AIBU in thinking the special talk guidelines are out of date?

[TinselAngel]

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?

All very good points. It's certainly a difficult arena to be playing in at times.

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

This happened to me on one of my own threads. I was called naive twice by a popular poster. Very abruptly, rudely and dismissively.

I'm OK with the fact that their posts didn't get deleted though. I found it quite enlightening to see that I can be in agreement with someone on some subjects, yet disagree on others, and I won't be dissuaded from joining in the conversation.

I would be appreciative of MNHQ being perhaps a little more aware of the tactics being used by TRAs, especially types of goading.

A refresh of the guidelines around goading, derailing, repetitive posting, thread ‘domination’ attempts, and spurious claims of being bullied (as a tactic), would be helpful.

Some posters must be dumping thousands of words onto MN every few hours, in large numbers of posts, often repeating the same points. Large numbers of posts beget numerous responses - and bingo! I’m being picked on.

This all makes a lot of sense and is very well articulated.

Quick question regarding this bit (my italics):

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.

Has that happened on this thread (if so whereabouts?), or is it more of a comment on what happens in the transwidows threads?

Quick question regarding this bit (my italics):

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.

Has that happened on this thread (if so whereabouts?), or is it more of a comment on what happens in the transwidows threads?

I haven't noticed it on this thread, but Tinsel reports being tone policed on the transwidows support thread where extra leeway should be given out of consideration for the turmoil and trauma transwidows experience. They should not have to self censor when describing their situations, or making observations and spotting behavioural patterns in what their partners go on to do. It is not "generalisation" when women speak from the sum of their combined and hard won experience.

Orchidectomy involves the removal of one or both testes. It is a term used by vets when referring to companion animal procedures.

Castration is the removal of male organs generally - maybe the testes only, maybe also part or the whole of the penis. Done for many reasons, some social, some artistic, some religious (some Castratii were famous across Europe for their singing voices), not only to slaves. The effects vary according to age at which it was done. It is the correct word for the procedure.

Orchidectomy, is, in most cases, not what males attempting surgical transition have carried out on themselves. Fortunately most of them do not opt for surgery.

I've been very clearly told by MNHQ when I queried the deletion that we get no extra leeway on the Trans Widows threads.

Yes, I agree it would be good if MNHQ kept in mind that not everyone who complains does so with good motives. I have had a poster accuse me of being offensive on a thread. When I asked the poster to specify on the thread exactly what it was I had said that was rude I didn't receive an answer. I think the poster was attempting to set me up and claim I'd been bullying them, or try to silence me. I noticed the same poster also made accusations about other posters too. It was interesting because the poster didn't seem to be targetting people who were the "big names" on FWR, but was perhaps trying to pick off people who were occasional posters.

I’ve only ever reported one post, after an irksome tedious tiresome poster KEPT ON CALLING US CIS-WOMEN, despite being constantly asked to stop.

I had an emailed warning recently from MN, giving an example of a post that had been “multiply reported” - yes, it mentioned a phonic version of that three-letter abbreviation that must never be typed.

My understanding of those words is that, if you can cavet hard enough and reason hard enough, you are making a valid comment which is covered by free speech under the rules: in other words you could say them in very contextualised circumstances.

As its become more apparent that there is evidence to support the use of those words, their use has become more relevant, appropriate and indeed at times necessary.

I don't necessarily think the rules need to change for that reason: because they can already be said if people are wise in how they say things. And thats not been a bad thing in some ways because in order to make these arguments everyone has had to be lazer focused in arguments rather than get bogged down and trying to score easy wins with more personal attacks - which would lead to the legitimacy of arguments and the power of MN being far less. In other words the restrictions have actually helped give power to voices here rather than take away from them.

Arguments have had to reach the irrefutable and unignorable levels. The groundswell has been massively important on this.

So I have mixed feelings about where things go now and whether lifting rules would help or actually hinder. It could get very messy very quickly if they are lifted - because it would lend itself to invasion from other platforms of people who are less articulate.

