I do worry that Mumsnet is becoming too timid. ‘Peak-trans’ banned? How, then, is one to describe the singular experience of realising gender identity ideology is a load of bollocks? But never mind that for the moment. They are still much much better than most, and someone sent me the following through RIPNutmeg.
Sorry, to me, it's unreasonable for Mumsnet to ban the term "trans-identified male" person and "trans-identified female" person.
IMO, these are accurate terms with no pejorative trappings. But Mumsnet has banned them because some of the people those terms accurately describe have difficulty dealing with their own sex and wish they could keep their sex a secret. And because many gender ideologues today claim that sex doesn't exist - or if sex does exist, in humans it really doesn't matter, and only "genital fetishists" and "transphobes" would say otherwise.
Mumsnet's policy makes women call some male people girls/women and some female people boys/men. This makes it difficult, indeed impossible, to say what is going on. If we can't name or speak of some people's sex, how can we speak out about their sexism and misogyny?
Also, in the follow-up, please mention another important point: prohibiting Mumsnet posters from naming trans-identified people's sex further prevents mostly female posters from pointing out, naming and discussing the distinctly MALE sexual fetishism that's the reason why so many male persons today claim to have an opposite-sex "gender identity."
The vast majority of trans-identified males today have autogynephilia - and thanks to the influence of internet porn, this seems as true of the male-attracted ones nowadays as it always has been of all the female-attracted ones.
Not allowing women to name the sex of the people with AGP fetishism makes it impossible for us to speak out against the ideas espoused by the males like Julia Serrano, Andrea Long Chu, Torrey Peters and many more - who equate being female with "being fucked" and get their rocks off by engaging in their MALE sexual fantasies about being "feminized" and turning into "slutty sissies." Moreover, these men get their rocks off by presenting the distinctly MALE sexual fantasies they describe at length in purple prose and pretentious language as though they are profound philosophical and political statements - and "feminist" ones at that. When in reality, their fantasies sound like they were cribbed from Penthouse Forum back in the day.
These men say that innate to being female is being sexually objectified and abused by men. They also say that being sexually objectified and abused by men is what all girls & women dream of/aspire to - and worse, that such treatment arouses us as it arouses them. Yet at the same time, these men dictate that the group about whom they say such hateful things should not be allowed ever to mention that the people saying such things about females happen to be males. Indeed, these men say it's unseemly and pervy for women to mention the sex of these men at all.
Whilst Mumsnet HQ might not agree with that position in so many words, MN's policies on "misgendering" and its hard-to-fathom prohibitions about mentioning AGP in most situations have the effect of allow the male POV - and the rules set forth by AGP men - to prevail on the FWR board. In addition, it's MN's practice to shut down discussions of named male individuals (such as Sams Smiths) coz it's mean and bullying, whilst also shutting down/prohibiting discussions in which the male sexual fetishism behind so much gender ideology is spoken of more holistically coz that's "making generalizations."
The misogynistic head-fuckery going on here is mind-boggling.
Proxy Music: we will get there. It's a question of starting with acceptable psychology and moving into the "headfuck" areas bit by bit, moving the "Overton window" as they say in politics. The discussion goes on and on and on. It will until the GRA is repealed - hopefully quietly, "gender reassignment" is removed as a PC and suitable changes are made to hate crime legislation to give thin-skinned trans people the brush-off when they try to report "non-crime hate incidents" - Harry Miller is trying as we speak.
It may take an economic crisis in western Europe due to Covid and, in the UK, to Brexit to bring the "woke" to their senses AND cut off funding to Stonewall from Gov and bodies.
Not my experience at all. Mumsnet thoroughly Stonewalled. Some of the fetishes accepted by Stonewall as “trans” are positively stomach-turning, but it’s not allowed to say this, even though we’re expected to accept these in our supposedly safe spaces.
I'll go with that. It is lengthy but the spirit of the guidelines is clear. Well done, Mumsnet!
