"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"?

Why wotcha do you not want MN to stand in solidarity with all vulnerable people

I do want them to, they should always stand in solidarity with them, I just think your wording implies we're all vulnerable and oppressed just by being a female, maybe you and others feel that way but it doesn't speak for all of us.

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

Why have you added the word weak? To me, that seems like you are associating 'vulnerable or oppressed' with weakness, not Chicken.

Incidentally, I've never seen any FWR GC poster say that all women are weak, or that all women are weaker than all men, as has been implied by a few posters recently.

It's interesting though.

I do want them to, they should always stand in solidarity with them, I just think your wording implies we're all vulnerable and oppressed just by being a female, maybe you and others feel that way but it doesn't speak for all of us.

Yes, dear, we know you're a hyperindividualist libertarian and structural analysis escapes you.

You'll be saying the same about transgender people? Yes? How silly that they see themselves as an oppressed group. They should just self-identify as empowered, right?

You can't have it both ways.

Chickens said

"Could the sentence perhaps be amended toMumsnet will always stand in solidarity with the vulnerable or oppressedorMumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed people."

No mention of weak women at all.

Bold fail

I like Chicken’s suggestion. It helps to direct the discussion to where it should be

Mner

I agree, i like the change as well

Of course it should go without saying...but i think its best to say it

I agree with Chicken's suggestion too.

I agree with Chicken's suggestion, and to be clear, I mean Chicken's suggestion, not the one that has been through anyone else's mistranslation efforts.

Wotcha Brilliant it appears that we have agreed that we would like Mumsnet to stand in solidarity with all the vulnerable and oppressed, which is what I requested the MN wording was altered slightly to reflect.

I can also reassure you that I absolutely do not think that all women are weak. Actually in my own life, some of the strongest and most amazing people I know are women. I do however recognise that people can be more vulnerable because they are female or because they are children. I do not associate vulnerability to harm or oppression, with weakness.

My personal main concern is always for children, who are not often recognised as a minority in their own right. I think that recognising all children's absolute vulnerability and then acting to protect them and their wellbeing and development is what safeguarding is about. I think that it is important that this is reflected clearly in MN's moderation guidelines, especially when much of the discussion and debate on board is about safeguarding children, hence my requested wording alteration.

Thank you for discussing this Wotcha

Just to clarify when I wrote that I absolutely do not think all women are weak, I was trying to refute that point that Wotcha had made which implied that I do that I think that all women are weak. I was not stating that I think most or some women are weak, I am not even sure where weakness comes into it to be honest.

Chicken, you're very gracious. I don't think anyone genuinely needed clarification, your words were clear, but you have certainly made your argument well.

Yes we have established we agree on MN should stand with the vulnerable and oppressed - we obviously don't agree that the wording should be changed to claim all women are vulnerable and oppressed though.
I see it as lumping us all together as one.

Your phasing was very clear chicken

Wotcha and I have not asked for the wording to say that all women are vulnerable and oppressed or that all women should be lumped in together. I have simply asked for the wording to state that Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with the vulnerable and oppressed or Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed people. I promise you that there is no mention of the word women or indeed children in my suggestions. In fact I agree that it is important to leave the word women (or indeed any other word to describe a group of people) out of the sentence. So I am not sure how we are disagreeing. Even if we have different viewpoints on things Wotcha, surely you can see that we are agreeing here.

Another who agrees that Chicken's phrasing was perfectly clear.

Wotcha maybe you could highlight exactly where chicken has claimed all women and children are vulnerable and oppressed (or indeed weak as you also claimed) please. I'm just not seeing it?

"Could the sentence perhaps be amended to

Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with the vulnerable or oppressed

or

Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed people."

Why else would you (general you) want it changing to one of those sentences if you didn't think that women all fell into the oppressed and vulnerable group?

I see it as lumping us all together as one

Many of us with an understanding of patriarchy, and its effect on women, have no great problem with that. Indeed quote the contrary.

I can see why it doesn't appear to modern individualists though.

*quite the contrary

That's oppressed or vulnerable, Willis, not 'and'. No mention of 'all women' either. If you're going to poke holes in people's posts, it helps to read them properly.

But theres no mention of 'all women'.

The 'vulnerable and oppressed' could refer to anyone.

Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed people

I prefer phrase 2 - as it acknowledges, not just individuals, but groups/categories of people too. Women as a group are vulnerable in certain ways on account of their biology/physicality - no matter what else their individual social or economic standing.

This for me, goes to the heart of the debate around single sex spaces, provisions, services and sports.

But apparently if some people in a group arent oppressed and vulnerable then none of them can be.

But apparently if some people in a group arent oppressed and vulnerable then none of them can be.

And, more to the point, Willis feels that forum rules lumping everyone in a group together are insulting and patronising and shouldn't exist. So, one assumes, Willis feels this applies to transpersons as well as women. And therefore the rules should be dispensed with. Which is excellent because so do I.

Willis may have taken the Thatcherite libertarian route while I've taken the materialist feminist route - but the end destination is the same!

HUZZAH!