Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Bunbury’s Eighth- Sealion training for beginners

999 replies

SophocIestheFox · 13/02/2021 21:08

Old thread nearly full!

————————————-

The useful Bunbury Guide to Spotting Community Disruptors is constantly evolving.

The best research and advice is not to engage with community disruptors and trolls. As ever, if you suspect troll activity, report it to MNHQ.

Remember there are people out there who would like to silence us by fair means or foul.

This is a continuation of the Public Service Announcement thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3944572-Bunburys-guide-to-community-disruptors-part-5?pg=40

If and when you see threads plopped into FWR, especially a curious repeat of well worn topics, maybe check for poster history before engaging. AS is your friend.

There are a number of posts/posters/threads that are reproduced on Twitter or Facebook to foment controversy using screen shots & flagging to either MNHQ to have threads or posters deleted.. Sometimes, it’s used to approach commissioning editors with ideas for articles. It’s a tiresome tactic that we always have community disruptor posters who themselves post the comments that they then highlight elsewhere as purported evidence of racism, religious intolerance, anti-men sentiments, or transphobia.

Some helpful links can be found in the ‘Break it Down for me’ and ‘It never happens’ threads but in essence FermatsTheorem recommended “that in the absence of a block/hide poster button, I suggest the following strategy (given that you're talking to the lurkers).

Do not name check the sealion. Instead, respond to a depersonalised paraphrase:

"It is sometimes erroneously suggested that blah. Blah is wrong for the following reasons (short and pithy). If you need more information re. debunking blah, here's a link."

Then (this next step is important to combat derailment) go back up thread to the last useful contribution to the discussion, make sure you do name check that contributor, and pick up the discussion from that point.”

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
MichelleofzeResistance · 19/02/2021 11:51

Because bad optics on a very political debate where women having voices and rights has become a very 'sensitive' issue. So radio 4 keep saying.

MoleSmokes · 19/02/2021 12:11

It’s bad “optics” that so many posts have been deleted. They are bound to use it against Mumsnet to say that the deleted posts were abusive and a bunch of transphobes gave the esteemed visitors a hard time after they had taken the trouble to slum it with the grubby T*rven. Own goal by Mumsnet Mods 🥺

picklemewalnuts · 19/02/2021 14:36

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2021 14:45

No one was rude. No one was offensive. There were explained, detailed posts. Why is it down to women to be enablers of this? And to be sure not to state their views too much in too great numbers in case it creates bad optics?

God, yes. Also this from Floisme on another post in here:

'f MNHQ are concerned about a welcoming environment then maybe they should check out the number of posts from women who say they are now apprehensive about commenting because they don't feel articulate enough or because they fear accidentally falling foul of the rules.
I think it would be very sad if this became a board where only the eloquent and agile of thinking felt they could comment. If
barristers and politicians feel comfortable posting on here and ordinary women do not then maybe you have a problem.'

CranberriesChoccyAgain · 19/02/2021 14:47

I wonder if many of them are used to being in their Twitter bubbles where they get loads of affirmation, and they see GC views as minority opinion. But then come here and see the opposite and declare a pile-on as though they are victims.

CranberriesChoccyAgain · 19/02/2021 14:53

@MoleSmokes

It’s bad “optics” that so many posts have been deleted. They are bound to use it against Mumsnet to say that the deleted posts were abusive and a bunch of transphobes gave the esteemed visitors a hard time after they had taken the trouble to slum it with the grubby T*rven. Own goal by Mumsnet Mods 🥺
Has anyone counted the deleted posts? I started from the last page and counted 24 in 3 pages. That's staggering.
CoffeeTeaChocolate · 19/02/2021 15:01

Arabella that is a very good point.

Can we just summarise everything?

  1. Many women are worried at posting on the FWR board because they are scared they are not eloquent enough and worry about breaking the rules
  1. Barristers and politicians are happy to post as they have much more training in phrasing their thoughts.
  1. Women here (often with significantly less training) are much tighter bound by the FWR rules (Trans women can say that trans women are women and that biology doesn’t matter. Women here can be deleted for the equivalent unless phrased carefully)
  1. If too many women here find what they say outrageous, they are deleted as it is a “pile-on”
  1. Even though they have all those advantages, they still report women here and try to silence them.

Talk about a massive power imbalance.

