Deleted/censorship on mumsnet now!

[HermioneKipper]

My thread asking about transwomen/transitioning/penises has been deleted.

Why are we not allowed to discuss this? It’s a genuine question and extremely relevant to the debate about transwomen entering female spaces.

There was no abuse of trans people that I could see aside from a few people attempting to derail by saying that they couldn’t see why women might be concerned about having to share their space!

This isn’t right

@ChocolateCoffeePot1

But those aren't generalisations *@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet they are the truth! How is a truth a 'generalisation'? Why can the truth not be posted? And, even if they were purely generalisations, how is a generalisation breaking some guidelines (which is a 'guide' anyway, so if you mean rules, write rules or TOS, 'guidelines' are by definition not compulsory as they are purely a guide*)? Nothing in those 'generalisations' breaks any guidelines, let alone TOS. They are harmless and general discussion.

They can pretty much do anything they want as long as theyre not breaking the law, using MN is a choice youre making, if you dont like their moderation policy you are free to leave and dereg anytime you want, flouncers corner is that way --->

@JustAnotherPoster00

Freedom of speech is important

Mumsnet is a business

Freedom of speech (something that doesnt exist in British law) means nothing more than the government cant censure you nothing to do with private business and its advertisers

Oh and transphobia shouldnt be included in the mythical British free speech either

Well said.

Yes, freedom of speech is important.

Anyone is entitled to go out on the street and spout their anti-trans spiel as much as they like.

Mumsnet does not have to facilitate that kind of hate.

Thanks @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet.

But other threads have been left looking like Swiss cheese before, so why did this one have to be deleted entirely?

Can you reconsider and reinstate it as Swiss cheese and posters who crossed the line will try to work within the guidelines in the future.

It's pretty clear the concern was more about the subject being discussed rather than individual posts within that discussion.

Many posts were what we'd consider civil and reasonable, as many again were breaking guidelines. This is why the entire thread was removed. The entire thread was not civil.

I realise moderation can be a tough job at times, but it was an important topic and question with many civil and reasonable posts. Therefore I think the individual posts that breached guidelines should have been removed. The thread could have been locked while mods cleaned it up and posted a warning.
It's incredibly frustrating that women cannot talk frankly about their concerns and objections to an imposed ideology.

Pro-women, not anti anything. Why so hateful?

We had opinions from transwomen on that thread too. Don't they count?

If you find women supporting women's rights so offensive maybe FWR isn't for you.

@CharlieParley

I've just checked. Open only to business and funded or career researchers.

Thanks! I've noted down what you've said about researching the archives. I guess at some point it might be open to the general public again. I might pay a visit then. Are you allowed to take notes or photocopy material?

Can we please not be rude to the HQ staff, I know feelings run high, my eyebrows have had a huge workout and the Prof Blanchard info on the now deleted thread has been most instructive.

But please, don't take it out on the mods. It is rude and aggressive to say for example, paraphrasing, "grow up" to a mod. I am not tone policing or asking for Be Kind, I am saying remember staff are people doing their jobs.
Thank you.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Thanks for clarifying, Becky.

I'd add my own frustration to the posters saying they have had posts deleted or been given a strike but they don't know why.

I've been in the same situation and either didn't get an email saying what I'd done wrong or it was something vague which lacked information I could use to ensure I stay in the guidelines.

I'm not a GF. I don't want to make trouble for MN because I really value this space.

However, it is very difficult to stick to undefined guidelines. I'm exasperated that unofficial moderators' can shut down women's discussion about issues which impact our lives.

I am glad that we have somewhere to discuss it, though and I'm glad that so many women benefit from the thoughtful posts on here. Some of those women are journalists and politicians and women with power - so, take heart, OP, it's never in vain.

We don't always mail a poster if they've had a post deleted (we will if it's a strike) but you are quite welcome to get in touch with us at any time if something we've done is baffling you - we will reply. You say that the guidelines are undefined - we try and make things as clear as possible but we do understand that some things deserve further explanation - as above, please get in touch. Wrt 'unofficial moderators' - this isn't something we see tbh, but even if a post was reported 100 times, if it doesn't break guidelines, we won't delete it.

How do I find said archives...need to know what spartacus is?

Because people who are not trans are not allowed to present arguments.

I've read in the past that if a thread on this subject has a lot of deletions then "certain readers" use this as evidence of transphobia on MN. Look at all the deletions, look at all the transphobia type of glee. So, that's probably why the thread was pulled.

The problem continues to be that we want a space to discuss this as women and men insist on registering with Mumsnet and searching for threads on this board to complain about. There is no freedom from male gaze and intrusion. They demand to own our spaces claim our bodies and police our thoughts. And then question and accuse of us hysteria when we say that makes us feel unsafe. Our physical embodied sex is inferior to their conception of it.

