Dear MNHQ:

[PerfectPretender]

It's become perfectly clear now that pointing out safeguarding failures over recent years has not been unreasonable, or mean-spirited, or unkind, but actually completely reasonable and expected of educational guidelines and safeguarding procedures.

It's time for you to accept that our concerns were, shall we say, valid.

And every single time you deleted one of us for pointing out these blindingly obvious safeguarding failures? Wrong side of history. You.

You owe a lot of women an apology.

Don't feel I was leaving you out

Wasn't at all, just sayin
As you did no mention of regular posters reporting, just seemed like making out people did a few posts and pretended to be a member for nefarious reasons

Regular posters don't report, just sayin

Regular posters don't report, just sayin

Not true

Never have. Been here many years through many name changes. Never reported. would take an absolutely OUTRAGEOUS situation for me to do so, because all posts tell a tale, Q.

I very rarely report. Only when people make obvious personal attacks against someone, using abusive language, or they are obviously trolling, or victim blaming rape and abuse victims etc.

Most of us on this thread have been deleted, haven't we? Including people reporting others. It's perspective, mostly. I think the reporters often just report to see whether it will stick.

I report some posts which clearly break talk guidelines (trolling, egregious -isms and -phobias) . It's sometimes necessary to do so because MN isn't proactively moderated.

I think the reporters often just report to see whether it will stick.

By which I mean habitual, some might say vexatious reporters.

I have been deleted. But then, I am pretty horrible. I mean I just can't help myself.

I was reported for acronyms. Un-bloody-acceptable acronyms sure. But ones that exist in the real world, beyond guidelines and shit.

@Quaagars

Don't feel I was leaving you out

Wasn't at all, just sayin
As you did no mention of regular posters reporting, just seemed like making out people did a few posts and pretended to be a member for nefarious reasons

You have to be logged in to report a thread and we know there is a “sizeable” organised group of people who actively monitor and no doubt report. Therefore these people actively participate in threads as part of their monitoring, or are only registered with the purpose of reporting.

www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

"I draw the line at thanking them for it, however."

Quite so

I subscribe because it is the strategic thing to do. It's not about gratitude nor about my personal feelings towards Mumsnet.

It would be a huge victory for TRAs to get this place shut down. Think about how ecstatic they would be. That alone should tell you how seriously they regard women talking on Mumsnet as a threat to their movement.

Women really need to start thinking strategically and long-term about this issue, rather than simply reacting in outrage every time yet another institution refers to women as 'menstruators' or some dumb celeb recites 'TWAW' on Twitter. That stuff is white noise. What are the long-term cultural and structural trends at play here, and how can we change the direction in favour of women, children and reality?

What are the strategies that will help us win? The first is to enable proper public discussion, among women especially. We can't do that in private groups or on obscure websites.

Yes, you're not wrong, Donkeyskin. As I said, that's why I still post here. But I'm not going to downplay the damage to women because that kind of thing is a big reason why I'm doing this in the first place.

Thanks for the link to that Vice article. It’s got the full house of offensive assertions about MN posters plus baseless accusations of ‘transphobia‘ (because discussion of sex-based women’s rights is in itself ‘transphobic‘ ).

The article describes a ‘network’ of external people who make it their business to ‘monitor’ women’s speech on MN. (creepy euphemism for Eyes getting women’s words deleted because the Eyes don’t endorse them..) This is what I was wondering about and why I’m interested to know the breakdown of regular posters who report, vs low frequency posting MN members who do, vs non-posting members, vs non MN members and so on.

It would help us to understand what is going on. I’d be surprised if HQ weren’t already doing that analysis to inform their own modding policies and thinking about who they are there for out of members providing the content and views that they sell to advertisers, advertisers and the wider reputation management on social media side of it.

I can believe that some members with the primary intention of being self appointed monitors to women speaking on FWR, do also maintain a posting presence. Some may like to goad FWR posters to get screen shots to use elsewhere, and some have that obviously one-handed posting style. So that is a payoff for them.

But very often it seems that narcissistic people aren’t very interested in contributing to anything that doesn’t give them immediate gratification or personal validation supply. So posting on FWR isn’t that attractive for them because it takes their time up and risks other MN posters not agreeing with their posts.

And if people are coming to MN to censor it to fit their own values, it would make sense that such creepy authoritarians may not want direct interaction with anyone- after all, only the Eyes’ version of reality is allowed to be heard...

If any person off Twitter can just report posts to MNHQ and be effective at silencing and ultimately getting women banned, then that’s great from their POV, why bother joining and/or posting? (Thats why reports shouldn’t be accepted from non-MN-members, as an absolute minimum requirement)

So, it would be great if HQ can provide this information tracked over time since, say,a couple of years before the GRA consultation in 2018 to see if the posting or membership history of reporters has changed. And I’d be interested to know if HQ have always accepted non-member reports, or not.

I very rarely report (as a PP said, every post tells a story) and I've never been deleted. I'm not though one of the frequent posters on FWR, and I'm careful. I avoided the term 'real women' the other day as I suspected it might get zapped.

Quaagars
It's the views you have, not the sex
So you acknowledge that biological sex exists? That 'women' are a distinct thing? So if I say 'female sex', you would know that I meant XX people?

And that being so, what do think of sex-based rights?

@littlbrowndog

But black wave. It’s mad everywhere

Look how how big tech is shutting down women everywhere.

Reddit banning all their forums

Twitter banning women.

Facebook doing same

I was perma banned off here

But we are still the strongest platform for women’s rights left on internet that is seen publicly

Media come here and politicians to see what is happening

We learnt the language we have to use. Hate that

But we ar changing things and that’s so important

Irish and Scottish women are having voice here as we are blanked in our own countries as are trans widows

We are making changes. Don’t under estimate that what we say is. Not important

Nowhere esle it seems we can be heard

Great post littlebrown There are some excellent posts on this thread; DonkeySkin, and R0wanTrees quoting Lang's superb post about a sacred caste.

But very often it seems that narcissistic people aren’t very interested in contributing to anything that doesn’t give them immediate gratification or personal validation supply. So posting on FWR isn’t that attractive for them because it takes their time up and risks other MN posters not agreeing with their posts.

Yes, they prefer Twitter etc where they can block your response. They can't on MN. They can only flounce and hide the thread.

Surely now the self ID nonsense has been quietly knocked on the head Mumsnet should at least allow to to name us as women and the others as men. This is so basic to the discussion.

Makes sense to me,Angryresister

Dear MNHQ, thank you for continuing to stamp out transphobia 😊

By allowing women to have an informed and intelligent discussion around issues that concern them.

A huge thank you from me to all the posters here.

I am glad this space exists but I don't feel sentimental about MNHQ for allowing it to. We make their money, and they look pretty flush to me. We are brilliant, diverse, witty, determined, prolific and unpaid writers. We are "allowed" to write here because on balance MN can't be what it intends to be, across the board, if it does not display a certain tolerance of what goes on here. We're "allowed" to be here in the sense that one is allowed to work for one's boss - sure, you are glad to have the opportunity and you need it, but you're making them rich and you can be damn sure you wouldn't be there if it wasn't working out for them.

I think there are two ways in which the MNHQ big cheeses have taken a decision to allow us to do some of what we do here:

• as mentioned, the whole brand is dependent on in image of no nonsense old school liberal telling it how it is - it won't survive closing us down;

• canny businesswomen can think beyond the moment and the phrase "wrong side of history" might have sounded like protesting too much, indicating which horse to back