ArabellaScott · 19/02/2021 15:16

I also would note, Coffee, that I almost never report posts, even when I find them upsetting, because I think the free exchange of ideas is important. I think most women in FWR are similarly inclined. But the converse doesn't seem to apply - not sure how to word this clearly.

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 19/02/2021 15:29

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1361658745646907397

Are we allowed to link to tweets?

Floisme · 19/02/2021 16:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MichelleofzeResistance · 19/02/2021 16:29

Just to warn: I received a strike for using the 'm' word when talking about women, and was told to say women and transwomen. I wish I'd been told about this current guideline rather than find out about it via a threat of banning, so sharing here for others to avoid.

Floisme · 19/02/2021 16:39

Ok thanks Michelle - didn't know that. I have reported my post so here it is amended:

Thanks Arabella - I've been wondering today how this board would look if transwomen had their posts deleted and earned a strike for saying they were women, and if they could only join a conversation by adopting some arcane linguistic tricks.

I don't want to take anything away from the brilliant posters on here. They're outstanding. But we shouldn't have to be brilliant in order to discuss this stuff. It's really very simple.

Floisme · 19/02/2021 16:43

It does illustrate the point rather beautifully though Grin

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 19/02/2021 16:48

Just to confirm, when we are referring to someone with a penis and testicles, we are not allowed to say male?

And if so (given how women are reduced to their reproductive functions) are we allowed to say penis person/people instead?

MichelleofzeResistance · 19/02/2021 16:52

Just to be clearer, I had been talking about women as a group containing two sexes of women, which seemed to me respectful of identity while the adjective difference was the point in differing needs. I was told this was uncivil (sufficient for a strike, not just deletion) and to use the terms I mention in the post above.

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 19/02/2021 16:56

But this is actually quite sinister. If we cannot discuss the different needs of women and trans women as in one class can get pregnant and the other can’t, how can we discuss the legal employment protections for natal women?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 19/02/2021 16:58

XYPs?

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 19/02/2021 17:00

But when we twist ourselves in knots with the language, it will at one point be so opaque that people who not have insight in the issues will be incapable of following it.

In the same way as some migrant women not will associate themselves with “cervix havers” and therefore fail to book a potentially life saving smear test.

BuntingEllacott · 19/02/2021 17:11

Yes, I was told that referencing biological sex was uncivil and would likely be deleted unless there was a good reason to mention it. I was not given a specific list of those good reasons.

But please, do continue to issue fulsome thanks for being permitted to speak. I'm sure it's an encouragement. Who knows, I might even get deleted for this post. FWR is a fun rollercoaster ride for your mental health, eh?

RufustheSniggeringReindeer · 19/02/2021 18:16

@MichelleofzeResistance

Just to be clearer, I had been talking about women as a group containing two sexes of women, which seemed to me respectful of identity while the adjective difference was the point in differing needs. I was told this was uncivil (sufficient for a strike, not just deletion) and to use the terms I mention in the post above.
They’re having a fucking laugh aren’t they

Sorry michelle but can I clarify as i feel i must be misunderstanding

Did you say there are two sexes in the group of women and you referred to one as male women?

And you got told off and told to say transwomen

Yeah?

RufustheSniggeringReindeer · 19/02/2021 18:18

But please, do continue to issue fulsome thanks for being permitted to speak. I'm sure it's an encouragement

No im not doing that anymore, I was only being polite....

Its a fat lot of good telling women they can talk as long as it’s politely if

A) no other fucker is doing it
B) rules only apply to one subject
C) you’re not allowed to use any ACTUAL words

Joisanofthedales · 19/02/2021 18:20

Maybe we have got this wrong. Maybe we should be reporting the more offensive posts by non natal women or their handmaidens. Possibly then they might stop reporting so many posts of the amazing women who post on FWR.

MichelleofzeResistance · 19/02/2021 18:35

That's correct Rufus, yes.

DaisiesandButtercups · 19/02/2021 18:35

I don’t think that they would stop reporting whatever we do. The goal is surely to silence women and silence any dissent.

Are they fragile or afraid of robust debate? Maybe.

Community disrupters is the appropriate word for what they seem to be trying to do.

I still think that scrolling past their posts and not engaging is most frequently the best policy.

Although admittedly some excellent posters are able to destroy their position in a way which can shed some light on the weakness of their statements.

picklemewalnuts · 19/02/2021 18:39

I try hard not to post, then someone says something and bam- I'm there. Both feet. Big mouth.