Another thread deleted with no explanation

[stumbledin]

I started a thread about how a court in Brazil had given a man the right to be entered as the mother of a child on the birth certificate.

Not just for discussion but to share the info.

Now the thread has gone.

Its just plain rude of @MNHQ to not inform someone they are doing it, and underhand of who ever made the complaint not to have the guts to either comment on the thread or DM me.

I wanted to add two other links that came up yesterday from 2 other countries.

So just in the past month this thread, the ASDA ad thread and the one that again was sharing information about research into the murders of trans women.

I dont know which is worse. MNHQ not thinking they have to bother to explain their actions. Or those on mumsnet who are so conceited that they think they can decide for the rest of us what we may or may not talk about.

It makes being part of this forum not as positive an experience as I once thought it was.

Was it this one? I can still see it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4022828-Male-Parent-Wins-Battle-in-Legal-Fight-to-be-Recognized-as-Biological-Mother-of-Child-Brazil

I broadly agree though some thread deletions are annoying and it would be nice to have more clarification on that front.

I did get an explanation re the ASDA shirt thread when I asked about it from the thread you started in response to its deletion, which I posted on that second thread (in case you didn't read my clarification, it was not me who reported the original thread, I was as baffled as you were by its deletion). You may not agree with the reasoning, but MNHQ did explain it.

We removed the thread as several posts broke our Talk guidelineses_ for generalising and conflating LGBT with pedophilia and child grooming. We've no issue with users raising concerns about the appropriateness of messaging on a shirt - or anywhere tbh, especially with regard to the safeguarding of children, but posts on this thread, including the OP, were not clear enough as to what groups they were referring to.^

Starting a thread and using @MNHQ does not seem to be an effective means of communicating with them - I don't think it corresponds to a NN which gets notifications. you need to report your thread to get their attention. It may not be obvious but the report button isn't just for reporting bad stuff - it can be used to nominate a thread for Classics or the talk roundup.

Anyway... glad the brazil thread is still there, I don't know about the other you mentioned so maybe that's worth asking them about directly?

Well now I feel a bit of an idiot!

I searched under Biological, nothing came up, and then Brazil and that showed a different thread.

So apologies. So thanks Ova for tracking it down.

And the ASDA I dont understand. If there was a post or some posts conflating LGBT with pedophilia delete them. It is just sloppy and unprofessional to delete the whole thread. And my OP was just a quote of the tweet that had alerted people to the t-shirts.

But, as I said, who are these posters who keep running of to MNHQ and not have the guts or honesty to directly say to someone. The is a board of (I assume) adults. Part of helping get arguements across is for instance saying something like "I think you seem to be saying x or y, can you clarify". It is so cowardly and underhand.

The other thread was again a newspaper report of research done (and this will probably now get deleted!) saying that some not all murders of trans women werent because of transphobia but because of "deception". This is a theme that has come up on other threads, where both men and women have been convicted of obtaining sex through deception. There were (from memory) quite long discussions about was this a criminal act, how should it be punished and so on.

So when I posted the link to the article it never occured to me that it wasn't within that same area of issue. But some(one) decided it was victim blaming. And maybe the report was, but then why not point out that the report was flawed. And instead of expanding the discusion to look at this aspect some(one) ran off because they decided then knew best and this is what people were doing. Never for one moment thinking I should argue this out. Or if there was an individual post explicitly saying this getting that deleted.

Again there were follow ups to that article which I would have added to the thread but I suspect the same person(s) would now feel obliged to continue that reporting on this in this way was victim blaming would again not allow it.

This mean this isn't even like twitter or something.

This is just under hand and extremely insulting to the intelligence and ability of contributors to threads on FWR who are more than able to articulate arguements or just make a simple statement such as "this makes me uncomfortable as it could be used to blame trans women".

In fact the main point of the article and therefore the thread that this was one thing that you could say trans women and women had in common. Having more to fear from straight men than anyone else. One in relation to gender and one in relation to sex.

Who these FWRers? On whose behalf do they think they are acting when they do this?

Also apologies to @MNHQ!

But still think when you delete a thread you should out of courtesy notify the OP why you have done it.

Thanks

I agree that if someone makes a report without first asking for clarification as to meaning, intent, etc., it is lazy. For the rest of us watching and reading (we are here to learn, grow, support, etc.) we've now been denied fruitful and civil discussions- and I'm never worried about disagreements done in good faith. When the OP seems in good faith, it can seem cowardly not to engage, but just report.