Where I am very annoyed is in terms of what happened to those people who stuck their heads above the parapet early and were banned for saying things that have since been demonstrated to be absoluetely fair and legitmate and necessary to say. They forced the opening of eyes of many and then got punished for leading the way.

What I would far more prefer to the lifting of the current rules would be an amnesty over those individuals.

I hope that in time we won't need the rules because actually women will have their rights protected in law, thus women won't need silencing on the internet for wrongthink. We aren't there yet, so I'm wary of making it harder for ourselves to get there.

I believe we CAN make these arguments within the rules at this point. We just need to do it well. And that ultimately works in our favour rather than against us, even if that makes little sense.

MN isn't perfect on this, but its provided the 'moderate' platform perhaps more akin to the suffagist movement in parallel to stronger voices elsewhere (the voices more akin to suffagettes).

I believe you need both. And I still think there is a certain wisdom to maintaining the status quo for a little longer before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I grow nervous of an incoming labour government using censorship to kill off fair debate at some point - MN might be more of a target in that scenario without the current rules, especially in light of the Online Harms legislation.

For discussion to be productive participants need to be honest.

It has helped to develop a bit of a thicker skin for some threads - most of us have been called all sorts at one time or another.

'I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar' - often this is far healthier and in fact more respectful stance than 'be kind'.

Obviously not on a thread where a poster is asking for support or help. But in general discussion.

This happened to me on one of my own threads. I was called naive twice by a popular poster. Very abruptly, rudely and dismissively.

I think that was me. Also my junior school leavers report said that I've a tendency to be "abrupt". I still think you were being naive. You disagree. Disagreement has to be allowed

disagreement is healthy.

I agree with 90% of that. At least we were allowed to talk about the issue on MN. And the guidelines promoted intelligent discussion and evidenced argument over ad hominems and point-scoring.

Essentially the problem is that the guidelines have always been heavily weighted towards one side of the argument. They are being inconsistently applied because they are being inconsistently reported, as opinion is shifting, I would assume.

The trouble with not being allowed to call a male human being a man or a boy is that it leaves a little space for the belief that there are male human beings who, while not women/girls, are somehow not men or boys. That they are "male-bodied", as if that's just an accidental fact about them, totally unrelated to their sex. That male person and man/boy can be separated logically in some circumstances. If that is what someone believes, they can argue as to why and how that is possible. But the guidelines force that belief onto me, forces me to respect that space. Even as I argue against it, the language I have to use undermines my argument.

@Flickersy
Incidentally, in contrast to you, I've hardly ever heard "castration" used other than in relation to humans. Gelding, spaying, neutering - all those terms are familiar in relation to animals. Or people talk about getting the dog/cat "done" at the vet's if they want to be euphemistic.
Castration calls to mind to the Castrati, the eunuch guards of harems in the Ottoman Empire, Alan Turing and the use of chemical castration as a punishment for homosexuality. I heard the word orchiectomy for the first time a year or so ago in the testimony of a detransitioner.
Yes, it often was perpetrated on subjugated people by their oppressors, but that shows that it was a cruel punishment or method of control - used by the oppressors. What you're saying makes it sound like we shouldn't call anyone a murder victim because murder is horrible and has negative associations for the person killed. As opposed to the murderer.

It was indeed. The acknowledgement of your abruptness is appreciated. However, it's a shame when abruptness changes the spirit of the conversation IMO.
I totally agree with @ArabeIIaScott that disagreement is healthy - but there are ways that disagreement can be productive and unproductive. There's an example in this thread where one sentence of mine was grabbed in isolation without the context around it and it was interpreted to mean something else. I'm going to go with the benefit of the doubt the this was accidental and that my subsequent clarity cleared that up.

