"We" can always tell

And by woman you mean ...? And by man you mean....?

Thx.

Best to ask the people who did that, really. No one here can help you.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, Mumsnet disagree that the women talking here is, er, like shooting up heroin and that anyone here was inciting harassment.

We don’t think this post, or the short-lived thread, indicates that Mumsnet users or moderators were encouraging or coordinating harassment of anyone.

Why are you trying to encourage harassment of the Counting Dead Women account?

You don't think it's important to engage on a thread you yourself started?

Why did you start it? Hmm...let's guess....

I think there’s been quite a lot of discussion, no? As @Datun said, people dispute your framing of it as Mumsnetters being responsible.

Apart from the thread on here that was up for several hours, you mean?

Are you having trouble with simple words? Or are you suggesting that this woman was actually a man?

That quote was from HQ. So no-one thinks it.

Not even the TRAs who are claiming it. 😁

Is that the one that wasn’t started by a regular poster and didn’t get much support? That one? Try Twitter, you’re more likely to find the right people.

Was it up for several hours? Were you monitoring it? Were you very disappointed that it got no traction?

If you're talking about the account on X, you are making a massive assumption about who "beseiged" it. Especially considering that when the post was shared on here, the Gender Critical Feminists on this forum universally condemned it and reported the thread for deletion.

Why do you automatically assume it was GC Feminists who piled on the account insisting it was a man?
The evidence suggests at the very least, that it wasn't the women on FWR who did this, so why are you here yelling at us about it?

Certainly plenty of Genderists on X today have been posting abuse to KIS and the CDW twitter account, is that what PPs are referring to?

And of course, the chorus of Genderists slagging off a woman who has taken it upon herself to do shitloads of work on something she thinks matters because she isn't doing it they way they think she should. Never occurs to them to just start their own list and put the fucking work in themselves, does it?

Yes, because what they want, and why they were interested at all, is the inclusion of men who identify as women in the count. That’s why they were so invested. This was a mistake, where there was confusion about an actual woman being wrongly seen as male. CDW quite rightly apologised for that but that’s not really what they’re upset about.

It was 'short-lived' according to HQ.

Short-lived, condemned by almost everybody, and removed pronto.

The post you’re referring to was made by one poster, promptly challenged by other users, reported and removed.
We can’t see a report from you about it, though.

That was in reply to Lexi who was informing HQ that women wanting to keep men out of their spaces 'had gone too far'.

I for one look forward to the next thread in site stuff complaining about FWR where MN put the OP firmly back in their box. Fun times!

Quite.

And I really can't believe that there are any people left who don't understand exactly why they're upset. And why they've always targeted Karen and CDW.

sick doesn't begin to cover it

If they did their own counting of TW, there would be hardly any. As we know. So they wanted to glom onto the tragic murders of women to back up the claims that they are unsafe. They are one of the safest demographics there is in the UK.

It's offensive, to put it mildly.

I did see it. I was questioning the PP’s claim it was up for several hours.

Thank you for highlighting the Site Stuff thread. I’m glad Lexi raised it there, and provided the space for MN to address it. Otherwise I suspect it would have, over time, morphed into a ‘multi page thread filled with transphobia’.

Well said that woman!

I put this on site stuff, but thought I'd repost here (is that allowed)

To recap. *@Lexibletheflexible was sold a pup by another member, complained and was given a more accurate picture by MNHQ. Ironically the whole thing appears to be a lesson in not believing everything someone online tells you when you don't have the evidence yourself.

Given someone c&ped my fun times post over there, I can't see why not.

Agree @BackToLurk

It's been an interesting thread to watch unfold. A few takeaways:

it's fine to generalise about a group of people as a whole, based on the actions of just one person

it's okay to believe what someone tells you on the internet and not bother to check the evidence for yourself

it's fine not to see a (now deleted) thread for yourself, in fact to not even be aware of it, but then to complain to MNHQ about it based purely on hearsay

confirmation bias is okay when it's something you agree with (obviously)

it's fine to insult posters on one platform even though the original incident was nothing to do with posters on that platform

it's okay to criticise the OP of a deleted thread (rightly so) and accuse them of encouraging harassment by starting the thread. But not to criticise the OP of this thread or accuse them of encouraging harassment by starting the thread

it's fine to make false serious allegations including about harassment

it's okay to demonstrate a lack of joined-up thinking

basically it's fine to misrepresent what actually happened on MN when one wasn't even there to see it

I'll let people make up their own minds about which "side" has demonstrated the most hypocrisy wrt the above