring, the no debate, the no platforming, the cancelling.

There is no need. Talking is all it takes.

Once we are allowed to talk freely, the whole edifice crumbles because there is no cohesion, no coherence, no logic - just wants and wishes and feelings and demands. And that's why we must be gagged at all costs. Because they know that too.

If anyone hasn't read the "I'm a trans man, AMA" which took place recently, it's an enlightening thread to share with friends and families who are on the fence:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/AMA/3786777-Im-a-trans-man-and-local-trans-activist-AMA

That AMA didn't answer a single one of my questions before they tried to get their own thread shut down.

Anyway, re the original point of this thread, I look forward to seeing the rejigged context of the moderation guidelines.

But the advertisers who side with the trans lobby promoting the removal of women's rights and the bastardisation of the language get boycotted by the people they dismiss. They remove revenue from Mumsnet and Mumsnet users and friends and families remove revenues from them.

Indeed. Or rather, I would remove my custom if any of them so far had offered anything I want to buy.

Let 'em gadfly if they must. Obsolescence awaits in the fulness of time

Anything built on inherently shaky foundations will inevitably collapse...sooner or later.

Really enjoying the repeated attempts by a certain poster to link FWR with racism and abuse

For all in the emphasis on supposed racism by so-called inter-sectionalist feminists; and talk of colonialism..it ain't half ironic that a poster with a username based on an 1990's American sit-com, should talk so much about racism ad colonisation, when their whole mind set has itself been colonised by a pop American narrative and culture.

It's as if you don't have to do any thinking or analysis for yourself; apparently you can simply whisper the words "racism" and "transphobia" and everyone falls into line. As for sexism - I don't think that is in the prescribed dictionary. Therefore it doesn't exist.