I have hugely admired the work you have led, along with others in the early threads, to charge the conversation. I think open debate and clarity are very important - sensorship does not help this one bit. However, as @RedToothBrush has articulated brilliantly above, there are ways to do this within the current rules now that the public discourse has moved on and on reflection, I agree that the balance we have now achieves this. I don't underestimate how incredibly difficult it must be to do this within the transwidows threads (the clarification from @stealthsquirrelnutkin helps paint the picture here), trying to talk about patterns of behaviour and support each other. If posters are told that they need to consider the feelings of their ex-partners (as opposed to generic comments about how arguments are positioned) that's awful.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on the subject of my naivety.

I also echo my statement above, within its original context and my subsequent comments, that respectful debate is the responsibility of everyone within the conversation. Choosing the right words to achieve that is part of this.

I'll still never write the Three Letter Acronym out again. So far that's my only deletion. I hope to keep it that way.

I've had umpteen deletions of both posts and of entire threads over the years, and a couple of warnings from MNHQ, most of which I took on the chin (and a few of which I've whinged about). I intend to continue to talk about the damaging effects of AGP regardless.

It's only recently started on the Trans Widows thread though and it's just very difficult to help women who are going through familiar pattens of abuse when you're told you have to not generalise and not be inflammatory.

Never heard a Penis removal being referred to as a castration of any kind. And as a veterinary nurse of 15 years we always call it a castration and not an orchiectomy. Penis removal would be a penectomy.

Keep doing what you are doing.

You need to keep in mind that everyone still has to navigate in the real world with its own invisible rules too. So helping everyone articulate well in that minefield is a skill that the transwidows perhaps need more than most. We need language which understand the 'sensitivities' (bullshit) but also points out the inherent madness.

It is a very fine line to tread, but you've demonstrated that it was possible to do. Value that.

For all the warnings you may have had - you are STILL HERE. Which many aren't.

Thats crucial to keep in mind.

“Gelding, spaying, neutering - all those terms are familiar in relation to animals. Or people talk about getting the dog/cat "done" at the vet's if they want to be euphemistic.”

Yes. We used to ‘ring’ the calves. I grew up on a farm with horses (gelded), cattle (ringed or and burdizzoed) dogs and cats (Spayed or neutered) and they were never referred to as being ‘castrated’. The only time I have heard the word used is for human beings. Although I knew that all the other terms are used for animals mean ‘castration’ from a young age.

I think a lot of it is also regional. Some older vets I've worked with refer to it as "dressing" an animal, ie "has she been dressed" when asking if a female has been spayed. Some clients get confused and ask us to SPRAY their bitches.....

Spray! Yes, when I was a kid I used to say that!

Mind you, I also used to play with the Burdizzo appliance. Good thing I was too weak to actually squeeze it, I am sure I would have put a rubber ring on my fingers if I could.

To pick up on the other point mentioned, can we really not insinuate or outright say that a male "breastfeeding" a baby is abusing that baby? This point shouldn't need arguing on a parenting forum surely? Or was the abuse not considered bad enough to call the abuser abusive? (If so that smacks of the Italian judge who declared a grope lasting less than 10 seconds is fine).

So basically castration is a term only used for human situations and is correct medically and historically and there is no valid argument for not using it in discussions when that is what is being described.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/castration

'castration, orneutering, Removal of the testes. The procedure stops most production of the hormonetestosterone. If done before puberty, it prevents the development of functioning adult sex organs. Castration after sexual maturity makes the sex organs shrink and stop functioning, ending sperm formation and sexual interest and behaviour. Livestock and pets are castrated to keep them from reproducing (seesterilization) or to create a more docile animal. In humans, castration has been used for both cultural (seeeunuch, castrato) and medical (e.g., for testicular cancer) reasons.'

The Castrati where also some of the male singers in the 1600-1700’s Italy. young, talented singers Castrated before their voices broke and they developed an adam’s Apple.
They had magnificent mezzo voices, uncomparable, and were superstars.

There is a Fantastic film on this, what’s the name again.
Farinelli - Il Castrato.

I agree fully that we should be able to refer to castration plainly.