Males in female spaces thread

[Leafstamp]

hi @MNHQ. I see that you deleted my thread, with the following message:

’We've received some reports about this thread and have decided to delete it - its premise generalises negatively about an entire group of people, which is not something we allow.’

Please could you clarify which group it was negatively generalising about?

I am worried that you censoring this type of discussion means that women cannot discuss the risks of male violence and of other lower level uncomfortable experiences that women have, particularly when in a state of undress or otherwise vulnerable.

Hi there @Leafstamp. Thanks for posting.

We removed the thread as it broke our guidelines, specifically this section: Sweeping negative generalisations about any group, including trans people and gender-critical feminists, won’t be tolerated.

If you wish for more specifics, please drop us a line. Our guidelines are in place to ensure civil and mutually respectful discussion.

This is why people think it’s ok. Criticism and concerns get deleted. The facts are there, we just can’t discuss them. It’s a travesty that it was deleted.

What, specifically, about the concerns voiced by women about men in female spaces caused you to delete that thread @KimMumsnet ?

I would like to know the specifics too please. Was it negative generalisations about trans people or GC women?

Was it my OP or a reply?

thanks

The negativity was about males invading female spaces. What a shame that the moderators decided, once again, that mens feelings should supersede women’s safety and dignity. Shame.

Pointing out the obvious or hurting male feelings?

Ridiculous.

Are MN helping us to get used to our concerns about sharing our spaces with men being silenced by deleting these threads, perhaps?

its one of those rules of misogyny isn’t it??? Women can’t name male violence

it is a terrible betrayal of women by mumsnet. Money talks though hey.

But there weren’t any sweeping negative generalisations. Everyone was very careful to say “not all”. Well except those who had a vested interest in no debate.

Mumsnet seems very trigger happy when it comes to shutting down debate about women’s needs when they are in conflict with trans orthodoxy. This is deeply concerning.

I would love to know the response of the person who was insinuating women would feel more comfortable in mixed toilets if they only smiled more and that we shouldn’t be concerned that a minority of women would have to cross their legs and hold it because there was no service provided for their needs.

there was also first hand experience of women being filmed by camera under doors etc.

these are the attitudes that need to be acknowledged so they can be challenged. Not debate shut down and some gaslighting reason why.

No negative, sweeping statements about any group of people? How about men, can we say that men are the more violent sex? It seems we can - this is undebated - presumably because it is irrefutably true?

Is truth a reasonable defense for negative statements that hurt feelings?

I didn't see the original thread, so I am wading in blind. Reading posts here reminds me of times I've experienced men looking up under a stall at me whilst in a public toilet. I wonder if we need a #me too thread.

Women being required to linguistically genuflect to men instead of being able to truthfully and clearly describe their experiences seems to me to be adding to the injustice.

It was my OP that broke the guidelines.

I fear this means that we are not allowed to say that males who enter female spaces are automatically compromising female privacy and dignity.

No explanation from MNHQ?

What did you say @Leafstamp i didn’t see the OP?

Did you say that transwomen are as likely to be sexual offenders as any other male?

doj statistics actually suggest that - at least those transwomen who are in prison - are MORE likely to be sexual offenders.

I was looking for that thread. So we can't talk about anything that might offend men? Unbelievable.

I saw the thread, I don’t understand why it was deleted as it wasn’t making generalisations at all.

I was quite surprised that some posters didn’t know how hard women in history had to fight for things like ladies loos, which are so taken for granted nowadays that some women are keen to pass them on to men.
We should all know this history.

I can’t remember the exact wording of my OP but it was about when the topic of TW being in female spaces the question of ‘danger’ gets raised. (I wasn’t raising this). My point was that privacy and dignity are as much of a point as ‘danger’.

And, yes, I said that TW were over represented in the sex offender numbers in prisons.

I fear this means that we are not allowed to say that males who enter female spaces are automatically compromising female privacy and dignity.

That's not a generalisation though. You're not talking about a whole group, just those members of the group displaying that behaviour.

“And, yes, I said that TW were over represented in the sex offender numbers in prisons.”

Which is absolutely true so surely couldn’t be a reason to delete the thread.

So MN have reclassified facts as "generalizing" in order to delete a legitimate thread. Ridiculous.

The explanation is that it was a generalisation

So if you say all men xxx then you likely get deleted

Whereas is you say "some transwomen"' or "many men " you probably won't

Similarly if you have a specific example that's fine - but saying this transwoman did this so any transwomen might " it's dodgy. Whereas "this transwoman did that and we could minimise future risk ..." then that should be ok

There is a whole way to phrase things to avoid deletion whilst still discussing the issues

In sone ways it's fair - stereotypes are evil things no matter who they are applied to

I just wish MNHQ was as ready to delete agist posts

I’ve asked MNHQ for further clarification.

This clarification is needed. No mealy mouthed generalisations.

Sorry, i missed the original thread.

Are we allowed to observe that although only a minority of men pose a physical risk to women, nevertheless society accepts all men are excluded from women-only spaces? All men are excluded to manage the risk posed by the few, because while this may be unfair to the majority of men, it is even more unfair to women to expose them to the significant risk posed by a few men, especially when all the downside is borne by women and all the upside gained by men?

Are we allowed to observe that trans women have not been shown to pose any less risk to women (old, female meaning) than other males, and therefore any argument to include trans women in women's spaces based on not restricting the many because of the risk of the few applies equally to males who still identify as men?