Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

How to discuss BBC 100 women list?

232 replies

BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 07/12/2021 07:53

Hello

I've seen two threads attempting to discuss this list deleted today. Could you possibly give guidance about how the feminist issue of men taking the place of women in a list of women can be discussed on the feminism board without the thread being deleted?

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/12/2021 17:54

Why has that gone?

Redshoeblueshoe · 07/12/2021 17:49

And the thread about the murdered Canadian women has gone
FFS

Saucery · 07/12/2021 17:40

Wonder why we say “Have a gander?” and not “have a goose” ?
Are the males more likely to aggressively poke their beaks in where they aren’t welcome?

AlfonsoTheUnrepentant · 07/12/2021 17:35

Ooooh. That's cutting it fine, @BernardBlackMissesLangCleg. You don't know how the geese identify.

Original poster
BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 07/12/2021 17:31

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

You ain't the only one!!
For people so utterly obsessed with civility, it’s frankly bizarre

I guess what’s sauce for the goose isn’t sauce for the gander?

(Are we allowed to acknowledge that there are Lady Geese and Gentlemen Geese do you think?)

OP posts:
HoardingSamphireSaurus · 07/12/2021 17:29

You ain't the only one!!

Original poster
BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 07/12/2021 17:22

Yup

We’re onto thread 4 now

No response from MNHQ to my request for clarification on how I can be clear that my objection to the inclusion of men on a list of women is because of their sex, not their trans status

I suspect they have written me off a Not A Nice Lady, therefore they are under no obligation to interact with me

OP posts:
BeaMends · 07/12/2021 17:22

I've just got in from work and missed all the fun.

Just what is it that people don't understand about one of the simplest concepts in biology? Strewth.

Franca123 · 07/12/2021 17:22

Yes

IntemperateSpirits · 07/12/2021 17:18

So is that the third thread gone?

Redshoeblueshoe · 07/12/2021 17:03

Maybe it's time for a boycott

Original poster
BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 07/12/2021 16:05

@ButtonSister

Would it work if we referred to adult human females and males?
I've put this suggestion to MNHQ, although all the talk of 'males' and 'females' does make me feel a bit like a ferrengi. Men and women would seem much clearer to e. of course that assumes that we all want to achieve clarity......

They did initially suggest that I use some form of transxxx instead of 'men' in my OP. My view is that this would unfairly paint me as transphobic. My objection to the presence of those individuals on a list of women is not because of their trans status, it is because of their sex. So how can I express that?

OP posts:
Shedmistress · 07/12/2021 15:59

The weird thing is, the BBC is funded by us.

A fair amount of women who end up on prison, ended up there by the BBC prosecuting them for not paying a licence fee.

So they of all people should be able to be questioned and their actions and decisions discussed. They work for us, they are not supposed to be tainted and biased.

Chilver · 07/12/2021 15:41

Due to this, I actually went to look up why the BBC Women's List was created in the first place: The BBC launched this series in 2013 to address the under-representation of women in the media.

So, we're back to the definition of a woman not meaning an adult human female if there are transwomen on the list. I have no issues whatsoever in recognising transwomen for their endeavours and challenges they face; but they should have their own BBC Transwomen's List which we can applaud and celebrate alongside the BBC Women's List. Our role as women is not to validate transwomen's roles; our role is to celebrate and highlight challenges and overcoming those centuries long challenges that women have had to bear.

Shedmistress · 07/12/2021 15:34

Message from MNHQ: We've taken this thread down because the the first post breaks our Talk guidelines. We'll get in touch with the OP off the boards to discuss an edit and potential reinstatement of the thread.

So what changed between 13:08 when it didn't break guidelines and the deletion when it did?

Franca123 · 07/12/2021 15:19

Are you allowed to say 'the BBC list of 100 women only has 97 vaginas'. Or is that breaking talk guidelines?

SolasAnla · 07/12/2021 15:14

[quote Waitwhat23]**@SolasAnla* just to mention, if you tag MNHQ generally (as a @mnhq*), it apparently doesn't really go anywhere. You need to tag a specific mod to get a direct answer. I believe that Michael is the main mod for this board.[/quote]
Thank you I did not know that.

I will not bother Michael directly, it's more a test case on if MN is reading the thread.

AlfonsoTheUnrepentant · 07/12/2021 15:12

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

No. Because as soo as you use it to refer to someone who 'identifies as...' you have taken away their agency, insulted them, committed literal violence etc. A Monitor would report you.

Tis only us TERFS that have to put up with all the ridiculous reframing.

And dance around the topic in case it hurts feelings.
HoardingSamphireSaurus · 07/12/2021 15:10

No. Because as soo as you use it to refer to someone who 'identifies as...' you have taken away their agency, insulted them, committed literal violence etc. A Monitor would report you.

Tis only us TERFS that have to put up with all the ridiculous reframing.

AlfonsoTheUnrepentant · 07/12/2021 15:09

[quote Waitwhat23]**@SolasAnla* just to mention, if you tag MNHQ generally (as a @mnhq*), it apparently doesn't really go anywhere. You need to tag a specific mod to get a direct answer. I believe that Michael is the main mod for this board.[/quote]
I believe that Michael is Head of Community, but I could be wrong.

Taking things on a case-by-case basis makes it difficult for people with autism, like me, who need consistency and transparency. But who cares, eh?

ButtonSister · 07/12/2021 15:08

Would it work if we referred to adult human females and males?

Mummyoflittledragon · 07/12/2021 15:08

@MichaelMumsnet

We're committed to hosting discussions around sex and gender on Mumsnet. We ask that people bear in mind the Talk guidelines when posting.
Is there any way the guidelines could be more specific? A list or a the very least a hint of acceptable and banned terms would be useful. As others have said, none of us truly know what we are and aren’t allowed to say. This has led to people getting strikes when they / I thought the terms were ok having read them from other posters.
Waitwhat23 · 07/12/2021 15:08

@SolasAnla just to mention, if you tag MNHQ generally (as a @mnhq), it apparently doesn't really go anywhere. You need to tag a specific mod to get a direct answer. I believe that Michael is the main mod for this board.

Franca123 · 07/12/2021 15:01

They've tied themselves in a knot. It's entirely of their own making. You can't half pretend men can be women and half pretend they can't be women. You're either in or you're out. Guess MNHQ is worried about being on the wrong side of history Grin

Original poster
BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 07/12/2021 14:59

What’s intensely confusing is the degree to which the rules change.

At its heart, the problem is that men aren’t women, no matter how much they may think they want to be

If we can’t point that out, how can we possibly explain ourselves?

I’ve asked MNHQ a variation of that question in reply to their email asking me to suggest an edit to the OP of deleted thread 3.

OP posts: