The deletion of the Upfield thread on AIBU

Purely stating “you’re transphobic and a bigot” in response to someone simply saying that the discussion of shared spaces needs to happen is unreasonable. However, so is stating things like “a woman doesn’t have a penis/men will never be women,” which is just two points I’ve seen made on one of these threads.

Back up a bit here.
'A woman doesn't have a penis'.
'Men will never be women'.
How is it unreasonable to state these two facts?
What is unreasonable about it?

NoCauseRebel

Yes, I agree. It appears that no one is happy with the thread deletion. Whether they are feminist or not, whether they hate feminists or not.

The non-feminists would like the opportunity to have their say in AIBU. And the feminists want the exact same thing.

The only reason I can think for the deletion is that HQ do not want the Flora issue reaching a wider audience, for reasons unknown.

But that wouldn't explain why they put out a statement on Twitter, which is going to reach far more people.

MNHQ can you give us a proper reason for the deletion please? This is all over Twitter. Why the inconsistency in moderation for threads about current affairs?

LOVE THE NEW POLICY

Lioking forward to the deletion of approximately 76 billion Brexit threads and 45 million my MIL is a bitch threads. Oh and the eleventy billion ‘why fat people should just fuck if & die’ threads!!

Brilliant.

Aberhonddu

Exactly. The original comment was deemed offensive and so was deleted so why would Datun post an undeleted post as proof that inoffensive comments are deleted?

It doesn't make sense. A comment was deleted. You could post 100 undeleted comments but it doesn't prove that the 1 deleted comment wasn't offensive does it?

The only way for people to decide if the deleted comment was offensive is to show them the deleted comment, not a comment that wasn't deleted.

@tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz ok I’ll bite.

The problem with the trans threads is that the reasoned discussion is lost in amongst what can only be perceived as offensive hateful comments.

IMO the discussion of shared spaces is a perfectly valid one for multiple reasons. But those discussions are never kept reasonable. So while person B’s comments may be considered wrong in isolation, it’s very unlikely that the whole thread remains reasonable about the discussion of shared places.

Purely stating “you’re transphobic and a bigot” in response to someone simply saying that the discussion of shared spaces needs to happen is unreasonable. However, so is stating things like “a woman doesn’t have a penis/men will never be women,” which is just two points I’ve seen made on one of these threads.

The fact here is that yes, maybe what the poster is saying is correct, however there are ways to say it which aren’t going to put people’s backs up.

There have forever been trans men and women. We have all co-existed for a long time, it’s only recently that a small number of radicals have decided that this should go one further, and as such that small number of radicals have turned the whole of feminism against anything trans-related.

since no-one actually wants to discuss the alleged flora thing there’s no reason to think that it’s important. It’s not about trans after all.....

Is this thread actually about the issue that a thread was in FWR and so another thread about the same topic cannot exist outside of FWR and then that automatically will lead to a discussion about why it is important to talk about things outside of FWR and that is why this thread was created?

Rather than start another thread about the topic that must not be discussed outside of FWR lest it be deleted for being a third thread about the topic and not in FWR?

So entirely on topic?

One of the problems I see is that “concerns” has come to be regarded as dog whistle transphobia. So saying “I think that transpeople should absolutely be able to live happy, safe, legally protected, unmolested lives, but I have concerns about the transing of children, women’s sport and the collection of crime data” has come to mean “I am a massive transphobe”

@Datun I take your point, but that is IMO why HQ need to clarify why the thread was left only on FWR when they are well aware that a number of users hide it or have never even contributed to it.

In fact it’s entirely possible that they have the tools to know exactly how many mn members hide the thread and how many who don’t have never actually clicked on the topic... Especially as there are multiple threads on all manner of topics so their reasoning for removing a post because it’s “a duplicate thread” is weak at best.

The majority of the posts - and almost exclusively all of them in the first half the thread - are about the pertinent issue of why the thread was deleted and what the reason is for doing so. Some people mentioned hiding FWR but that pertinent context.

