"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"?

Not sure what the motive can be for objecting to 'standing in solidarity with oppressed and vulnerable' on the basis that you don't feel yourself to be oppressed or vulnerable.

I mean sure, ok, I am happy to not stand in solidarity with someone who is objecting to that wording on that basis. Quite happy.

Ookay Floral, where exactly have I said I object to standing in solidarity? If you read back I said MN should always stand in solidarity with oppressed and vulnerable minorities, so talk about making shit up if you don't like hearing other opinions.
I'm entitled to mine too.
As for Lang, yes that's my name, don't wear it out
*

You have a problem with Chicken's suggested wording that not all vulnerable and oppressed people are minorities, and that there are women who constitute a portion of that group of people, because you have mistranslated vulnerable and oppressed as 'weak', and you do not feel yourself to be in that group.

Your placing yourself outside of that group is your business. Why would you have a problem with Mumsnet making a statement that they stand in solidarity with all vulnerable and oppressed people? Do you not think we should stand in solidarity with all oppressed and vulnerable people? Struggling to see your objection as a positive, decent human response, really, but it takes all sorts.

Blimey, some people really could pick a fight in a phone box.

Quite.

DARVO is go!

Can I sit in solidarity?

Can I sit in solidarity?

With Willis (I do like the bolding convention hereabouts) and me that the ROOLZ should be binned?

Mais bien sur. I'll budge up.

I think all poses of solidarity are welcome and to be warmly encouraged. That's the beautiful thing about solidarity. You don't need to be suffering the same way to offer it, be you sitting or standing.

Yes, Willis is an unlikely sudden supporter of the end of the guidelines,but people are full.of surprises,Lang.

Uh-oh.

Maybe willis could stand to one side, I could sit in the middle, Lang could kneel, and Floral could squat? It could be a picturesque tableau.

Anyone else seeing the utter irony of DARVO is go! comment to my yes that's my name comment to that now apparently means I said yes I want the guidelines scrapped altogether? !
If not DARVO there's definitely some epic attempts at gaslighting going on for voicing an against group think opinion lol

I am going to sit on a chair and eat pizza.

Or is that taking things too far?

I am going to sit on a chair and eat pizza.

Or is that taking things too far?

I think you'd at least have to be willing to share some pizza with the vulnerable and oppressed if they were there, otherwise it'd seem like gloating, Sexequality.

Lol. I am really disturbed by the word squat.

Willis, you're entitled to your opinion. There is some confusion on whether that opinion is that changing the wording to 'solidarity with all vulnerable and oppressed people' is unacceptable because it includes women, and you only stand in solidarity with minorities, but not women. Have at it, say it as loud as you like.

I think Lang has read that you are against putting all women together as a group of potentially oppressed and vulnerable people, because you do not feel vulnerable (which you have interpreted as 'weak'), so therefore you must also be against putting trans people together as a group as they are not all vulnerable, so there's no point having the guidelines anyway.

It's all a bit hard to follow. Bless.

Bless

Side order of patronising to go with the gaslighting now?
Not surprised lol.
Maybe this does sound like DARVO but it's literally what a lot of posters are doing, and do.

Maybe willis could stand to one side, I could sit in the middle, Lang could kneel, and Floral could squat? It could be a picturesque tableau.

I'm not being the kneeler! I think I should sit in my chariot and the rest of you should be polishing its wheels. My tits are bound to be the saggiest and I'm a Saggy Supremacist.

I think Lang has read that you are against putting all women together as a group of potentially oppressed and vulnerable people, because you do not feel vulnerable (which you have interpreted as 'weak'), so therefore you must also be against putting trans people together as a group as they are not all vulnerable, so there's no point having the guidelines anyway.

I have! I did not consider it to be a quantum leap in logic. Perhaps I should lower my expectations? But that might be interpreted as seeing poor old Willis as weak and obviously that's not the case at all, as Willis has already explained!

Anyone else seeing the utter irony of DARVO is go! comment to my yes that's my name comment

It wasnt in relation to that. But you know that really, dont you?

I should sit in my chariot

I'm not sure that would strike the right tone, Lang. How about a shopping trolley?

I'm not sure that would strike the right tone, Lang. How about a shopping trolley?

Is it an M&S trolley?

Watching people congratulate Justine on being bullied by advertisers is a bit creepy, especially when it's being spun as "see, she agrees with us". No wonder some people don't want her doing the Freedom Program.

Last desperate gasp of people who realize that their movement is doomed really, imo.

Also, can I have some of the pizza if there's any going?

I'm sure there are some other buzzwords you don't quite understand you could shoehorn into the conversation if you really try, Willis.

Perhaps you could wheel back round to intersectionalism vs white feminism because you support oppressed and vulnerable minorities but not oppressed and vulnerable women? Give it a try.

Ookay Floral, where exactly have I said I object to standing in solidarity? If you read back I said MN should always stand in solidarity with oppressed and vulnerable minorities, so talk about making shit up if you don't like hearing other opinions

My reading of what you said was that because you don't feel vulnerable or oppressed as a woman, yourself, then the wording should not contain 'women'; as that would assume all women were vulnerable ( I thin they are in certain ways, myself)........

But then on the other hand you think some groups ( presumably trans people & people of colour?) should, universally, be treated as vulnerable and oppressed and given special mention or privilege?

That being 'of colour' or 'trans' automatically makes an individual vulnerable and oppressed...... and in a way that it doesn't for women ( because you don't personally feel oppressed).

Or is it that are you disputing this whole concept of vulnerability and oppression - as it relates, in uniform manner, to all members of a specific group?

Do you think vulnerability and oppression is just a personal issue; to be judged on a person to person; individual to individual basis?