They were quite fair to me recently. I started a new thread at the suggestion of GenderWang in a previous exchange here. Mumsnet deleted it for reasons which, after discussion - lengthy discussion with me thinking carefully to justify my position - I accepted. Fortunately my subject had been raised in another earlier thread and a helpful Mumsnetter flagged this up to me, so I posted on the earlier thread exactly the same post as the one which had been deleted.
My discussion with MN moderator allowed me to introduce a lot of psychology. I explained (with links to PsychologyToday) that GD sufferers are narcissists (narcissism is very poorly understood by general public), lacking in empathy (extreme end!) and lacking in insight - psychotic.
Good that they recognise vexatious reporting by groups. Summoning your allies to report people is noxious to discussion and causes people to tread on eggshells.
I agree that MN is very good, on the Feminist board. Only trouble is, sometimes posts get deleted from FWR, which posters genuinely think stick to the FWR posting "rules". And it makes really interesting and valuable threads virtually unreadable, due to all the missing posts.
I agree Sarah, just recently the thread on the TW making the list of nominated women's authors for fiction, with their book on sissification and how being degraded and abused made "her" feel like to a woman. Like really?
Graham, you are extolling and rewarding Mumsnet for empty, corporate virtue-signalling. This is not how Mumsnet actually operates.
It is really not at all helpful to women that you have done this. Have you actually spoken to any of the many women that Mumsnet has banned for life? Are you aware that there is no Appeals system? Mumsnet is worse than Twitter, not better.
I am glad that Mumsnet continues to allow women to discuss women's rights. The quality of discussion on the FWR (Feminism Women's Rights) Board is better than anything I have seen elsewhere. However, have a look at the "Bunbury" threads, where members regularly post about women MIA after they have been targeted.
Not just women either. The #WrongKindOfTrans ie. sympathetic to Women's Rights, often have a very short shelf life on Mumsnet - because they are not the sort of trans that the TRAs want to see posting there.
Mumsnet is actually an example of BAD practice, because it publishes Guidelines which it then does not follow. When it does this, the people who are unfairly penalised and banned for life are Women.
There is much more to Mumsnet than the FWR Board. You might remember that Helen Staniland raised the "banned for life" issue in relation to Twitter when you were both speaking to the Lords Communications and Digital Committee.
How much more damaging is it that Mumsnet issues life-time bans on women who also use Mumsnet for support when suffering from Domestic Violence, dealing with difficult relationships or the challenges of bringing up children, etc? How much more damaging that Mumsnet, unlike Twitter, does not even have an Appeals system.
Women are making submissions to the Committee about Mumsnet, as an example of Bad Practice that is far more damaging to them than being banned by Twitter. You would know that if you had bothered to ask women first.
Ask yourself, why do you describe what you have quoted as "Mumsnet policy on the trans issue"?
What you have quoted is what Mumsnet calls, "Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex".
Which description do you think is closer the truth?
MN is still a valuable space because there are new women every day (and maybe some men too) who are waking up the complete batshittery of the trans ideology and the antics of TRAs. There are so few other platforms and news sites willing to let these conversations happen. So as much as it does get censored there, there are ways to make a point, albeit it involves walking on eggshells at times.
And thank you, Graham, for providing this space too. ❤️
OvaHere: "Removed with this message. If this thread can stick to discussing the behaviour of the Guardian it should be fine.
Message from MNHQ: Hello everyone. We think it's very reasonable to want to discuss the issues with this front page - but the thread has become a series of personal attacks on an individual rather than criticism of an editorial decision. We've already removed several posts for breaking our guidelines, but we need to take the thread down now as it's not getting back on track."
This is important: "We've already removed several posts for breaking our guidelines"
This might translate as: "We've already banned several women for life for breaking our guidelines"
Sorry, to me, it's unreasonable for Mumsnet to ban the term "trans-identified male" person and "trans-identified female" person.
