QT/trans: What makes you want to be involved in the debate or advocating for trans rights? What would need to be achieved to make you stop?

submitted by peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

Gc tend to provide explanations of why the person is being misogynistic. You’ve never indicated why it’s bigoted other than “TWAW, it just is”.

Why is it bigotry to disagree with TWAW? Why is it bigotry to say females have rights that males cannot impede regardless of gender identity? What human rights are being denied to transgender people? Is recognition of gender identity a human right?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (24 children)

So if I can provide justifications I can call someone a bigot, or do they also need to be justifications that you agree with? Also the rules don’t mention any of this “provide justifications” business but rather seem to flat out disallow accusations of bigotry all together. Might want to change the rules to be more clear if that isn’t the case.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Take it up with the mods if you feel you need to be able to say people are bigoted here.

I don’t have to agree with it, it just needs to exist and be rational.

What is unreasonable about gc concerns when there is proof of harm from letting in males? (As the majority of humanity understand the term, not a small faction of white americanised western people)

What is unreasonable about our desire to preserve language that describes only adult human females?

What is unreasonable about not caring that people have gender identities?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (19 children)

I don’t I’m just saying that if I need justifications to call someone a bigot it isn’t what the rules say, and if the mods have to agree with my justifications when they and I see the issues very differently then that doesn’t seem very fair.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We have one gc (I think?) mod, one trans mod, and one “confused” but I’d say based on their comments qt mod. There’s no reason to act as if they’d automatically see things differently.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

You have zero QT mods, trans or cis status doesn’t matter

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. Porcelain seems very qt to me

  2. I’ve personally said I’m fine with whatever you call me as long as you can back it up in a factual way.

  3. If you think we need a qt mod you should tell the mods. It’s fair to have one.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

So applying the rule isn’t fair, applying it the same way you applied it to tra getting called misogynistic isn’t ok, and nobody suggested mods have to agree with any justification you might have so idk where you’ve pulled that one from.

What would be fair? The rule not applying to you? Cause what I’m getting it that you have no justification for calling anyone here bigoted but still find the rule blanket banning doing just that unfair?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

No I can provide my justifications but I doubt people would agree, and I doubt that the mods would really accept any justification as a legitimate reason to call someone a bigot.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Mods don’t delete things they personally dislike. Idk why you’re acting like you’ll get banned for wrongthink. That’s TRA tactics.

If you can reasonably explain why we are unreasonably attatched to the idea of female rights, do so. If not, follow the sub rules and don’t call people that. Pretty easy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (11 children)

I think I’ll just play it safe and avoid such terms, as “reasonableness” is pretty subjective and I don’t trust GC mods to be expansive in their definitions of what qualifies. Maybe I’m just being unduly suspicious but I’ve generally found that mods can be petty tyrants whom feel free to insult people and then ban them when they complain.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So you think the mods here are petty tyrants who will censor you if you explain why you repeatedly call people bigots.

Mkay. I’m gonna dismiss anything else you might say based on how silly this is, and what it reveals about your thinking. Good luck with your trolling tho.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

Are you going to provide justification for calling me a troll?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I disagree that there are harms and that trans women are male, and I’m pretty sure that appeals to the majority concerning definitions is a fallacy

Because such language is outdated due to the understanding that sex is a spectrum

I mean caring about anything is subjective so it’s not wrong per say, but I would say that in the current context it can lead to negative circumstances for trans people

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think any justifications you provide would need to be based on more than tra consensus and your personal beliefs.

But yeah, personally, for me specifically, if you could prove that I’m a bigot I’d accept you calling me one. So not necessarily things I agree with, but specifically things rooted in fact, as opposed to “you’re transphobic because tras agree you are” and also not “you’re transphobic simply for not believing in my ideology”

The sub has the rule Houseplant posted as well as a “no misogyny” rule. There’s no “you can’t call out misogynistic comments” rule

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Then there appears to be a conflict in the rules as there is no “justification exemption” to the rule banning accusations of bigotry. If this isn’t the case then the rules should be made clearer.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree the rules should be clearer. But as I said, I’m fine with you calling me a bigot of you can prove that I am one. As long as your “proof” isn’t based on us not believing the same things, but actual facts.