Thread about Kathleen Stock's book deleted

And this deletion is even more annoying because we have the ever so helpful posters complaining that we only ever talk about transgendered people on FWR but a thread about AGP (covers all people however they ID) and feminist literature is deleted on the back of a whole 2 posts being deleted.

I found Barrackers FWR chat rules easier to follow than the actual FWR rules 😬

Did anyone get a personal reply on the topics raised on this thread? Am wondering whether to report a post as that usually generates a personal response.

Bump

It's so disappointing that MN (a site primarily for women) will not allow proper discussion of women issues.

The over moderation of FWR is a disgrace.

[quote EmpressWitchDoesntBurn]Lily Maynard’s just published her review of the book, with quotes from Tinsel & KeepPrisonsSingleSex.
lilymaynard.com/kathleen-stock-material-girls-review/[/quote]
That's a very readable review. Lily Maynard certainly knows how to draw in the reader.

And it does indeed highlight some blindspots that Kathleen stock has.

In terms of her conclusions regarding AGP, I would still like to know where she gets her stats.

I missed all this but will gladly bump the thread too.
I found Barracker's quote from the Stonewall Manifesto particularly insight.

Lily Maynard’s just published her review of the book, with quotes from Tinsel & KeepPrisonsSingleSex.
lilymaynard.com/kathleen-stock-material-girls-review/

I’d like to know what’s so special about those with AGP that we can’t talk about them. What other things can’t we talk about? The hypocrisy of saying we can’t generalise and can’t talk specifics is fucked up and insulting. @MNHQ wise the fuck up and sort it out.

I see that MNHQ are waiting for us to just stop objecting to this. So i'm bumping the thread.

Is obviously just me that doesn’t get the arbitrary rules that only work one way

barracker gets it 😀

Women on the feminism board should be able to discuss feminist literature

A vague ‘generalisations about AGP’ isnt helpful in the slightest

If the guidelines are that clear (and they must be because every time there is a deletion you mention them) then it would mean that no FWR poster would be deleted cos theyd know what NOT to say

Maybe someone could tell us if there are particular chapters of the book we should be avoiding talking about?

This is so ludicrous that I don’t actually have the words 😀

There have been a few posts lately along the lines of ‘I’m a cis woman and GC feminism is bad for me because...’

Yes, what about the posters who come onto FWR with a stack of generalisations and misrepresentations they’ve made about “GC Feminism” and start calling us thick, white, middle-aged bigots? That kind of thing seems to be actively encouraged by MNHQ.

As a general rule, we'll remove posts/threads that generalise about AGP.

I’m sure this has been said before, but given the generalisations some transwomen posters (they tell us they’re TW anyway) make about women, this is pretty outrageous.

Stacked against women, as usual.

We also know there was a bloke running 'scraper' software, automatically detecting 'transphobic' terms like, er, 'safeguarding' iirc. That instance should be blocked now, but it's a pound to a gooseberry there's other automated keyword detection going on.

Just in case anyone thinks we’re being paranoid about the group I like to call the Misogynist Monitors, they’re mentioned in this article: www.vice.com/en/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

So why is this different?

In the same way that certain posters only ever post on FWR, I presume certain monitors only ever monitor FWR. There could be stunning and brave unicorns flying through Style and Beauty and no one would ever take a screenshot for Twitter.

That's why I asked if it's about NATWALT.

And yet we don't get deleted for NAMALT on other generalised threads about the way some men have behaved. Or the way some women behave.

So why is this different?

The fact we aren't allowed to talk about it creates the opposite effect.

The guidelines say
^ Will you consider deleting posts that associate transgender people with autogynephila (AGP)?
This is something we'd look at on a case by case basis, though we'll definitely delete posts which generalise.^

What exactly is meant by 'associate transgender people with agp'? Was it supposed to mean 'don't imply all/most TW have agp'?

Well, to be sure, that would be wrong. Obviously not all transgender people have agp. I'm sure no one thinks they do. But surely it can't be supposed mean that no one can mention the fact that some transgender people do have agp, and discuss the effects this may have on women etc?

Yep. An answer would be helpful

We need an explanation for the very simple and direct question: Why can we not discuss autogynephilia?

Why not?

We need the answer because we all suspect the only reason is that MNHQ have been ordered by people claiming to speak for trans identified people to ban discussion of it.

Will you kindly tell us this, in so many words, MNHQ?

Very disappointed the thread was deleted, and find it very hard to see why.

It’s essential that we are allowed to talk about agp. A lot of people are unaware it exists, and would find a discussion enlightening. Certain activists don’t want it discussed, deny it exists or claim we’re obsessed with it. It’s obvious why they’re making it a taboo. MN shouldn’t cave to this.

It would be nice to know the exact reason why AGP is not allowed to be discussed or referred to MNHQ, it is, after all, a recognised paraphilia.