IMO, these are accurate terms with no pejorative trappings. But Mumsnet has banned them because some of the people those terms accurately describe have difficulty dealing with their own sex and wish they could keep their sex a secret. And because many gender ideologues today claim that sex doesn't exist - or if sex does exist, in humans it really doesn't matter, and only "genital fetishists" and "transphobes" would say otherwise.
Mumsnet's policy makes women call some male people girls/women and some female people boys/men. This makes it difficult, indeed impossible, to say what is going on. If we can't name or speak of some people's sex, how can we speak out about their sexism and misogyny?
I might do a follow up with these points. Thank you.
I hope you do.
Also, in the follow-up, please mention another important point: prohibiting Mumsnet posters from naming trans-identified people's sex further prevents mostly female posters from pointing out, naming and discussing the distinctly MALE sexual fetishism that's the reason why so many male persons today claim to have an opposite-sex "gender identity."
The vast majority of trans-identified males today have autogynephilia - and thanks to the influence of internet porn, this seems as true of the male-attracted ones nowadays as it always has been of all the female-attracted ones.
Not allowing women to name the sex of the people with AGP fetishism makes it impossible for us to speak out against the ideas espoused by the males like Julia Serrano, Andrea Long Chu, Torrey Peters and many more - who equate being female with "being fucked" and get their rocks off by engaging in their MALE sexual fantasies about being "feminized" and turning into "slutty sissies." Moreover, these men get their rocks off by presenting the distinctly MALE sexual fantasies they describe at length in purple prose and pretentious language as though they are profound philosophical and political statements - and "feminist" ones at that. When in reality, their fantasies sound like they were cribbed from Penthouse Forum back in the day.
These men say that innate to being female is being sexually objectified and abused by men. They also say that being sexually objectified and abused by men is what all girls & women dream of/aspire to - and worse, that such treatment arouses us as it arouses them. Yet at the same time, these men dictate that the group about whom they say such hateful things should not be allowed ever to mention that the people saying such things about females happen to be males. Indeed, these men say it's unseemly and pervy for women to mention the sex of these men at all.
Whilst Mumsnet HQ might not agree with that position in so many words, MN's policies on "misgendering" and its hard-to-fathom prohibitions about mentioning AGP in most situations have the effect of allow the male POV - and the rules set forth by AGP men - to prevail on the FWR board. In addition, it's MN's practice to shut down discussions of named male individuals (such as Sams Smiths) coz it's mean and bullying, whilst also shutting down/prohibiting discussions in which the male sexual fetishism behind so much gender ideology is spoken of more holistically coz that's "making generalizations."
The misogynistic head-fuckery going on here is mind-boggling.
Proxy Music: we will get there. It's a question of starting with acceptable psychology and moving into the "headfuck" areas bit by bit, moving the "Overton window" as they say in politics. The discussion goes on and on and on. It will until the GRA is repealed - hopefully quietly, "gender reassignment" is removed as a PC and suitable changes are made to hate crime legislation to give thin-skinned trans people the brush-off when they try to report "non-crime hate incidents" - Harry Miller is trying as we speak.
It may take an economic crisis in western Europe due to Covid and, in the UK, to Brexit to bring the "woke" to their senses AND cut off funding to Stonewall from Gov and bodies.
It does seem like they are trying hard not to cave. I applaud them for the effort. But I will never use the phrase trans-woman.
Not my experience at all. Mumsnet thoroughly Stonewalled. Some of the fetishes accepted by Stonewall as “trans” are positively stomach-turning, but it’s not allowed to say this, even though we’re expected to accept these in our supposedly safe spaces.
I'll go with that. It is lengthy but the spirit of the guidelines is clear. Well done, Mumsnet!
They were quite fair to me recently. I started a new thread at the suggestion of GenderWang in a previous exchange here. Mumsnet deleted it for reasons which, after discussion - lengthy discussion with me thinking carefully to justify my position - I accepted. Fortunately my subject had been raised in another earlier thread and a helpful Mumsnetter flagged this up to me, so I posted on the earlier thread exactly the same post as the one which had been deleted.
