Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

AIBU in thinking the special talk guidelines are out of date?

299 replies

TinselAngel · 03/08/2023 21:36

Post Forstater and in the current climate where the assault on women's rights is being discussed everywhere, AIBU to say the special FWR guidelines are no longer necessary?

MN no longer needs special rules to appease the activists who monitor the site, in order to maintain its ability to host the debate, when it is no longer the only site where the topic can be discussed.

I posted the something on the Trans Widows Escape Committee thread a couple of days ago, and it was deleted, it was my first ever deletion on that thread in 6 years. As an experiment I posted the same thing on Twitter and nobody batted an eyelid there.

Is it time we women of FWR, and in particular trans widows, were allowed to speak freely?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
Flickersy · 04/08/2023 10:51

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 10:40

Can you not see that women here include those who are medically qualified, highly informed, and have first hand knowledge of males who have had this operation?

What qualifies your opinion to have any authority at all over the language women here use?

FGS, I don't think my opinion has any "authority".

I gave an opinion on why MN may delete a certain word and I've been jumped on for it. I DO think castration can be derogatory in certain contexts. I haven't said people shouldn't use it. But I can understand why it might risk a deletion.

Having a slightly different opinion to the mainstream on here does not mean I am some hostile force who thinks I can control what others say.

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 10:52

Fair enough, Flickersy.

As you can imagine, women getting their words deleted and views policed can make us a bit over defensive sometimes. Apologies.

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 10:52

TinselAngel · 04/08/2023 10:33

I don't understand why other people's feelings should be our prime concern, over and above the use of easily understandable language.

This is how we ended up in "cervix havers" and "menstruators" territory.

Totally agree.

However there is a distinction between use of clear language and debate that respects different viewpoints.

Some people (not me) could argue that "cervix havers" and "menstruators" are exceptionally clear terms. It is clear biological terminology which will help anyone who has a gender identity where their personal gender doesn't "align" with their physical sex to understand exactly who is being referred to. However, it's completely shutting out the views of anyone who doesn't believe in gender identity and leaves the word "woman" at the mercy of gender identity belief. The viewpoint of gender critical people has been disrespectfully shut out of the debate - where legitimate concerns, such as it being confusing to the point where even India Willoughby thinks that India has a cervix. It is a great example of why the word women, referring to biological sex only, is important. The majority of the world does not understand the word woman through the lens of gender identity belief.

Flickersy · 04/08/2023 10:53

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 10:49

Maybe a bit. But I'm not sure that having to work out convoluted ways to describe straightforward reality is all that good for discussion.

I have found it instructive to find out what are the absolutely verboten subjects, though.

Tends to be, if people get very exercised at a certain word, it makes me curious. Why would that particular word provoke that reaction?

Often it can be misdirection, of course.

On this thread, we're getting pushed towards talking about 'castration', which is fine, it's a useful word to discuss.

But there is also the word 'cult'. That, too, can prompt reports. Which makes it hard to discuss, but is also instructive.

Personally, I think that while genderism has many aspects of cultish behaviour it's not actually a cult in the strict sense of the word. So it would be good to talk about that. Cultish behaviour is very common human behaviour, and it's not necessarily 'derogatory' to use the word 'cult'. It's just descriptive of some types of group behaviour.

I'm not pushing anyone to discuss a specific word.

I gave my opinion as part of a general discussion on MNs moderation policy. I think I am allowed to do that?

I then had multiple posters replying to me and questioning me, which I've done my best to respond to.

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 10:54

*where legitimate concerns, such as it being confusing to the point where even India Willoughby thinks that India has a cervix, are not allowed to be heard

Forgot to finish my sentence!

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 10:56

Flickersy · 04/08/2023 10:53

I'm not pushing anyone to discuss a specific word.

I gave my opinion as part of a general discussion on MNs moderation policy. I think I am allowed to do that?

I then had multiple posters replying to me and questioning me, which I've done my best to respond to.

Agreed. I think it was a useful illustration for the purposes of this thread.

HarrietofFire · 04/08/2023 10:57

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

TheShellBeach · 04/08/2023 10:57

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 09:01

Things have changed. We used to get deleted for use of certain words:

Cult
Castration
AGP
Peaking
Man
Fetish

And for being too specific or generalising.

It's now less clear what the rules are - as I understand it just generally depends on various factors.

I was deleted and banned for one of those a month ago.
I now avoid this board completely because I don't want a permanent ban.
This is the first time in weeks that I've even looked at a thread on this subject.

IcakethereforeIam · 04/08/2023 10:57

I don't understand why we sometimes get deleted for using 'trans identified man/men/male', female equivalent or their 3 letter acronym (TiM/TiF)? It's hardly insulting or derogatory, unless you do believe TWAW or TMAM. As we don't and we're allowed to say so, it makes no sense.

I am, as pp, grateful for MN letting have these discussions. It's annoying though when you think you're following the rules and you get deleted.

HarrietofFire · 04/08/2023 10:58

Oops wrong thread! Sorry!

