Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

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:
TinselAngel · 09/05/2021 09:44

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

JoanOgden · 09/05/2021 09:52

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

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 09/05/2021 11:02

@JoanOgden

Oh, do you have a link to the Twitter discussion, *@TinselAngel*?
Posting a link could be risky in that some people would probably report it to MN because they didn’t like the conversation.
Procrastinator3 · 09/05/2021 11:49

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

Barracker · 09/05/2021 11:58

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.

OvaHere · 09/05/2021 12:56

@Barracker

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.

Quite Grin
Liliolla · 09/05/2021 13:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

R0wantrees · 09/05/2021 13:14

@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.
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.

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?

DentonsFringeArnottsWaistcoat · 09/05/2021 13:31

@Barracker

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.

Spot on and I think we could get an alternative Baked Potato Song out of that. Maybe the Bunbury Orchestra could provide the music. But if generalisations are not allowed on MN then there’s going to be an awful lot of thread zapping going on. Or is it only FWR being subjected to that rule. Seems, er, discriminatory.
Emanchego · 09/05/2021 13:33

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

NutellaEllaElla · 09/05/2021 13:39

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.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 09/05/2021 13:43

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

Thelnebriati · 09/05/2021 14:35

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

RedDogsBeg · 09/05/2021 14:42

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.

FictionalCharacter · 09/05/2021 15:04

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.

SpringCrocus · 09/05/2021 15:54

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

Fallingirl · 09/05/2021 22:19

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?

SpringCrocus · 09/05/2021 23:39

Yep. An answer would be helpful

ErrolTheDragon · 10/05/2021 00:01

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?

WarriorN · 10/05/2021 06:55

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

WarriorN · 10/05/2021 06:58

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?

MelissaVonStressel · 10/05/2021 07:02

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.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 10/05/2021 07:45

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

ErrolTheDragon · 10/05/2021 07:49

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.

IntoAir · 11/05/2021 08:32

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.