When name calling started about posters on FWR then others sprang to the defence of that board, and that lead to a wider discussion. On a talk forum that’s a natural occurrence anyway, but it also happened because there hasn’t even been a holding message from MN that this will be discussed in a meeting next week or whatever. I’ve seek the same thing over and over; when site stuff threads get long and there is no response from MN.

Back to Upfield - i can see that at least two journalists have asked questions on their Twitter post. So I imagine this will make it to the press soon, in which case more threads will spring up. It would be good to have an answer about the reason for the deletion before then.

I really really wish I never had to post on a women’s rights issue board again. I desperately don’t want to continually worry about our erosion of hard won rights.

The fact that I now have manufacturers of marg telling me my rights are unimportant and to curb my tongue really really boils my piss though. So on and on I go, worrying and posting away.

Well at no point did I express any surprise about your post so that's a moot point.

As a disabled person myself, I don't need any education on disablism at all but thanks for the concern.

FWR RADICAL HERE

@TequilaPilates- I’ve just had a look at the thread you mentioned. Not sure if you saw the massive apology in the middle of it from the poster the OP bumped heads with?

Well @MNHQ have remained silent despite being tagged and asked for a reply. It's either going to be ignored, or they're coming up with a placating reply as usual about standing in solidarity with minorities or whatever non statement they think will protect them from the TRAs etc.

While we patiently await a reply, we've been engaging in discussion about several different issues, as is common in chat forums.

BUT really, it was deleted due to trigger happy censorship meaning that HQ are happy to facilitate this harm being done to women. That is an issue which absolutely needs discussed, whether folks' feelings are a bit hurt by it or not.

@Whatwouldbigfatfannydo my VI doesn’t define me. I shouldn’t have to declare it at the beginning of a discussion or be accused for drip-feeding because I haven’t. I had no idea someone had posted a picture because, well, it’s a picture. Otherwise I might have posted “I can’t read what’s in that picture, can someone explain?” There are, in fact, numerous postings all over the internet talking about people making pictures more described as those with screen readers cannot read them.

And accusing me of drip-feeding and then expressing surprise that I wrote an intelligent point is bordering on disablist so you might want to have a think there.

relevant thread

NoCauseRebel

The thing is, this thread was started by one of the feminists from FWR. With several others supporting her opening post. Until someone says why are you only leaving the other relevant up on FWR, I hate that place and I'm not going there.

It's the way the thread evolved.

I expect its so they can say "look the tfs are only on one part of the site, the mean old feminists"

This. "Damage" limitation. Is it possible to restore the thread? I know it's been done before with supposedly deleted threads.

I actually think that, given the current climate, it was completely u surprising that a company might disassociate itself from another company that has been targeted by a lot of it’s customers. I think Mumsnet’s response is more robust and brave than I would have expected, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t do a bit of damage limitation for commercial reasons.

I think the fact that so many people say they hide FWR is a much more concerning issue, frankly.

I for one am sick of people saying "I never go there it's a pit of women vipers" and being stupidly unaware of the erosion of our hard won rights. Perhaps MNHQ are trying to raise awareness for the people currently burying their heads in the sand.

I think this is a classic example of what puts many people off visiting the FWR topic.

The assumption that women are 'stupidly unaware of the erosion of our hard won rights' and that people are 'burying their heads in the sand', simply because they're chosen to block 1 out of millions of chat topics on the internet, comes across as breathtakingly arrogant.

Other feminism chat forums are available. Mumsnet is not the be all and end all

But it’s the deletion of the second thread which needs to be answered by HQ.

Highjacking the thread to make points about why people should be following FWR or wanting to question why they don’t is always going to descend in strong discussion on both sides. And that just takes away the point of the actual topic here.

You are never going to reach agreement on people hiding/not hiding the topic. People have reasons for doing so and just because others don’t agree with them doesn’t make them wrong.

But the point here is that the discussion was brought to the main boards and MN have deleted that discussion. that and that alone is what should be talked about on here, and if possible perhaps even opening another main boards discussion on the topic.

Because now many who don’t follow FWR still aren’t any the wiser as to what the discussion was about, iyswim.