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 11:01

Flickersy · 04/08/2023 10:53

I'm not pushing anyone to discuss a specific word.

I gave my opinion as part of a general discussion on MNs moderation policy. I think I am allowed to do that?

I then had multiple posters replying to me and questioning me, which I've done my best to respond to.

That wasn't aimed just at you, Flickersy, just at the general direction of the conversation on this thread.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 04/08/2023 11:09

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 10:39

That was a very interesting deletion moment...

I was just about to grab your comment @MissLucyEyelesbarrow and build on it.
I'm now pondering why it was deleted so that I don't fall foul of the rules myself with what I'm about to say.

I found your post very helpful in understanding what @Flickersy was saying. I agree that the word "castration" can have negative connotations, depending on how it's used. Equally, if someone is happy to use it to describe their own treatment for cancer then great. It's all going to depend on the context in which it is used, how that's said and how the tone/words are perceived. I think that's what you were saying @Flickersy ?

Personally I think it was unhelpful that your post was deleted @MissLucyEyelesbarrow as it knitted the conversation together for me. I should imagine there was a perceived judgement (against trans people who have had their testicles removed) in the words that you chose to use, but that's my best guess. I certainly didn't read it that way but perhaps it was ambiguous enough that it could have been read that way.

By deleting posts that explain what the removal of their testes means for trans-identifying males, MN is colluding in the Kafka-esque lie that, if you care about trans kids, you should support them being rendered infertile and incapable of sexual function.

It is precisely because I care about these kids that I want us to face up to what is being done to them.

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 11:09

I have just had a read of the general terms and the "A note about sex and gender" addendum. I realised that I had been contributing to a discussion without having a full view of all the facts.

In summary, I understood it as "say what you like (including facts about biology and biological sex) but consider the impact of your words on others who don't share your views".

Seems reasonable to me. But back to the original question on the thread, have things moved on in the public discourse to the point where we should be allowed to say more without needing to tread on eggshells? Yes. As long as it comes from a place that respects that it's simply one person's view. There was a poster earlier on in the thread who articulated this perfectly.

TheShellBeach · 04/08/2023 11:11

I'm frightened to post anymore on this subject.
As well as trying to avoid certain terms, I am autistic, and sometimes phrase things in a way which may lead to a deletion or even a ban.
I can't do it any longer.

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 11:13

TheShellBeach, I'm really sorry to hear that. It's unfair, and wrong.

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 11:15

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 04/08/2023 11:09

By deleting posts that explain what the removal of their testes means for trans-identifying males, MN is colluding in the Kafka-esque lie that, if you care about trans kids, you should support them being rendered infertile and incapable of sexual function.

It is precisely because I care about these kids that I want us to face up to what is being done to them.

It's the issue I feel most strongly about in the entire debate.

I'm with you on every point you've made here. I think the collusion is advertent but that's still the net effect.

I have a feeling this comment may get zapped.. I hope not. But if it does I would assume that a slightly different choice of words to make the same point would have prevented that from happening. Anyway, let's see what happens. Your well-made point deserves to be heard.

TheShellBeach · 04/08/2023 11:15

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 11:13

TheShellBeach, I'm really sorry to hear that. It's unfair, and wrong.

Thanks, Arabella.
I cannot understand why some posters are permitted to write things, and their posts are left to stand.
None of it makes sense to me.

TakeMeToTheForest · 04/08/2023 11:20

It doesn't often make sense to me either, to the point I stopped taking part on this board at least...what, a year ago maybe.

I had two posts deleted in quick succession and a stern talking to, IIRC, and it was for very innocuous offences as far as I was concerned, and the inconsistency of that when I saw far worse being left to stand...cooled my enthusiasm for the debate. Which was likely the point all along.

Flickersy · 04/08/2023 11:25

TheShellBeach · 04/08/2023 11:15

Thanks, Arabella.
I cannot understand why some posters are permitted to write things, and their posts are left to stand.
None of it makes sense to me.

One of the main problems is that MN don't actively moderate, they rely on posters to report so the forums self-moderate.

This brings a whole host of problems, i.e. someone can be a complete twat to an OP but if their opinion is in line with the mainstream or if they're a well-known / well-liked poster then others may be less likely to report.

There is also a considerable amount of inconsistency from the moderation team when it comes to what they will delete and what they won't.

ArabeIIaScott · 04/08/2023 11:26

MN have explained in other threads that their modding is responsive, not proactive. It depends on someone reporting a post.

Some boards, threads, posters, get monitored more closely. Some words, ideas, etc get reported more quickly and more often.

Mods will also differ in judgement.

I've found the board generally easier to use and fairer in the past year, but we did lose a lot of people I think when it was split in two. As was also the point all along. Sometimes posters think 'feminist chat' is the main board.

Seems a bit daft having the one separate board that's hardly used, and lots of overlap between subjects and posts anyway. But there we go, some posters asked especially for that board and now don't use it. Go figure.

