Thread about Kathleen Stock's book deleted

My ex partner was an AGP. I'm not allowed to talk about it by him either

Also very interested to hear how we can discuss something not in general & also not specifically
The discussion on that thread was interesting & I didn't see anything "not in the spirit".

The tide is turning, cries of transphobia don't hold the weight they used to. You don't have to bow to the demands mn.

Not looking very good here (again), Mumsnet 🥴🥴

There were only two deleted posts. And one which quoted one of the deleted posts.
I found it bemusing that the thread was zapped.

My memory was not that there was much discusion about autognephillia except in the context of those women (transwidows) impacted by the behaviours of abusive ex husbands/partners.

The thread was started by Tinsel who advocates for and supports transwidows whilst Dr Julia Long is concerned with supporting women impacted by male abuse/violence and works on the femicide census.

Are women not permitted to discuss MVAW and coercive control patterns when the male perpetrator is also an autogynephile?

I still have the deleted thread open on a tab.

There were only two deleted posts. And one which quoted one of the deleted posts.
I found it bemusing that the thread was zapped.

But if I understand the rule correctly, as others have said, it appears to be:

Don't be general. But also don't be specific.
Use words to say what you mean, but not the words that say what you mean, use the words that don't. Stick to facts, but not the facts that hurt feelings, use feelings that hurt facts in that instance. You are welcome to your opinions, except when your opinions are not welcome. Robust debate is encouraged, as long as it doesn't debate robustly, in which case fragile agreement works. You can say what you want in good faith, after checking the talk guidelines to make sure it's permitted to have those thoughts and use those words. Follow these rules and all will be well, except when you do and you're not in the spirit.

I honestly don't know why anyone finds it hard.

I do not understand why women are not allowed to talk about AGP on Mumsnet. Are people who have it a sacred caste?

Oh, do you have a link to the Twitter discussion, @TinselAngel?

The conversation is raging on Twitter but we can't have it here.

I don't think so because on mumsnet generally, we are 'allowed' to generalise about men without it being deleted, though you will get told NAMALT by other users.

Is the generalise thing a version of namalt?

Which parts of AGP can we talk about?

There is emerging publicity around this aspect, so people will be asking about it more often. Especially as it's just been raised in a book by very well-known feminist.

This is an important point. It is starting to look more and more conspicuous by its absence.

And as trans advocates push harder for its normalisation, mumsnet will eventually be accused of transphobia for banning it.

Surely it can’t be, that MNHQ can’t think for themselves, but just await new orders or permissions from trans activists?

Yes, we're not allowed to talk about specific individuals are we?

So we're not allowed to talk in general or specific terms, about AGP? Is that right? Do you see the issue?

HQ, it's very difficult to understand the rules about talking of AGP.

Firstly, are we allowed to talk about it?

Secondly, can you clarify how we can avoid generalising?

Because sometimes, we fall between the rule where you can't generalise, but also you can't be specific!

There is emerging publicity around this aspect, so people will be asking about it more often. Especially as it's just been raised in a book by very well-known feminist.

This is exactly the reason why KS thinks it's over hyped; women aren't allowed to discuss it in many places, it's not acknowledged in many arenas and so they try to make the point as much as possible, when they actually can.

KS has heard the frustration. And the very real experiences of transwidows. It's not hyperbole. And mn let it play out again.

I do not see why the thread had to go at all.

No one can hear philomena's story nor any of the other stories on the website or on threads here without realising the issue is an issue.

Poor judgment.

MN, why do you allow posters who freely admit they've come to MN with the sole purpose of gathering screenshots/trolling and getting banned, to post on FWR? Yet every other thread on AIBU seems to end up being deleted because the poster is a troll.

Why are the FWR regulars held to such higher standards than the FWR trolls?

Why do you single out AGP in particular mumsnet?

In fact if there's one thing the trans widows threads show it's that one seems to be able to generalise about AGP very reliably.
It's by being able to make these kind of generalisations about types of abuse that models such as the freedom programme were devised.