I will also add that when I joined MN, being a new but semi frequent poster on FWR made me subject to a few hard questions as to my intent. But after lurking and reading past discussions, I now understand why.

Who these FWRers? On whose behalf do they think they are acting when they do this?

Why on earth do you think the people silently reporting threads like that are 'FWRers'? you don't even have to be a member of MN to report a thread. There are people out there whose stated aim is to bring down FWR or MN in general.

I agree errol, this is what i posted on the other thread

‘All the regulars know that the preference on FWR is to let personal attacks etc stand

We also all know that there are people watching who report yawn bless biscuit etc

So why the jump to FWR women are reporting valid and important threads?

I appreciate the OP Misread errols post but I’ll be honest i didn’t appreciate the following lecture

Its a shame that FWR regulars are getting told off when the odds are really good that its not us

Its quite obviously the plan, divide and conquer‘

I agree that mnhq should tell posters why they are deleting their threads

Plus quite obviously they could be on every other thread and just lurking of FWR

It's not actually that easy to search threads on here @stumbledin

I found it by searching Mumsnet Feminism Chat + key words on Google which I tend to find is more effective!

@OvaHere

It's not actually that easy to search threads on here *@stumbledin*

I found it by searching Mumsnet Feminism Chat + key words on Google which I tend to find is more effective!

No thats very true

Sometimes i have to advance search myself to find threads (that ive Been on Obvs)

stumbledin, I’ve sent you a pm.

I didn't know non FWR could report! Again in MNHQ explained this would help.

I haven't said anything about errol - but should have said thanks for asking for an explanationa - and Rufus having an opinion isn't a lecture. Its my opinion. If you are part of MN and report a thread without contacting the OP or making a post on the thread I think that is gutless and under hand.

But just to repeat in MNHQ made a clear statement this type of confusion wouldn't arise.

I didn't know non FWR could report! Again in MNHQ explained this would help.

Yeah... it's something that started a while ago, perhaps unwisely, when MN was getting flak for alleged 'transphobia' and threats from TRAs.

Rufus having an opinion isn't a lecture

You think it was expressing an opinion

It came over to me as a lecture...but I’ll leave it there as i Can understand why you were Pissed if you didn't realise how the reporting system works now

Sorry...obviously i dont mean this op was a lecture

Thanks for the alternative search idea. It has driven to distraction trying to find threads!

If anyone wants an invite code to Ovarit message me. It's run by women and you can talk about these freely.
I will check your history because we need to be careful.

There was a thread discussing how it was "deception" and not being trans that caused literal murders? I absolutely think stuff like that should be deleted, how horrible.

I don't think it's underhanded to report things. If they break talk guidelines then MN will delete them, and if not then they won't.

Well, yeah, if your talk guidelines are kept vague ands ever changing then there’s plenty of scope to delete posts that non members don’t like.

There are some posts which clearly break guidelines which certainly should be reported. As 'troll hunting' is itself against guidelines, some of them there's not much point doing anything except report straight away.

I don't think that's the sort of thing the OP is referring to.

CloudyVanilla - sorry the point of the thead was discuss the contents of an article. This is exactly why this reporting is just about someone not understanding the purpose of the thread. Like someone not bothered to see that the OP on the ASDA t-shirt was someone's tread.

There is a world out that where things are being said. FWR is about the real world.

And if you dont believe that deception is the real reason you can say that on the thread or better still make use of the link to the article to challenge not just the author but the publisher. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away, and in fact by silencing yourself and others you allow that point of view to proliferate.

And just out of interest how is it different to have a discussion on that "deception" than the one that covered and Israeli woman suing an Arab man for obtaining sex by deception, or the woman who thought she was in relationship with a man.

And as the article said - ie the main point - was that trans women and natal women had this in common. They both have a common threat heterosexual men.

How can we develop arguements and analysis if some posters, because they dont like an issue, dont want anyone else to talk about it. That is cancel culture. You dont have to take part. MNHQ will err on the side of caution. And as they showed in their response to the ASDA ad thread didn't check their facts.

In you own life do you feel entitled to tell people around you what they may or may not discuss? Do go through newspapers cutting out the articles on topics you dont like?

Sorry correction:

Like someone not bothered to see that the OP on the ASDA t-shirt was someone's tread.

Should have been:

Like someone not bothered to see that the OP on the ASDA t-shirt was someone's tweet.