BonfireLady · 04/08/2023 11:31

TheShellBeach · 04/08/2023 11:15

Thanks, Arabella.
I cannot understand why some posters are permitted to write things, and their posts are left to stand.
None of it makes sense to me.

I would agree that the nuances are very confusing at times.

My daughter is autistic and, if she were in debates on polarised topics, would be very well-intentioned yet would not spot when she had crossed a line from being articulate to disrespectful of others. She wouldn't mean to be at all. I'm not suggesting that this applies to you personally, just adding a perspective that this sadly it means that some brilliant people don't/can't contribute to debates because their points aren't communicated in ways that are received as intended. In my daughter's case, her neurodivergent thinking can result in some incredible insights. I do my best to help her understand how she can phrase things in ways that make her thoughts accessible to others, rather than perceived the wrong way. She has had some spectacular fails, particularly on group WhatsApp chats with peers.

It must feel very frustrating to have something to say but not know if you can or not.

NotBadConsidering · 04/08/2023 11:47

Flickersy · 04/08/2023 10:29

Good for your father in that case, but can you really not imagine that it could potentially be quite a negative word to use and therefore in debates about trans issues it could come across as derogatory in certain contexts?

It’s a negative word because it’s a negative thing to do to a male, particularly someone who has been puberty blocked. Why can’t we be derogatory towards the people who want it to happen to young people and are campaigning for better access to castration? Personally I believe they deserve a derogatory view directed towards them.

“So you want hormonally adjusted males to have better access to orchidectomy?”

”So you want to chemically castrate children with drugs before surgically castrating them to make it final?”

I have nothing but contempt for these people and I should be able to express that contempt with truthful language. Crass, crude, derogatory, tactless, but truthful.

Or in the words of Magdalen Berns, “of course you’re terrified Alex, they chop your cock off!”

“Oooh, don’t say the truth so derogatorily people, they don’t like it” 🙄. Fuck them I say.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 04/08/2023 12:04

Negative generalising or stereotyping about trans people is wrong, just as it would be for any other group. MN is quite right to delete posts that suggest that all trans/black/Roma people are...[insert negative generalisation].

But that's entirely different from stating something factually correct about a medical procedure that a subgroup of people, trans or otherwise, has chosen to undergo.

stealthsquirrelnutkin · 04/08/2023 12:07

Thanks Tinsel for all the hard work you do, and have done, and for opening our eyes to the reality of life for women whose husbands decide (unilaterally) to change gender.

The transwidowsvoices website is a valuable important resource. Anyone reading the stories of women and families destroyed when a husband and father decides to prioritise his desire to transition above the needs of everyone else cannot help but be struck by the similarities (often making the announcement at the most inopportune time possible - wife pregnant, new born baby, children preparing to sit vital exams) that run through the different accounts. Causing us to reevaluate all those news stories lauding the bravery of the person who has transitioned, with their family and the impact on their lives completely ignored.

The transwidows threads on mumsnet have been as important as any of the threads on the relationship boards. It beggars belief that women railing against the perfidy of their partners/ex-partners should be muzzled with the demand that they show more consideration towards the feelings of the person who has shown zero consideration for them.

Mumsnet provides a space where women can air their views, speak their thoughts and not be censored by men, in stark contrast to most other social spaces and structures, where men dominate discourse, shouting down or ignoring women's voices and ensuring that their own views and opinions are the only ones that get taken seriously.

I'm grateful to mumsnet for "allowing" us to continue the debate, albeit shunted off to the naughty step and without any way of knowing exactly what we can and cannot write, and what will be judged acceptable, and what will result in a deletion, warning or ban. I agree with all the previous posters who say they have self censored after being slapped down unexpectedly, especially for the crime of not being "in the spirit" which seems to depend completely on who is judging the post.

The IPSO guidelines have changed, the Cass report and Hannah Barnes' excellent book "Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children", have confirmed everything women on here have been warning about for years, Mermaids is collapsing after repeated scandals, Stonewall is loosing influence everywhere and the LGB Alliance has emerged to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Important media figures like Andrew Neil have finally decided that it is safe to speak out in defence of confused and vulnerable children. The tide has finally changed so much that ambitious career politicians have judged it prudent to tone down their rhetoric and edge towards policies that seem (on the surface) to reality based.

I heartily agree that it's high time that the moderation rules for this board were changed. It really isn't fair on those of us who have trouble keeping within the never completely specified rules, and who end up not daring to take part in the discussion.

Transwidows especially must the same right as other betrayed partners, wives and ex-wives to give vent to their rage, to help each other recognise patterns of abusive behaviour, to organise to protect their spousal exit clause and the blow the crust of silence right off the cesspit they have been dropped into. Support threads should be judged more compassionately.

NotBadConsidering · 04/08/2023 12:07

And my ire is not directed towards the people to which castration is done, my ire and derogatory tone is entirely directed towards those who campaign for it to happen to others more easily. I don’t see why one cannot be derogatory in that regard.

Swipe left for the next trending thread