Following the SC judgement, will banned posters be invited back?

[DogPawsMud]

Just that really.
This forum lost many contributors over the (many) years when they were banned for refusing to use compelled language and other such transgressions. (Pun intended)
Now it turns out the law is what we all thought it was, has MN wronged some posters? Can they be invited back?

Really good question. Part of me harbours some anger at my DH because it took him so long to see.

I doubt a lot of them would want to come back tbh. It's such a shame, there were so many insightful, knowledgeable women I learnt so much from.

I so hope so ... that would be so powerful

I doubt they’d be invited back but they should be accepted back if they apply to become a member.

Ive reported this thread with an ask for MNHQ to offer their thoughts.

Hello @DogPawsMud it's a fair question. These cases were rarely straightforward and usually involved a pattern of posting behaviour rather than a single post or opinion tbh. If any poster who was banned in the past feels they would like to come back, they are welcome to get in touch with MNHQ.

That's an interesting development.

Would you have LangCleg or KJK back? They were banned for basically stating a lawfully acceptable opinion. It's pretty enraging, actually.

We've all had to walk on eggshells for such a long time and the TRAs had our necks completely under their boot.

I don't recall anyone from FWR being banned for breaking talk guidelines in the usual, normal sense. They were banned because they spoke the truth and they were reported by online stalkers who targeted them and weaponized the reporting process.
Mumsnet used the vague "not in the spirit" rule to silence a whole load of articulate, intelligent and often hilarious women. We remember these women still today.

I hope some do ask to come back but I wouldn't if I were them. What an insult.

@BeckyAMumsnet is there anything we’re not allowed to say now? Can we use the correct sex pronouns for people and say “trans identified male/man”?

These talk guidelines are still live so I assume still apply. They reference things like trans identified man.

www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

I think MNHQ need to review them personally.

It would be really good to see LangCleg and BarrackerBama (sp?) back, both of whom were excellent posters and contributed a lot.

You're misremembering WRT posieparker. Just saying.

Was MaryZ also banned? She helped me so much when I was getting breastfeeding established. Also AnyFucker.

@RoyalCorgi I so agree - I miss LangCleg enormously, I loved her wise posts and learnt so much from her... and yes please to BarrackerBama back too

Good questions about language - @BeckyAMumsnet are these going to be reviewed? And when??

I had a post deleted a week ago after a bloke who had posted half a novel of waffle explaining why he was a real lady and we should acknowledge his special ladyhood because he had really worked at it and we were mean. All I said was “TLDR- You’re a bloke”. Which was a fair and accurate assessment of his OP and all his subsequent posts.

I find the deletion of factual posts, such as calling a man a man, really confusing.

I'm autistic, my world is black and white, and I've had posts deleted where I've said that TW are men. All I did was tell the truth - TW are men.

I've read posts about 'trans issues' by banned members and remember finding it so unsettling to discover that people were banned for being honest.

Why, after the recent ruling @MNHQ, would you still be deleting honest, factual posts such as the one mentioned in the quote?

@BeckyAMumsnet this is unacceptable censorship. “Bloke” is a synonym for man and the Supreme Court has ruled that trans women are men.

you might think it’s not very polite or kind, but this is a robust forum.

I feel conflicted - Justine allowed this corner of the site to continue, and I’m grateful for that, but, If I don’t have to validate the feelings of men with a gender IRL I don’t see why I have to do it here.