AIBU to think that if someone appears on mainstream media MN should not delete the discussion

[LesserCelandine]

Not a repeat of the other threads on one particular person’s appearance on Radio 4 but rather about whether MN should delete threads discussing that appearance or appearance by others on mainstream TV and Radio. I was shocked this morning to see MN had deleted one such thread.

It is one thing to comment on someone trying to live a private life who has been thrust unexpectedly into the limelight. It is another to censor discussion when someone has put themselves forward, especially if what they say breaches the law.

I completely agree, and if @mnhq are going to delete threads the least they can do is explain why, because otherwise it's censorship without a right to reply isn't it?

I want to people to hear me!

No, not like that!

Agreed it is also perfectly fine to refer to an individual using pronouns they may not personally like. When I am writing I am not obliged to censor myself to accomodate another person's preferences

Agreed.

Many/most posters here use pronouns to refer to sex not gender. It is a personal choice if we do otherwise for people in our personal lives. Demanding we recant words we don't believe in deference to a public figure is unfair.

This is the women's rights section of a women's forum. If there's a human out there publicly misrepresenting law which affects women then of course it's going to get talked about here.

I wholeheartedly agree. However, having discovered in the wake of the SC ruling just how difficult it has been for Justine/MN to keep these boards open for discussion I'm inclined to trust their judgement on this, frustrating though it is.

My guess is that the individual concerned (who is, of course, a lawyer) has made threats that MNHQ felt would be expensive, troublesome and potentially disproportionately damaging to defend and so they decided to pull the thread. It's annoying, but I get that they walk a difficult line.

But here's the thing: thousands of people will have read that thread before it was deleted. We were responding to his own words, and no amount of threatening or throwing legal weight around can stop women recognising misogyny and outrageous male privilege. We see it, we called it out. The very fact that the thread was deleted absolutely demonstrates this person's aggressive push to silence women who try to assert their own boundaries.

There is no legal requirement to use opposite-sex pronouns demanded by some either. To suggest there is is also misrepresenting the law.

Perhaps there is a legal hold up.

BBC sounds have still not released this morning’s episode

YANBU. Some people like to control women and shut them up. Whilst gracing the air waves with their particular brand of Men's Rights Activism.

Really it says it all that a male bodied person gets on Women's Hour to talk about eroding women's rights whilst we're not even allowed to chat. Oppression of the female voice is what it is.

I was screaming at the radio at all the 'oh it undermines transwomen's dignity' WHAT ABOUT WOMEN'S DIGNITY? Of course this is never asked, we're apparently a resource to be exploited at will.

And the interviewer never mentioned third spaces, which is the obvious solution. I ended up turning the radio off before I threw it at the wall.

Surely if someone chooses to appear on main stream media, they expect people to discuss their appearance (appearance used to refer to the spot on the radio/TV, not what they look like).

As it happens I was driven to google someone appearing on woman’s hour today, after a comment they made about being publicly ’out’. It was clear that they didn’t need to publicly ’out’ themselves at all.

And if that’s who the deleted thread was about, then it’s imperative we are allowed to discuss it because it was an appalling misrepresentation of the law. I’m holding hope that WH will be having other guests who represent the situation more appropriately.

The interviewee mentioned them- for people who don’t want to share with Trans people.

There were quite a lot of comments made about the person's appearance - as in how they look

YANBU. Making threats and having a thread deleted (as I assume is what happened), broadcasts that the person has no argument to the comments here. Like many others, I got the chance to read the thread before it went, and I took a screenshot of the screenshot (!), where the poor persecuted complainer told women on this site to “get back to their cauldrons”.

But if relevant to the point discussed on the item they appeared (eg ‘passing’) on then that should not be censored either.

This is relevant though because like most of these men he's completely failed to disguise himself as a woman. So it's obvious when he uses female spaces that he shouldn't be there. Whereas other female impersonators can sometimes, rarely, get away with it without being detected. Not that they should be there either.

Perhaps we need a list of the points made in an interview than they can be explored one by one

Hi all, We're happy to clarify why the previous thread was deleted. We absolutely do allow discussion of public figures and their media appearances, and we're not in the business of shielding people from criticism, particularly where public commentary or legal arguments are involved. But we also expect threads to stick to the substance of what’s been said or done in the public domain rather than veering into personal territory. In this case, the thread had crossed that line for us. The fact that the person is also a Mumsnet user added an extra layer, and on balance, we felt removal was the right call.
We’re not trying to stifle discussion by any means but we do ask that it stays forthright without tipping into the personal, as that helps no one.
Thanks.

So I guess it is forbidden to reveal that the reason some males like dressing as caricatures of females is because it is a fetish for them?

RMW made a statement about having ‘outed’ himself so being able to talk about the law, whereas many trans people will be passing in their workplace and the change in policy forces them out.

It was clearly unnecessary to out RMW- RMW does not pass.

This statement and the conclusions that hang from it are a reasonable subject for discussion.

There is no need to make unpleasant personal attacks, but every need to identify that RMW does not in fact pass so the entire edifice crumbles.

How disappointing.
I've only come on MN today to find a discussion on WH today.

It’s excessive, stifling and frankly oppressive to delete an entire thread *BeckyAMumsnet *when individual comments could be deleted instead.

It's gaslighting to pretend and to try to force others to pretend - as so many men do - that women can't immediately recognise sex. As indeed can other mammals such as dogs.

This is the heart of the issue, of the abuse being foisted upon women. Everyone knows that men are men. It's vanishingly rare for someone to 'pass' in person.

'Lived experience' doesn't seem to count when it's women's lived experience and perception of reality, somehow.

Why on earth why the whole thread deleted though? Has Robin been wielding his barrister badge and threatening legal action?

Thanks for this @mnhq However, please define 'tipping into the personal' in this instance? Surely if the discussion is about TW and whether they pass or not, then there has to be an element of talking about that person's appearance, because it's relevant. I'm just not seeing that a whole thread has to be deleted, surely deleting individual comments would be fairer, if indeed any of them meet the threshold of 'personal'.

I’m angry that valuable comments are lost amongst those deemed too personal or whatever.

Do women really have time to write everything out twice? Some of us are also unwell/ disabled so it’s doubly frustrating when trying to read and sometimes comment.

Shows just how much power the likes of RMW have though doesn’t it.