Deletions within feminist thread..

[emskaboo]

could you please MNHQ give us your reasons?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/989721?pagingOff=1#20306563

Hello. Afraid I don't know the answer to this one but I will try to find out for you when we're all back in the office in the morning.

yes, please could you explain?

thanks Helen.

Thank you

Another one interested in knowing.

any news this morning?

Morning. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

OK, so those posts were deleted after being reported to us at MNHQ for being transphobic.

Trans-phobic my arse.

So now we have men dictating to us what female-ness is and when we contradict them on a mainly women's forum, they get our views wiped out, jsut as women's view has always been wiped out throughout history.

Nice one MN.

Actually Helen, that isn't IMHO a full enough explaination. In what way were they transphobic? People were discussing a view point expressed by a writer. Can you give a fuller explaination?

Yes can you define transphobia please and explain why transphobia is a Bad Thing.

If it is because you're afraid of a libel case, fair enough. If it's because you have more respect for a complaint about transphobia than you do about mysogyny, it's piss-poor.

Hello again.

OK, we're getting to the bottom of this bit by bit

Two of the posts (both by earwicga) were actually deleted because they contained personal attacks (on dittany).

Am just looking into the transphobic thang now. Will be back in a bit

ooh Helen, you'd better watch out. Someone I know made exactly the same joke in the THES and the next week they printed a letter accusing her of homophobia.

(Can you even imagine if misogynistic jokes got the same reaction?!)

OMG - am I going to have to delete myself?

depends how tolerant we all are of homophobia

OK, emskaboo's post and Sakura's post were both deleted after being reported for containing (in part) some transphobic language.

It was a difficult call for the person who was on site duty. Often the line between strongly held point of view and unacceptable point of view is a fine one - and one that we readily accept we're not always going to call the same way as others might.

But those comments were reported to us and our dog-eared guide to the Sex Discrimination Act of 2005 does say that "it was amended to expressly outlaw harassment on grounds of sex and on grounds of gender reassignment. Harassment does not have to be targeted at a particular victim who is known to be trans. It is enough that trans-phobic language, ?jokes? or actions create a hostile environment."

Trust that makes things a little clearer.

It doesn't for me I'm afraid, I would be grtaeful if you could email me directly with a copy of my post and the exact bit which was found to be transphobic highlighted, I think I might need to reflect on it and how I feel about it.

Thanks.

oh get over it

So does that mean that it is actually illegal to express the view that a man who has had a sex change operation is not necessarily a woman?

blimey, didn't even realise there was such a thing as being transphobic

see threelittlepebbles that is exactly my point...it seems that the policy is not applied fairly and consistantly.

HerBeatitude, if you're creating a hostile environment by doing so, yes. But no-one's going to come and lock you up for expressing a view in a non-hostile or inclusive way.

Some of the comments in question (and they're deleted so I can't quote now!) crossed the line between 'debate about the meaning of femaleness' and downright hostility, frankly.

Think that it's a v fine line and HQ will never win no matter what they do.

Helen,

Thanks for that, sorry can't reply via email as it is refusing to send.

Tortoiseonthehalf shell, I wanted to see my post because I was really concerned that in amoment of madness I might have said something 'downright hostile', but when I looked at it I was satisfied that I hadn't. I expressed a view which I pretty much repeated in a post later on. That post wasn't deleted so I can only assume wasn't regarded as being inappropriate.

In fact the only difference between the two posts were that in the first one I explicitly supported two posters with whom earwicga had already disagreed, and that if you ask me is the real motivation here, not defending the rights of those who define as transgender, or trying to prevent a hostile environment but an active and deliberate attempt by someone who by their own admission set out to 'bait the feminists on mumsnet'.

I am, (Forlornhope this is for you), so over this now and I'm retiring from these threads for a bit.