Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

MNHQ: "We’ll also no longer use a rigid three strikes system" - Who would you want to be able to post on FWR again?

69 replies

IwantToRetire · 03/06/2025 18:17

On this thread there have been a number of posts from MNHQ, one of which contains this statement. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5342469-just-checking-since-the-sc-there-is-no-such-thing-as-misgendering-on-mumsnet-or-is-there

It is only a 2 page thread, and the first post (in blue on my screen) is at the end of the 1st page with more on page 2.

Just thought some might like to suggest who has been lost and missed because of an earlier strict regime!

Smile

just checking - since the SC there is no such thing as misgendering on Mumsnet? Or is there?? | Mumsnet

Just checking we can refer to TIM as he now? I think so... The deeply admirable Helen Joyce does and I share her rationale... Goes all the way back t...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5342469-just-checking-since-the-sc-there-is-no-such-thing-as-misgendering-on-mumsnet-or-is-there

OP posts:
teksquad · 04/06/2025 08:36

Censorship never ends well and just amplifies whatever casue the person is being banned for saying. I do appreciate how hard it was in the bad old days and the thin line MNHQ had to straddle, but the fact remains that it is utterly appalling that women were banned from anywhere or anything for simply stating that males were men.

EdithStourton · 04/06/2025 08:41

teksquad · 04/06/2025 08:36

Censorship never ends well and just amplifies whatever casue the person is being banned for saying. I do appreciate how hard it was in the bad old days and the thin line MNHQ had to straddle, but the fact remains that it is utterly appalling that women were banned from anywhere or anything for simply stating that males were men.

It felt appalling at the time and looks even more appalling in retrospect.

I'd love to see LangCleg, Barracker and Maryz back. There are probably others whose names I would remember if I saw them.

Thanks to all of them for the education and insights that they provided.

RoyalCorgi · 04/06/2025 08:46

I used to really value LangCleg's and Barracker's posts. I also miss RowanTrees, though I don't know if she left voluntarily or was booted out.

NewBinBag · 04/06/2025 08:47

Floisme · 04/06/2025 08:02

Yes MaryZ - she snook back in and started a thread a few years ago but was thrown out pretty quickly.

Yes to LangCleg and Barracker.

One of my favourite posters had ‘bunting’ as part of her user name. I think she left voluntarily because the rules pissed her off so I guess she could come back anyway if she wanted.

I do think some of them will have found other ways to work and communicate and that they might not be as keen to come back as we are to see them again.

Ah yes! FloralBunting I think?

Would be good to see her back.

CompleteGinasaur · 04/06/2025 08:53

Floisme · 04/06/2025 08:02

Yes MaryZ - she snook back in and started a thread a few years ago but was thrown out pretty quickly.

Yes to LangCleg and Barracker.

One of my favourite posters had ‘bunting’ as part of her user name. I think she left voluntarily because the rules pissed her off so I guess she could come back anyway if she wanted.

I do think some of them will have found other ways to work and communicate and that they might not be as keen to come back as we are to see them again.

I think that was FloralBunting, @Floisme, and I think (not sure) that she may have voluntarily moved on to battles pastures new. It did make me wonder, though - there may also be a fair number of posters who weren't actually kicked off but left because they could no longer bear the restrictions and who might be interested in coming back now the Stasi has left the building? I'd be prepared to make actual bunting for that..

CompleteGinasaur · 04/06/2025 08:56

And now I realise that I hadn't actually read your post properly, @Floisme, and all I've done is essentially paraphrase it. Sorry!

Sparklybutold · 04/06/2025 09:10

This represents one of the many issues I’ve felt since the SC ruling. In the return to some degree of common sense, there has been years of fall out, mostly women who were wronged and nothing can ever be done to repair that. I spent the last 3 years being targeted and bullied by a TRA course lead on my professional training course - it was only when my complaint was upheld and I was awarded compensation, was I heard and could finally finish my training in peace (albeit, somewhat struggling with what happened). When I spoke with course directors about what would happen with the dozens of trainees that had left and not qualified, whether they’d be contacted and given the chance to rejoin, I was told no, as they didn’t persevere like I did, kept the evidence of personal wrongdoing, so fundamentally, there was nothing that the uni could do. The irony in all of this, my lack of resilience was continually attacked throughout my training, and yet here I was, able to complete and qualify because I didn’t give up. It does feel grossly wrong.

However, I do wonder about the pressures the other side experience - the ones who remained silent, I know Justine has spoken about key sponsors dropping out for example. The integrity of decisions made—and the role they played in the harm inflicted upon others—will forever remain with those who chose not to take a stand. In some instances, I think silence was complicity.

As with my uni, and Mumsnet, in admitting wrong probably opens them up for legal recourse and bad publicity, so this will never happen.

DeanElderberry · 04/06/2025 09:40

As a relative newbie I didn't 'know' any of them but have heard enough that I'd love them to come back, even just to make them feel vindicated.

Having come from a very restrictive place where feminists were eventually told to get out or the site would close, I found MN wonderfully freeing, but am fascinated the odd time someone bumps a thread from around the time I joined - about two and a half years ago - to see how strictly patrolled it was even then.

