Munroe Bergdorf lands big book deal with Bloomsbury

[TornadoOfSouls]

Reported rather breathlessly in the Graun

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/17/munroe-bergdorf-receives-landmark-book-deal-for-trans-manifesto

Among other things she’s going to tell us all that the experience being a ‘ciswoman’ has changed over the years.

‘my intelligence has been undermined, and I’ve been underestimated a lot in a lot of different instances.’

Sounds a bit Dunning-Kruger to me, to be honest.

I believe PT phrase is also banned? And related P words. Anything vaguely pertaining to the summit of a large hillock.

Can we abbreviate and just say BS

That would work for me because there's another phrase for which BS is an abbreviation which also applies to this situation.

Sorry for being so cryptic but women aren't allowed to talk freely on here any more.

mild irony is beyond the pale ...

F word is banned. G word is banned. N word is banned (no, not that one, the other one).

I have no idea what all these banned words are (or PT) - are they written down somewhere? I've checked the rules and no clearer. I still think banning 'trans-identified' when talking about a person - I am talking about the phrase here and not a person to be clear - is madness since the whole ideology is based on self- identification. And the rules talk about identifying with the opposite sex not with being trans per se - but lots of people don't and are non-binary.

But so be it, at least it's written down somewhere, so I won't use trans-identified in relation to a person on here.

I hope I don't get deleted for discussing the rules, now that would be Orwellian.

Certainly B&s is not written down. That was banned as the words were being typed. There is no way of knowing what someone out there will take offence at - their own words used back at them is offensive apparently.

S&B has always been a useful shorthand for the double standard applied to the - ahem - different kinds of women. It is something that has been woven into the narrative of trans ideology since the very beginning, and which harms women. An ordinary, old fashioned kind of women doing something is ordinary and old fashioned (or maybe not, if that thing is wearing hyper-sexualised clothing / posing in bondage gear etc.) A woman by the newly expanded definition doing that same thing is lauded (on social media, by the press, the BBC etc) as S&B.

We need to be able to talk about this, just as we need to be able to talk about all the double standards that constitute rank sexism.

Considering the horrible treatment of the Baroness initiated by the person named on the thread as a result of a couple of misplaced words I'm not really surprised this thread is being picked over.

My preference is that their various activities are ignored. This book is of zero interest to feminism going on the evidence in the public domain so I can't see the point discussing it. Not worth the attention

Morning, everyone.

We just wanted to reply to the questions here about the 'stunning and brave' deletion as there seem to be a lot of people asking about it. The answer is no, it's not expressly on a list of 'banned terms', we try not to have those as it doesn't aid the flow of conversation and with so many terms that may often get deleted, there are always times when we think it's not necessary. However, we do think 'stunning and brave' has become a phrase, like 'peak trans' and 'cis', that feels inflammatory, or is used as a trope, so when we see it used in a derisory way we're likely to delete it.

We want Mumsnet to be a place where trans people can join and post just as any other (non troll person) can join and post, and we think some terms like this are likely to make it feel like a more hostile place for them.

Hope that explains our thinking on it. As always, if you're not sure about something or have been deleted and aren't sure why, do feel free to drop us a line. We're always happy to explain or have a chat about it.

Tropes are banned on Mumsnet? Can we still say "naice"?

The problem with having that thought process though is that it then becomes difficult to separate out the genuine from the ironic. One Mumsnetter was permanently banned when a genuine post was construed as being ironic and therefore offensive. There is no doubt the external monitors who report anything and everything they might take offence to will see this as another opportunity to bring down the ban hammer on unsuspecting posters.

All I would say is please consider who is reporting the post and would politely ask that careful consideration is given to context and intention before deleting/striking/banning someone. Mumsnet without sarcasm and irony wouldn’t be any fun at all.

However, we do think 'stunning and brave' has become a phrase, like 'peak trans

Hang on - so we can't say peak trans either? Since when?