@onelittlefrog it’s not hate or anti-trans to ask questions though.

I do not hate trans people and nor do nearly all of the other posters on these threads. I would denounce anyone suggesting hate towards a trans person.

All we are doing is questioning and showing concern about the very real threat to women’s safety and rights.

If you cared about women you would understand this. It baffles me how anyone wouldn’t care about protecting vulnerable women and girls.

@FlibbertyGiblets

Can we please not be rude to the HQ staff, I know feelings run high, my eyebrows have had a huge workout and the Prof Blanchard info on the now deleted thread has been most instructive.

But please, don't take it out on the mods. It is rude and aggressive to say for example, paraphrasing, "grow up" to a mod. I am not tone policing or asking for Be Kind, I am saying remember staff are people doing their jobs.
Thank you.

Thank you! I can take it - but it's not nice all the same.

And Yes, I too am Spartacus.

@NonnyMouse1337

Many posts were what we'd consider civil and reasonable, as many again were breaking guidelines. This is why the entire thread was removed. The entire thread was not civil.

I realise moderation can be a tough job at times, but it was an important topic and question with many civil and reasonable posts. Therefore I think the individual posts that breached guidelines should have been removed. The thread could have been locked while mods cleaned it up and posted a warning.
It's incredibly frustrating that women cannot talk frankly about their concerns and objections to an imposed ideology.

People on that thread were talking about whether they felt it was permissable for a human being to keep a part of their own bodily anatomy.

Think about what that thread was actually saying. That people should remove a part of their body. Judging whether or not a person should remain in tact, without knowing anything about individual trans people's journeys, lives and experiences.

It's horrific, and it was coming from a large majority of people who are not themselves trans. Many of them may never have even spoken to a trans person, or got a trans person's side of this debate.

If people are truly interested in this topic then they should consider talking to trans people directly rather than shouting into an echo chamber where the majority of people are not trans, and trans views were not represented.

It was an incredibly unpleasant thread in all respects and I am glad the moderators removed it.

The thing is, by deleting the whole thread instead of individual posts, you are punishing those who post civilly, for the actions of those who post 'uncivilly'. Therefore, it is very easy for nefarious detractors to come in a get a whole thread wiped by using a few well placed posts. We know they do this intentionally to disrupt conversations.

Can MNHQ clarify how exactly we can discuss AGP, under what parameters? Is it just any mention of the word, or can we not speak of it at all? If not, why not? If we are not mentioning individuals, but speaking of AGP tendencies, why is this not allowed?

There is research out there showing that it is real, it exists. Why is it offensive to talk about? Prominent transwomen have acknowledged that they have AGP. We are not imagining this. And it does impact women in public spaces.

I sympathise OP, I remember when I got a few strikes back when I first started posting in FWR. I was pretty shocked at how much was moderated, on a women's site, where women are discussing how this affects us. It's infuriating.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet yes thank you for taking the time to try and explain Becky.

But I am still upset my thread was deleted as I think it was informative and helpful. There were very few posts breaking the guidelines

No pile-on from me FlibbertyGiblets, I agree completely that MN mods are in a difficult position here and I'm going to assume they're trying their best. They deserve courtesy.

It get deleted if people post transphobic views. That’s why we can say there is no transphobia on MN.

@Mulletsaremisunderstood

The thing is, by deleting the whole thread instead of individual posts, you are punishing those who post civilly, for the actions of those who post 'uncivilly'. Therefore, it is very easy for nefarious detractors to come in a get a whole thread wiped by using a few well placed posts. We know they do this intentionally to disrupt conversations.

Can MNHQ clarify how exactly we can discuss AGP, under what parameters? Is it just any mention of the word, or can we not speak of it at all? If not, why not? If we are not mentioning individuals, but speaking of AGP tendencies, why is this not allowed?

There is research out there showing that it is real, it exists. Why is it offensive to talk about? Prominent transwomen have acknowledged that they have AGP. We are not imagining this. And it does impact women in public spaces.

I sympathise OP, I remember when I got a few strikes back when I first started posting in FWR. I was pretty shocked at how much was moderated, on a women's site, where women are discussing how this affects us. It's infuriating.

We don't ban discussions about AGP - but suggestions that it's the main motivation for transition does not sit within our guidelines.

I sympathise with Mumsnet who have defended our right to a public space for this discussion, which is an incredible resource for so many women.
The fault is male interlopers seeking offense and attention. Online we need to be aware we are watched. The movement is gaining momentum offline now. Women will not submit.