"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"?

I understand them fine, thanks.
So gaslighting doesn't mean trying to make someone doubt themselves, that they said something else all along?
DARVO doesn't mean deny, attack, reverse, victim offender? Which if people are called out on the shit that they do they can just cry DARVO and pretend there's nothing to see here, it's them, move along?

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

That can't be it, or Willis wouldn't have objected to the suggested phrase 'standing with all oppressed and vulnerable people'.

Willis! You didn't use any new ones in that post, you just used the ones you've already said.

So gaslighting doesn't mean trying to make someone doubt themselves, that they said something else all along?

It does! For example claiming someone said women were weak when they clearly said no such thing could be seen as gas lighting.

DARVO doesn't mean deny, attack, reverse, victim offender? Which if people are called out on the shit that they do they can just cry DARVO and pretend there's nothing to see here, it's them, move along

Kind of. For example, if someone was insisting someone else had said "women were weak" when no such thing was said and then threw a fit of indignation about other people 'making shit up' about what they said, then that would be DARVO.

It's a classic tactic and easily spotted.

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

But do you think that all trans people and/or all people of colour are vulnerable or oppressed? If so, how do you know? You can't possibly have asked ask them all.

I wonder if this is what happens when you identify as being such a righteous person that you couldn't possibly be behaving badly.

I know I didn't use any new ones Floral, I was referring to this -
FloralBunting Fri 10-Jan-20 18:54:06
I'm sure there are some other buzzwords you don't quite understand you could shoehorn into the conversation if you really try, Willis

I'm sure I do understand them more than you thought I did otherwise you'd probably have told me if I'd got the meanings wrong instead of just replying I hadn't said any new ones

Willis, there are other people responding to you that you could talk to if you ever get tired of attempting to avoid my problem with what you're arguing for, you know? Feminazgul has helpfully explained how Gaslighting and DARVO might be relevant in this thread.

And Justa is valiantly trying to work out why you would offer solidarity to one class of vulnerable and oppressed people, but not women who fall into that category. I'm sure they'd be happy to walk you through this too.

Kind of. For example, if someone was insisting someone else had said "women were weak"
OK, I haven't said someone else said women were weak.
At all. Anywhere.
To clear up -
I did. As in I didn't think what people are wanting the wording to change to implies all women are weak, oppressed or vulnerable.
As to me it does.
People seem to think I'm saying that all women are weak though, when I don't at all otherwise I'd be fine and dandy with the sentence changing, wouldn't I?
Weak was with hindsight the wrong word to use - it still stands though that we don't all feel like an oppressed, vulnerable minority.
Some do, and that's fair enough.
Some don't, and they're entitled to their opinions too.

Me having my view doesn't mean that I think no woman is oppressed and vulnerable. Oppressed and vulnerable people should always be stood in solidarity with/protected and I haven't said otherwise.

And Justa is valiantly trying to work out why you would offer solidarity to one class of vulnerable and oppressed people, but not women who fall into that category.

NOWHERE have I said I don't agree with offering solidarity to women who fall into the category, stop making shit up.

OK - bit baffled as to why someone who's had their comment deleted twice would go in for a third attempt?!
Are you actively trying to get it taken down again or something lol?
NOT me who reported it by the way before anyone starts, but it just seems like a WTF thing to do lol

I just noticed that I did not use the term 'the t' as quoted in this explanation, so that the more they explain the more confusing it gets.

I am willing to take one for the FWR team in the interest of clarity. We need to know which words we are allowed to use and which we are not.
These threads always help clarify the managements position on the relationships between the content providers, management, and the advertisers.

The sticky at the top of this board, written by MN, used to say t in the title so I'm even more confused now!

Willis, Chicken's suggestion was that changing the wording to make it broader and show solidarity to all oppressed and vulnerable people was more inclusive of groups that not minorities, but are still vulnerable and oppressed.

You decided, for your own reasons, to take issue with that concept, and want the wording kept as referring to minorities. Chicken's suggestion was meant to acknowledge that women as a group, while not a minority, can be oppressed and vulnerable. You don't like that.

How do you expect that position to be taken on a feminist chat board? Do you think it would be nodded along as just another view, and yes, women should just get on with it, they need no solidarity?

If you're now claiming you think women deserve as much much solidarity as every other group that can be oppressed and vulnerable, why would you have a problem with Chicken's suggestion? Can you see where our confusion has arisen?

Used to say t*s
that should read

Well, quite HandsOffMyRights. If it's wrong to use trans on it's own, why is 'trans rights' a permitted thing?

How many over parsed contradictions can dance on the head of a pin?

why is 'trans rights' a permitted thing?

I'm presuming because, context - using it by itself seems kind of othering when it's referring to people, but in the context of rights it's more of a shortening of a word and not the othering aspect.

So using people is a good thing. Kind of like being more inclusive and positive than just using 'minorities', perhaps?

Watch how well we can walk on eggshells. We are good because we have had so much practice, guess.

I'm not walking on eggshells this evening. Positive doing a jig on them. It probably shows.

Off to do some chilled out relaxing yoga now, though. Had enough of this cobblers for a day.

I am willing to take one for the FWR team in the interest of clarity. We need to know which words we are allowed to use and which we are not.

Thank you, darling.

Right. So "trans" must be used in conjunction with "person" or "people" or you get a mod-imposed spanking?

Must one use a space or is a compound noun acceptable?

Hebe? Michael? Justine? Clarification, please.

I must say, we seem to be wandering into Willis territory here. Surely we are not assuming trans persons/transpersons are this, what's the word again, Willis*? Weak?

*whichever one's not strike-worthy. I await clarification and promise not to transgress once it's received.

I may have found another point where we can all agree.

One group states that trans people are vulnerable and so need to use the women's facilities. They haven't said what makes trans people vulnerable. I assume its the risk of male violence.

So presumably we can agree that male pattern violence is the threat to both groups.

If that group wants to change the rules of access to women's spaces and services, they need to show how they will retain safeguarding and privacy for women, and keep men out.

What MN needs is a transboard for themselves. There is dadsnet, craicnet etc, and there needs to be transnet so fwr can fight for their womens right without having to continually dance on eggshells.

Womens rights have never been about women being a minority group it has fuck all to do with womens rights afaics

Also, the delicately stepping around the roolz and being deleted for god knows what, as disrespect well how about being told to fuck off yet reporting it doesnt get it deleted.

How is telling someone to fuck off not disrespectful, yet dont you dare to be uncivil.or you will get a strike. I would lmfao except its no joke

Changing the rules all the time, consequences for unknown misdemeanours, consequently dancing on eggshells, gaslighting, all falls into the category of abuse.