"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"?

Thanks for the change MNHQ - I'm hoping you'll also change the sticky at the top of the Feminism board too?

Thanks for listening to us

I'm so glad it's raining Girl!

Is it properl, fire extinguishing rain, Girl?

Getting tired of the lying and controlling of speech from HQ.

Just noticed the amended language on the sticky.

Thank you Justine and HQ for acknowledging the logic and reasonableness of the request and making the change.

Thank you MNHQ. It does make a real difference to me to have it acknowledged that we are discussing women's rights, sex and gender here.

And thank you for starting this thread @RaveOnThisCrazyFeeling

Great, thanks!
Changing the url to match would be good.

Wait, what?

Creepster got a post deleted.
Users speculated as to why.
MichaelMumsnet said users got the speculation wrong.
Users asked what was the correct reason for deletion.
MichaelMumsnet did not explain, so Creepster did.
Creepster's explanation was deleted.

Why are we not allowed to know?

I mean, come on Justine - this is beyond ridiculous now.

I am positive the original post mentioned Karen White: a person so vile they are mentioned in the newly titled special rules. The only speculation was whether it was for use of the word man, male or he. As far as I can see, Creepster’s latest post has been deleted for expressing bafflement at the original deletion.

As far as I can see, Creepster’s latest post has been deleted for expressing bafflement at the original deletion

No, it contained the reason MNHQ gave her for the deletion. MichaelMumsnet posted saying it wasn't for correctly sexing but didn't come back with the reason it was when asked, so Creepster provided it.

Ah yes. I remember now.

Jeez this is hard work.

Jeez this is hard work.

Ingrate.

Why have you done this to Creepster @MNHQ? It's really shitty.

Couldn't you have just told us so that others don't get deleted or possibly banned for wrongspeak?

Morning, everyone. We can see that Lang and others are concerned about the reasons for a deletion earlier in the thread so just wanted to pop in for a chat.

As a general rule, we don't discuss posters' deletions on threads. We just feel it's not fair to do that in public. But we have just emailed Creepster to clarify the reason for those deletions so hopefully any confusion there is cleared up now.

We do try to make clear our reasons for deletion when we mail people but if you're ever not sure or we haven't been clear do feel free to drop us a line and we'll always try to clear up any queries.

Thanks.

MumsnetMNHQ, thank you for changing the sticky. That is refreshing to wake up to. It's more accurate, and fairer.

Ingrate

I meant keeping track of what MNHQ have done, not you Lang.

I meant keeping track of what MNHQ have done, not you Lang.

I know, darling! I was being cheeky but perhaps had better not elaborate for fear of Bad Lang Mod Discipline!

@HebeMumsnet I was just wondering if MNHQ could consider my request on the previous page. I do really feel that it is important that Mumsnet clearly states that it stands with all vulnerable and oppressed people. I don't think that my proposed slight wording change would actually alter your moderation policy, which I know that you don't want to do at present, I just think that it will provide some balance and protection for all.

I promise not to keep asking for changes and I do really appreciate the change in the title of the moderation policy and MNHQ generally.

We can see that Lang and others are concerned about the reasons for a deletion earlier in the thread

As a general rule, we don't discuss posters' deletions on threads. We just feel it's not fair to do that in public

Thanks for popping in, Hebe.

But I think you've missed the point. I was concerned that MichaelMumsnet decided to break your general rule about discussing individual deletions on threads to tell us what the deletion wasn't for but not what it was for. That's called making it worse, not better. I am now concerned that Michael sowed further confusion which Creepster attempted to clear up (note she only posted after Michael and also after further enquiry by me) and has been deleted once again for her pains.

This is not a productive or constructive way to deal with users who are already telling you that the guidelines are impossible to follow in good faith. It's beyond infuriating.

Hope that helps.

Chickens suggestion to me implies all us women are either weak, vulnerable, or oppressed though, I think the wording as it is is better now than changing

Wotcha Where have I suggested than Mumsnet change their wording to imply that women are weak. I am simply asking the wording be changed to show that MN support all who are vulnerable or oppressed. I haven't even asked for the words women or children to be include. Why Wotcha do you not want MN to stand in solidarity with all vulnerable people?

Also Wotcha by this logic do you consider all people who are in a minority group to be weak?

SpartacusAutisticus yes it awful how many missing females there are.

I don't think it is whether a group is in the majority or minority that necessarily makes them vulnerable or oppressed.