"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"?

with a different viewpoint

....and what would that be......I don't think you can answer. And that is the truth. Your 'arguments' are totally void and redundant and without identifiable substance They don't exist. Go back to twitter. It suits your style far better.

Another word automatically thrown at anyone with a different viewpoint

Yep, snowblight!

Go back to twitter. It suits your style far better.

So now it's insinuating Twitter TRA'S for deviating from group think?
Sorry to disappoint but I've never tweeted or been involved in any trans issues on Twitter in my life.

This thread is a QED on so many levels!

At this point, MN is more censorious than even the useless bird site. And still it's worth a filibuster.

Any news on the correct form of transperson/trans person yet?

I think we all realise some people are here to waste time but that doesn't mean anyone needs to waste time on them.

I do appreciate seeing the text of what's deleted and why, even though I know context is important, it helps me work out what is and isn't seen as disrespectful. More openness re this would surely help if the mods want people to keep within the guidelines?

And still it's worth a filibuster

Filibuster - someone who refuses to lie down and take shit thrown at them and by natural consequence of doing so inadvertently makes the thread run to pages of fucking bollocks.
Believe me when I say I'd rather it didn't happen myself but hey ho I know you won't. Ah well

Have a good weekend, Floral and other non GFs!

Isn't working very well, but points for trying I guess.

That was shockingly wilful misrepresentation of my post. I was trying to reach a point of agreement between two groups, neither of which wants men in their spaces.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3781626-Mumsnet-statement-on-moderation-with-regard-to?msgid=93014235

The answer I got was;
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3781626-Mumsnet-statement-on-moderation-with-regard-to?msgid=93015368

If you don't think trans folk are in any way vulnerable or at risk from male violence if they use the men's room, why are you fighting for them to be in with women?

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Btw ladies, before I turn in, a reminder that it's the weekend, and odd things tend to happen round these parts

Eh? Someone disagrees, it's the weekend's fault?
Oookay lol, or is that more a dig at the mods as you think they just let numpties rule supreme and therefore anything ban worthy doesn't count if it's nearly Saturday. Or something
Barely even got a grasp on what day it is here (no, seriously) so that had passed me by - literally only just got over Christmas and people being back at work and school lol

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis
My guess is it is a reference to the midnight misogynist.
However, I think that if you enjoy making accusations and spinning unfounded conspiracy theories you should not let errors of judgment slow you down.

This thread is instructional.

Is it proper, fire extinguishing rain, Girl?

Unfortunately not, I’m in South Australia and it was welcome and will have helped with some ember attacks, and I’m sure the firies and animals also enjoyed the cool break.
VIC and NSW are doing it hard at the moment, and it’s devastating the damage done in SAs Kangaroo Island.

This thread seems to have suffered some minor ember attacks too, but no real damage done

Goady = coming onto a feminism board and denying that female people as a class are vulnerable (and hence, deserving of solidarity and protections) on the basis of their sex, and the cultural meaning attached to their sex.

That's not a difference of opinion, that's a rejection of feminism and the rights of female people as a class.

Wotcha I respect that you have a different view point and understanding of which people are vulnerable or oppressed and why that might be, to mine.

I can't look at my life and not conclude that significant harm was done to me because I am female and also because I was vulnerable as a child, as all children are. I was not harmed because I was weak. Additionally I look at the world we live in and at statistics, history and other people's experiences and I conclude that women and children as distinct groups are vulnerable by virtue of their sex or age. I conclude of course that many other people and groups are also vulnerable and in need of care, protection or help too.

I appreciate that you look at your life and do not consider yourself to have been vulnerable or oppressed (or at least not on the basis of being a woman) and that your conclusions about the world around you are different to mine. I respect your different thoughts and understand that also care about people who are vulnerable or oppressed.

When I requested that MNHQ consider changing the opening line of the moderation guidelines slightly, I did actually consider how the wording I suggested could be kept broadly in line with MN's original wording, whilst also being as inclusive of different people and different points of view as possible. My suggested wording was not actually about promoting my view point but about a sentence that we could all understand that acknowledges that Mumsnet cares about all people who are vulnerable or oppressed.

I deliberately did not suggest that the wording was changed to Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed groups because I truly wanted my suggestion to be as inclusive and clear as possible and to not simply to reflect my awareness of the importance of understanding that groups of people can be, or can be made to be, vulnerable because of characteristics such as sex, age, race, sexual orientation that they share (or don't share) in common with other people. This does not mean that I think that all people who share a particular characteristic are the same or behave the same or experience the world in the same way. I do however think that it is important to understand what may make a person or group of people vulnerable in certain situations and I also think that it can be important to offer protection to a group of people as a whole. For example safeguarding legislation understands that all children are vulnerable and recognises that they all need protection. This does not mean that all children would be harmed if there was no safeguarding legislation in place. It just means that hopefully less children will be harmed where effective safeguarding legislation is in place.

Wotcha you do seem to agree that you think that it is important that we and Mumsnet should always stand in solidarity with the vulnerable or oppressed, which is simply what my suggested wording stated.

Goady = coming onto a feminism board and denying that female people as a class are vulnerable (and hence, deserving of solidarity and protections) on the basis of their sex, and the cultural meaning attached to their sex.

Those who who deny that a class has interests in common usually are seeking to divide that class.

In this instance, I wonder why?

I'd also like this to accompany the sticky.

That's a great quotation from Voltaire..... ( I'm going to store that image for future use) in these times of the authoritarian 'liberal-left'. The inevitable conclusion of identity politics.

It's not from Voltaire. Sorry to be a pedant, but I love Voltaire and think it's important to correctly attribute quotations.

voltairefoundation.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/voltaire-and-the-one-liner/

A man who pleaded guilty to child pornography has written that statement about looking to who we can't criticise etc.

It relates to rulers, not vulnerable groups. In this analogy we're all vulnerable, being exploited and oppressed.

It relates to rulers, not vulnerable groups. In this analogy we're all vulnerable, being exploited and oppressed

In obvious totalitarian ruled countries & regimes around the world the public cannot criticise those in power - but what we find these days is that nobody is permitted to question left-liberal dogmas; often those the inter-sectionalist kind. The kind whereby the supposedly most oppressed become, as if by magic, the most privileged - and no criticism or analysis is permitted.

those of the inter-sectionalist kind & so if someone is 'of colour' or 'trans', criticism is off limits. this is not just in left leaning social circles and social media - but even in our society at large; and even in the corridors of Whitehall