I feel very sorry for the mods, it must be very hard to read some words that have a meaning, and then divine through some super power what the person writing those words actually meant. It's kind of like when a man despite being a man is actually a woman. Or are they a man. Or am I being restricted by a bigoted binary.

Fuck knows. It's very hard to have a discussion when words don't mean what you think they do, or maybe they do, but you don't know until someone helpful explains what the words you said actually meant.

when we see it used in a derisory way we're likely to delete it.

Why aren't we allowed to be derisory?

Why aren't we allowed to be derisory?

"Isn't MNHQ wonderful"

Am I being derisory there? Or sarcastic? Or is that from the heart on thanks for hosting the only mainstream place on the internet where trans issues can be discussed.

You really, really can't police "tone" MNHQ.

@SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito

when we see it used in a derisory way we're likely to delete it.

Why aren't we allowed to be derisory?

If people cant be derisory

What's the point of AIBU?

In fact style and beauty would struggle as well

And oh my goodness the brexit board!

I said jolly lovely on a thread

And a poster has taken offence...didn’t mean it offensively

Generally speaking in S&B and AIBU women are being derisory about women, not men...

Fair point itsallgoingtobefine

Ha!!!

Unbeknownst to you THAT was sarcasm and derisory!

(It wasnt really)

If only derisory comments about transpeople are problematic enough to be deleted then we are treating them differently from everyone else.

That's not inclusion.

We should be equally derisory to all groups in society.

@HebeMumsnet what if you feel derisory towards a transperson? What if you think much of what they say and do is risible?

For instance, I think a TRA advocating for extreme porn and lowering the age of participants, whilst hinting that they are being consulted on girl guiding policy, should be able to be contrasted with the stunning and brave narrative that is applied to themselves and others.

It's highlighting the hypocrisy of what someone says to others, and what they say about themselves.

Why is it decided that being derisory doesn't apply to entire cohort, unilaterally?

There is also no reason why a person can’t be derided for their actions, words, tweets, etc and they are also trans. Individuals (who happen to be trans) and their actions should not be above scrutiny or derision. No one has ever used “stunning and brave” to deride trans people generally - and that would be transphobic and inappropriate - but it is commonly used ironically and tirelessly about individuals because it counters the common TRA trope that all trans people are just that, instead of the trans community being made up of all types of people, including those who might invite derision, or more commonly, anger at their actions. The use here counters the fact that TRAs often fail to call out or blatantly ignore behaviour - sometimes criminal - in favour of glossing things over with pleasantries. I imagine it won’t be long before TRAs target “This never happens” for similar reasons.

Let’s be honest though, some well known people who are trans or trans allies are more likely to invite monitors here to report, and negative mentions of those people are much less likely to be tolerated by those monitors. Especially those with links to a certain charity. I’d like to see how policing of derisory ironic “stunning and brave” posts will go down on a Karen White thread, for example.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

If only derisory comments about transpeople are problematic enough to be deleted then we are treating them differently from everyone else.

That's not inclusion.

We should be equally derisory to all groups in society.

Well yes

X post with Datun saying similar.

And actually if I was being derisory it was towards are external moderators who have you on speed dial. That is exactly who I was referring to. I believe I said ‘Our B&S external moderators’.

Can I say ‘external moderators’? Because there’s irony in there too.

I am angry at this group of activists who try to control the dialogue here and at your desire to cater to them and to centre their requests over ours. I believe you said on this thread that do act ‘when requested’ which - for a group who wish you harm, MNHQ, and who would dearly love to destroy your business, is quite something.

So I do refer to them without fondness. What would be an approved way to signal my dislike and disapproval of this way of behaving without using terms that are banned and without allowing a ‘tone’ to creep into my language?

And for double standards - MNHQ once described women on here as ‘haranguing’ people. But using gendered and negative language against your own customer base is fine. Even when they object. This is where we are