How to discuss BBC 100 women list?

[BernardBlackMissesLangCleg]

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?

Do you censor Christians for saying that Jesus Christ was the one and only Messiah?

Franca the other question of course is why are they disregarding the ruling?

In hosting these discussions we want to encourage civil debate - the Maya Forstater case established a protected belief, but is also concerned with the expression of that belief. We feel that our guidelines cover this and that it's possible to make pretty much any gender critical point whilst keeping the conversation constructive and civil.

How is it civil for women to not be able to identify men exactly? I genuinely don't understand why we all have to pretend that what we are seeing is the opposite to what we are seeing?

But the core issue of course is that men who identify as women are not women

They do not suffer from the disadvantages and discrimination women face because of our female bodies

If you’re going to censor women for pointing out that men are men, it prevents them from clearly making their point

Words have meanings.
Civil:

1. relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters.
2. courteous and polite.

Civil and constructive conversation provided the participants pretend that the words used in the discussion have not been skewed for political expediency.

What's the difference between
100 of 3,900,000,000
Or
100 of 7,800,000,000

When an aim of an ideology is to impose a change of meaning on everyday words, what is civil about forcing one party to concede to the other party's political ideology?

The revision of language, using gender as a "civilised" word for sex to gender being an emotional knowledge which supersedes biology, is the conversation.

The push to change language is "be inclusive", "be kind", "be civil" because changing a word really has no consequence.
Right?

Why not make small changes
Like
transwoman and women
becomes
trans women and women
becomes
trans women and cis women

Why not agree that trans women are women?
Is it because they feel it in their brain?
Is it because their lived experience as a woman must be more important than their sex?
What's the problem with any of that?

Why not agree that trans men are men?
Is it because they feel it in their brain?
Is it because their lived experience as a man must be more important than their sex?
What's the problem with any of that?

When the politics of words is being discussed imposing the meaning of one political ideology on the whole discussion is not "civil".
Civil society is based within written laws, words used in these laws have to have meaning.
If the word woman is changed to "adult human male or female" women with vulva not people with penis will be the ultimate losers in the social change

Our intention is to create a space for civil and constructive conversation

A person who wants to force others to pretend they can’t tell what sex that person is, is neither civil nor constructive

Why are you enabling delusional and controlling behavior?

I didn't see either thread.

But from this discussion, MNHQ and @MichaelMumsnet, what a joke. You demean your female audience, the people paying for your existence, as well as yourselves by tiptoeing and kowtowing to people peddling gender ideology.

You help maintain the very system of patriarchy that oppress women - the ones who don't need to identify as such. Give yourself a pat on the back.

@Franca123

Do you censor Christians for saying that Jesus Christ was the one and only Messiah?

Do you censor Jews for saying that Jesus was not the messiah?

I don't really understand what I'm being told here.

Does this mean we can say;
There are 3 transwomen on that list.
Transwomen are men.

But cannot say;
There are 3 men on that list.

?

Do you censor Jews for saying that Jesus was not the messiah?

What about Brian?

What's the next civil and constructive thing we allow men to make us concur with? That cis women are worth half a man?

Some beliefs are more protected than others it seems. I would like to understand the criteria under which mumsnet decides the hierarchy. Is it men at the top and cis women at the bottom?

Phew, I need a law degree to read this thread.
I honestly started out knowing that someone may have used a potentially unsuitable word in a title.
But it seems the word may either have been man or male or even transwoman or something of the sort?

Am I to believe that the word man or male or even transwoman is now also being self-censored?

I am so confused but honestly not being able to speak clearly did make this very hard to follow and maybe peaks more people than the actual deleted threads.

Language is supposed to help convey messages but this seems like making sure ideas are drowned in words to stop discussion.

Still fucking Spartacus

Language is supposed to help convey messages

When you want to compel people to behave as if they believe nonsense, clarity is not your friend

Losing your shit when people use standard, clear words is the way to go

As I’ve said, what’s mysterious to me is why MNHQ are enabling such behavior

Phew, I need a law degree to read this thread.

I don't know what is confusing everyone.

Just don't mention it but don't not mention it because then you will be accused of not mentioning it.

But if you mention it you aren't allowed to actually mention it.

OK?

I opened that thread first thing. It didn't strike me as uncivil until it was deleted for being so.

Can I not just make it #nodebate on women being XX chromosomes only? I don't understand how the rules work? If I set up an organisation and get loads of government funding, do i get to redefine what is civil and constructive? Or do I have to be a man to do that?

@oxalisRed

I didn't see either thread.

But from this discussion, MNHQ and @MichaelMumsnet, what a joke. You demean your female audience, the people paying for your existence, as well as yourselves by tiptoeing and kowtowing to people peddling gender ideology.

You help maintain the very system of patriarchy that oppress women - the ones who don't need to identify as such. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Hear hear, @oxalisRed. MNHQ, you should take a long hard look at yourselves, and think about what the actual thought processes are that underlie these mealy-mouthed requests for 'civility'. Let me give you a clue -- you are perpetuating a hierarchy with women at the bottom.

I don't understand how the rules work?

Bless you.

The first rule of Fight Club...need I go on?

I can't believe what I'm reading. 🙄🙁

I think it's very unreasonable for an entire thread to be deleted if it's simply the wording of the title that is potentially problematic.

@MNHQ you said it "would be an option" to re-word the title instead of deleting the thread in the future. Does that mean you'll actually make a good-faith effort to do that? Don't mean to sound picky, I'm just saying that the statement "sure, that would be an option" could just as easily be followed up with "....but not one that the mods will follow if they don't feel like it" which concerns me.

Civil debate includes treating posters with enough respect to say "this thread is fine but the title just needs rewording, thanks" rather than instant deletion.

@CousinKrispy Yes, we're likely to delete the thread if the title breaks guidelines but we're fine to discuss potentially reinstating threads with title edits - and where the OP can agree on a rewording.

In this case, another thread was started immediately, followed by a third (with a title that didn't break TGs).