Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread about Kathleen Stock's book deleted

63 replies

BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 08/05/2021 13:55

Hello

It would be helpful to understand why the thread about Kathleen Stock's book was deleted if MNHQ wouldn't mind explaining their reasoning?

The thread was a number of women discussing the work of 2 feminist academics. Feminist academics are generally by their nature controversial and get up men's noses, otherwise they're not doing it right!

If you could provide some guidelines for how feminists can discuss Kathleen Stock and Julia Long's work on the Feminism board it would be most helpful.

Thank you in advance.

OP posts:
Soontobe60 · 08/05/2021 16:14

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

Hello *@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg* it looks like quite a lot of the posts on the thread were breaking our guidelines. As a general rule, we'll remove posts/threads that generalise about AGP.
Could you explain why? It’s a recognised paraphilia so why is there a problem discussing it? Are we allowed to discuss other paraphilias?
R0wantrees · 08/05/2021 16:07

Medicine Net
Paraphillias.
(extract)
"Except for masochism, which is 20 times more common in women than men, paraphilias are almost exclusively diagnosed in men. Many people who suffer from one paraphilia have more than one. For example, about one-third of pedophiles also have another paraphilia. More than half engage in three or four such kinds of behaviors rather than just one. Most people who develop a paraphilia begin having fantasies about it before they are 13 years old.

According to the most current standard reference for mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), preceded by the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR, there are a number of different types of paraphilias, each of which has a different focus of the sufferer's sexual arousal:

Voyeurism: watching an unsuspecting/non-consenting individual who is either nude, disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity
Exhibitionism: exposing one’s own genitals to an unsuspecting person
Frotteurism: touching or rubbing against a non-consenting person
Sexual masochism: being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise suffering
Sexual sadism: the physical or emotional suffering of another person
Pedophilia: sexual activity with a child that is prepubescent (usually 13 years old or younger)
Fetishism: sexual fascination with nonliving objects or highly specific body parts (partialism). Examples of specific fetishisms include somnophilia (sexual arousal by a person who is unconscious) and urophilia (deriving sexual pleasure from seeing or thinking about urine or urinating)
Transvestism: cross-dressing that is sexually arousing and interferes with functioning
Autogynephilia is a subtype of transvestism that refers specifically to men who become aroused by thinking or visualizing himself as a woman.
Other specified paraphilia: some paraphilias do not meet full diagnostic criteria for a paraphilic disorder but may have uncontrolled sexual impulses that cause enough distress for the sufferer that they are recognized. Examples of such specific paraphilias include necrophilia (corpses), scatologia (obscene phone calls), coprophilia (feces and defecation), and zoophilia (animals)."
www.medicinenet.com/paraphilia/article.htm

LumpySpacedPrincess · 08/05/2021 16:04

Yes, say we were talking about the male trans person who masturbates in women's toilets and uploads to social media. Would we be able to say, gosh, that looks like a case of agp?

Fallingirl · 08/05/2021 15:55

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

Hello *@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg* it looks like quite a lot of the posts on the thread were breaking our guidelines. As a general rule, we'll remove posts/threads that generalise about AGP.
Can we talk about AGP if we don’t generalise about it?

If so, is it permissible to give the definition of it? It would seem strange if a condition was singled out as one that must not be defined.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 08/05/2021 15:37

I KNEW it was going to be someone not wanting us to talk about AGP.

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 08/05/2021 15:17

Hello @BernardBlackMissesLangCleg it looks like quite a lot of the posts on the thread were breaking our guidelines. As a general rule, we'll remove posts/threads that generalise about AGP.

R0wantrees · 08/05/2021 15:00

Women on FWR have been able to discuss Dr Julia Long's articles and talks in the past including the one that Professor Kathleen Stock references in her book, 'Material Girls', titled, 'A Meaningful Transition'
uncommongroundmedia.com/a-meaningful-transition-julia-long/

Have Mumsnet FWR rules have changed in the last year?

Emanchego · 08/05/2021 14:34

Never heard of this book, must be interesting. Off to look it up..

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 08/05/2021 14:30

My guess would be that it wasn’t about competing feminisms. It was about some people not liking the references to AGP.

JoanOgden · 08/05/2021 14:28

Yes, I was surprised by this deletion, unless there were lots of horrible posts I missed. Thought it was a really important topic to discuss, and although the discussion was quite heated I didn't see any personal attacks.

OvaHere · 08/05/2021 14:26

I also fail to see what we can't discuss the content of a published book and/or disagreements between two well known feminist writers.

I don't understand the reasoning behind some of the deletions because I don't think anyone was being uncivil. It makes it look as though the deletions served a purpose to remove the whole thread.

Fallingirl · 08/05/2021 14:08

Agree, op. It cannot be that this is yet another verboten topic. FWR is becoming impossible to navigate.

TinselAngel · 08/05/2021 14:01

Elite feminism versus grass roots feminism, cuts right to the heart of feminism and women’s rights and it’s something that we should be able to discuss.