Obviously the SC ruling has had an impact on official thinking, but I think the realisation last year that a lot of the prevention of normal human-style chat was happening because it confused the AI scraping was also important.

Delphin · 04/06/2025 10:12

" I think the realisation last year that a lot of the prevention of normal human-style chat was happening because it confused the AI scraping was also important."
What are you referring to with this? Aston Uni did their scraping in secret, with noone knowing, was there someone else? (I only joined a bit more than a year ago I think).

DeanElderberry · 04/06/2025 10:28

I think a lot of us had already suspected that the objections to side-discussions on threads was not coming from humans, who cope with digression and discursiveness all the time.

The Aston scandal made it clear that yes, MN was an AI sandbox and that the people using the machines were trying to control and corral the discourse to make their lives simpler. So that 'rule' relaxed. Just as well, it suppressed a lot of nuance.

Floisme · 04/06/2025 11:28

CompleteGinasaur · 04/06/2025 08:56

And now I realise that I hadn't actually read your post properly, @Floisme, and all I've done is essentially paraphrase it. Sorry!

Ha ha no worries, I've done the same thing many times - glad we agree!

FeralWoman · 04/06/2025 11:35

Mumsnet probably still has the details of banned posters. They could email them and invite them back.

Is anyone here in contact with KJK? If anyone is they could let her know that she’s allowed back.

Delphin · 04/06/2025 11:35

"MN was an AI sandbox and that the people using the machines were trying to control and corral the discourse to make their lives simpler."
Okay, thanks, the AI aspect of the scraping escaped me (I didn't follow all the details of the affair).

GreenFriedTomato · 04/06/2025 16:51

FeralWoman · 04/06/2025 11:35

Mumsnet probably still has the details of banned posters. They could email them and invite them back.

Is anyone here in contact with KJK? If anyone is they could let her know that she’s allowed back.

I sincerely doubt that KJK or other banned posters would give a monkeys about being 'allowed' back. I can't see KJK coming back even if you paid her to.
I know I wouldn't.

There was also nothing to stop any banned posters from rejoining and using a different name if they really had missed the board.

FuzzyPuffling · 04/06/2025 17:07

MaidofStars.

CarpeVitam · 04/06/2025 17:37

Kelly Jay Keen

Plasticwaste · 04/06/2025 17:42

GreenFriedTomato · 04/06/2025 16:51

I sincerely doubt that KJK or other banned posters would give a monkeys about being 'allowed' back. I can't see KJK coming back even if you paid her to.
I know I wouldn't.

There was also nothing to stop any banned posters from rejoining and using a different name if they really had missed the board.

IA. As a long-standing member of another forum, I got banned for speaking facts that apparently made the gender-wooed feel unsafe.

I wanted nothing more to do with them, frankly.

IwantToRetire · 04/06/2025 18:31

I think the 3 I was thinking of (still cant remember names Blush), may on reflection not all have been banned.

One definitely was, one may have left because of the stupidity of dividing (nad ruling) feminism into 2 strands. Not just because of MNHQ but the women who cheerfully said they supported it and then continued to post on the naughty step thread.

And the third may have been one of a group who in fact said thay they were leaving because being on FWR was a bit like groundhog day and wanting to move onto something more directed. Which in a way is their right having spent time being happy to talk through questions and ideas from newer members.

OP posts:
RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 04/06/2025 18:41

All those mentioned (though i wasnt here when kjk was here) and the bewilderness

i have forgotten loads of people, i was on another forum with a lot of other posters but I’ve forgotten all the log in details…it would be great to have them all back but as others have said i am not sure they would want to

ThatCyanCat · 04/06/2025 19:28

EdithStourton · 04/06/2025 08:41

It felt appalling at the time and looks even more appalling in retrospect.

I'd love to see LangCleg, Barracker and Maryz back. There are probably others whose names I would remember if I saw them.

Thanks to all of them for the education and insights that they provided.

Maryz was banned??

CarefulN0w · 04/06/2025 21:34

Shedmistress · 04/06/2025 07:12

I'd quite like the original 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' thread back.

I agree. It was an important piece that I still refer to occasionally.

I would also like to nominate LangCleg’s posts about safeguarding and coercive control to be reinstated. She was so right.

EdithStourton · 05/06/2025 13:19

@ThatCyanCat I'm not sure if she was booted, or left of her own volition.

ErrolTheDragon · 05/06/2025 13:25

EdithStourton · 05/06/2025 13:19

@ThatCyanCat I'm not sure if she was booted, or left of her own volition.

Edited

iirc Maryz was banned mostly for arguing with a mod. I think that may also have been why LangCleg was banned rather than merely suspended.

IwantToRetire · 05/06/2025 18:48

ErrolTheDragon · 05/06/2025 13:25

iirc Maryz was banned mostly for arguing with a mod. I think that may also have been why LangCleg was banned rather than merely suspended.

There was definitely a period when questioning policy or mod decisions wast virtutally making 3 strikes in one!

Wasn't there a time when the splite the FWR forum and mods then though they had the right to move a thread someone had started on one thread to the other. ie editorialising rather than moderating.

OP posts:
singthing · 05/06/2025 19:21

I was booted several years ago. The TRA I so-enraged has now vanished from any public interest and even the activists don't give a shiny shite about him <tiny violin>