"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"?

Agree

Thanks, OP, for making this very perceptive point. I can't believe I hadn't thought of it in those (far more accurate) terms before.

This is a feminist board, for women to discuss feminism. It's so simple and - now - blindingly obvious.

Agreed.

Not sure if this is an important point but if it was about sex and gender identity that would provide even further much-needed, clarity - gender is often used as a replacement for sex, not so much on this board as we have had to be so careful with language, but if the rules are to be re-written or clarified then it's worth looking at the language used to do that too.

Also, the pinned post does not appear when using the app so many new visitors to this board don't see it and don't post within the rules and can risk a strike or ban without being fully informed of why.

Minor points but I felt both were worth noting.

Agree!

I agree wholeheartedly. Every time I see the warnings I wonder why one particular group appears to have a special status and now agree with another poster that this possibly has to do with appeasing advertisers.

On a wider point, I also think that some younger women, through no fault of their own, have no idea how restricted women's lives were until relatively recently. On Twitter there is a correspondent who posts details of pioneering women from the past - the fact that they were so few and far between as compared with men tells its own story.

Therefore I disagree with any instruction which suggests that women should not enforce and support their rights and those of children, which were so bravely fought for by previous generations. I am sure no one would agree with sending children down the mines or up chimneys, but restricting their rights to protected spaces is, in my opinion, equally as bad.

Agree.

What very good points! Agree wholeheartedly.

100% agree with what everyone above said. There is a similar message at the top of the TES chat forum also - the 'sacred ones must never be upset' type of thing. Utter bollocks.

Hello everyone - thanks for your comments. This is something we'll need to discuss when everyone is back in the office this week - we'll get back to you as soon as we can..

Yes. Agree with this too.

Agree

Thanks Becky.
Also agree with this.

I also agree. Excellent suggestion.

MNHQ's banner statement was in response to the tra bullying of organisations to be complicit in their demands or be named and shamed as being anti trans (with the repercussions of loss of revenue from similarly bullied advertisers).

Putting women's rights second to men's is so ingrained in organisations that few questioned the demands and most just went along with them. It speaks volumes about how ingrained this sexism is that it's taken till now for one of us to articulate just how wrong your statement is.

Thank you OP for pointing this out. It really is time to centre women on a banner statement that heads a feminist chat board.

It speaks volumes about how ingrained this sexism is that it's taken till now for one of us to articulate just how wrong your statement is

Doesn't it just?

Thanks for agreeing to look at this YetAnotherBecky. It’s very timely (poss overdue).

It’s a fact that the landscape has very much changed since this statement was deemed necessary.

Hundreds of people across all platforms are questioning the conflict of rights inherent in TRA demands. Including the policing of language. MN is looking a bit behind the curve now by pinning rules that look so dated.

Thanks, YetAnotherBecky.

Thank you, YetAnotherBecky. I think Mumsnet positioning itself quite clearly on the side of women makes far more sense, and might actually get the bullies off your back a bit.

When I think about it, it's not very logical that the pinned post concerns trans rights.

Totally agree

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

Absolutely agree - top post, OP - thank you!

I's part of what bothers me about the current debates/discussions: I'm not really interested in "trans rights" - I'm interested in women's rights. I centre women & girls.

That doesn't mean I don't think that transwomen & transmen shouldn't have standard human rights.

But I am concerned about maintaining women's rights & freedoms, and need to be able to focus on this. And also need to be able to identify - with precise & accurate language - where women's rights are threatened or limited by transactivism. Such as the TRA attempt to fundamentally take control of the definition of 'woman' and hold that language hostage.

Why has @langcleg 's post been deleted ffs

Oh FFS. Do I have to go and check email for potential non compliance strikes? I'll try again:

Dear MNHQ

I think you should remove the guidelines altogether. They inhibit the free speech discussion of women's rights and radical feminism (note: I am not a radical feminist myself) and, whether you want to admit it or not, are used abusively as a coercive control mechanism over the women who contribute here and forces your mod team to act as proxies for this. This is not a personal attack on the mod team: it is my assessment of your rules, which, in my opinion, cast genderists as sacred, never to be offended.

HTH.

Lang