My discussion with MN moderator allowed me to introduce a lot of psychology. I explained (with links to PsychologyToday) that GD sufferers are narcissists (narcissism is very poorly understood by general public), lacking in empathy (extreme end!) and lacking in insight - psychotic.
Good that they recognise vexatious reporting by groups. Summoning your allies to report people is noxious to discussion and causes people to tread on eggshells.
I agree that MN is very good, on the Feminist board. Only trouble is, sometimes posts get deleted from FWR, which posters genuinely think stick to the FWR posting "rules". And it makes really interesting and valuable threads virtually unreadable, due to all the missing posts.
I agree Sarah, just recently the thread on the TW making the list of nominated women's authors for fiction, with their book on sissification and how being degraded and abused made "her" feel like to a woman. Like really?
Graham, you are extolling and rewarding Mumsnet for empty, corporate virtue-signalling. This is not how Mumsnet actually operates.
It is really not at all helpful to women that you have done this. Have you actually spoken to any of the many women that Mumsnet has banned for life? Are you aware that there is no Appeals system? Mumsnet is worse than Twitter, not better.
I am glad that Mumsnet continues to allow women to discuss women's rights. The quality of discussion on the FWR (Feminism Women's Rights) Board is better than anything I have seen elsewhere. However, have a look at the "Bunbury" threads, where members regularly post about women MIA after they have been targeted.
Not just women either. The #WrongKindOfTrans ie. sympathetic to Women's Rights, often have a very short shelf life on Mumsnet - because they are not the sort of trans that the TRAs want to see posting there.
Mumsnet is actually an example of BAD practice, because it publishes Guidelines which it then does not follow. When it does this, the people who are unfairly penalised and banned for life are Women.
There is much more to Mumsnet than the FWR Board. You might remember that Helen Staniland raised the "banned for life" issue in relation to Twitter when you were both speaking to the Lords Communications and Digital Committee.
How much more damaging is it that Mumsnet issues life-time bans on women who also use Mumsnet for support when suffering from Domestic Violence, dealing with difficult relationships or the challenges of bringing up children, etc? How much more damaging that Mumsnet, unlike Twitter, does not even have an Appeals system.
Women are making submissions to the Committee about Mumsnet, as an example of Bad Practice that is far more damaging to them than being banned by Twitter. You would know that if you had bothered to ask women first.
Ask yourself, why do you describe what you have quoted as "Mumsnet policy on the trans issue"?
What you have quoted is what Mumsnet calls, "Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex".
Which description do you think is closer the truth?
MN is still a valuable space because there are new women every day (and maybe some men too) who are waking up the complete batshittery of the trans ideology and the antics of TRAs. There are so few other platforms and news sites willing to let these conversations happen. So as much as it does get censored there, there are ways to make a point, albeit it involves walking on eggshells at times.
And thank you, Graham, for providing this space too. ❤️
Can't seem to find the "Eddy and his boobs" or the latest Bunbury thread on FWR. Is it just me?
"Bunbury's Ninth Public Announcement - Hill Walking Club"
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4181734-Bunburys-Ninth-Public-Announcement-Hill-Walking-Club
BUT
"What happened to the Eddie I Guardian thread?"
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4190212-What-happened-to-the-Eddie-I-Guardian-thread
OvaHere: "Removed with this message. If this thread can stick to discussing the behaviour of the Guardian it should be fine.
Message from MNHQ: Hello everyone. We think it's very reasonable to want to discuss the issues with this front page - but the thread has become a series of personal attacks on an individual rather than criticism of an editorial decision. We've already removed several posts for breaking our guidelines, but we need to take the thread down now as it's not getting back on track."
This is important: "We've already removed several posts for breaking our guidelines"
This might translate as: "We've already banned several women for life for breaking our guidelines"