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?

I have comments know that if I post them I will be banned.

@Saucery

It’s an impressive bit of mental gymnastics.

We are allowed to say, in general, that transwomen were born male, because otherwise they wouldn’t be transwomen.

But if we apply that to a list of people that includes transwomen we are therefore being specific about individuals and not respecting their right to identify as women,

Infuriatingly neat and tailored to the nonsense guidelines drawn up by the Watchers and Reporters. Means no thread about this list or similar ones can stand. Ever. 👏

Your analysis appears to be spot on Saucery.

How long before this thread gets deleted because women won't do as they're told by men?

I’m still no clearer how we can actually discuss this issue.

Mumsnet is having men police what women are and aren't allowed to say about they're own experience. I will not be told by men what i can and can't say. This is 2021.

[quote Negligee]@MichaelMumsnet, a man telling women to shut about men encroaching on women's lists is a really bad look.[/quote]
To be scrupulously fair - @MichaelMumsnet is often a very balanced responder, one of the more 'listening' mods.

And he has been very robustly supported by MNHQ for just this sort of comment before.

I am not sure it is wise to point to the individual for issues with the cohort. Isn't that what we are complaining about?

@OhDear2200

I’m still no clearer how we can actually discuss this issue.

We can’t. Not as the existing list stands, because it’s “being unkind to individuals”.

I think discussing the inclusion of transwomen in general might be ok, but I suspect a general thread would be zapped today (and for a while) as it would be deemed still a TAAT.

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.

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

@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.

@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.

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

[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?

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.

@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.

[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.

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

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?

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.

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.

@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?

Maybe it's time for a boycott

So is that the third thread gone?

Yes

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.