Ok, it's time to update the rules

submitted by grixitperson[M] from self.GCdebatesQT

When i created this sub, the rules i put in were simple: no abuse, be civil. But when new mods were added, who had previous experience in this kind of discussion, i deferred to their ideas. So they rewrote the rules. I d'dn't like some of them. For instance: no "misgendering". I don't think that's a good way to have a debate, because it requires the GC side to concede a point before it starts. And "tim" and "tif" are banned, but not "cis", that's also unbalanced.

Nonetheless, the sub was running smoothly for some time. The GC mod left, but the QT mods operated with a light touch. And most of the dialog was on point and resepctful.

It all seemed to change recently though. This happened after we started getting an influx of disingenuous posts from the QT side. They posed arguments along the lines of "there's blue and there's yellow, but also shades of green, so how can there be just male and female?" and never engaged with even the most well conceived answers.

Sadly, such ploys seem to have soured the mood here and exacerbated the problems with the rules.

So, i'm going to rewrite them.

Anyone who wants to make suggestions may respond here or PM me.

top 100 commentsshow all 120
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

My suggestions for rules:

Holocaust/nazis are off limits. Comparisons are out. Implying similarity is out. Pretending we have ever killed anyone is out.

If you accuse someone of contributing to suicide, let’s make it a suicide that has happened and not one you’re imagining. Preferably include footage of when we supposedly kick out the chair.

I’d also like to remind tra posters about how the lack of rules is not as great for gc as they think. One of y’all was allowed to tell me I am a moral failure for not medically assisting my rapist after I broke his nose. Your side is allowed to defend rapists here with nothing more than a warning. We’re not getting special treatment.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you are talking about me, I got a 30 day ban for “rape apologism” not a warning.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which is nothing when you stated it’s a moral failure to not assist ones own rapist if you harm them defending yourself.

Any sensible reaction would have been to permanently ban you, or to at least require you to explain an understanding of why that’s considered despicable before being able to interact here again.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not relitigating it, just pointing out that it was a ban not a warning.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Holocaust/nazis are off limits. Comparisons are out. Implying similarity is out.

Hard disagree. The holocaust appropriation is one of the most disgusting things TRAs do, but policing speech like that shouldn't be anywhere near a "GC value". If you're not okay with GC speech being policed elsewhere you should not be okay with TRA speech being policed here (short of things like inciting violence or accusing specific members of killing a specific person).

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

It’s not a gc value, it’s a decent human being value. The person suggesting this is Roma, 800,000 Romani were murdered during the Holocaust. And she’s requesting that qt not be allowed to accuse her of being similar to the people who murdered her people, simply because she doesn’t agree with trans ideology.

I for one, second the implementation of this rule.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don't really understand what your point is because I already agreed that it's disgusting. You didn't actually address my criticism of the proposed rule which was that even abhorrent speech should be allowed on a debate forum.

If you think GC should be able to say things that TRAs find abhorrent, TRAs should be able to say things that GC finds abhorrent. You don't get to have a different set of rules for both sides. You don't get to criticise the pro-censorship stance of the trans rights movement and then turn around censor things you personally find disgusting (I also find it disgusting, just to reiterate that again).

Free speech and anti censorship have long been values of the left. Maybe people are starting to forget that now with how the mainstream left has started to burn and ban books and silence, bully, harass and deplatform everyone who diverges from the acceptable narrative, but this is not a traditional leftist value. And if you believe in free speech and anti censorship then you don't get to pick and choose when you apply this value and when you don't (if your values aren't consistently applied then they're not your values) or make exceptions for yourself or justify why it's different for your side or 'yeah but x actually IS abhorrent, unlike y'. That's not how it works.

It's a debate forum. You're going to be uncomfortable sometimes. And further, it's better to let them say it and let people see what they're really like, anyway.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

My point is that I agree with u/houseplant lol

Why exactly should abhorrent speech be allowed on a debate forum? Particularly when the specific “abhorrent speech” has nothing to do with the subject? GC is not comparable to Nazis. The issues between trans people and people who aren’t trans has nothing to do with Nazis in any way. Slurs are abhorrent speech, but we ban some slurs/offensive terms, and even without it specifically saying not to use other slurs, we know not to use them. We ban terms that aren’t even slurs, just because gc or qt don’t like the term.

I didn’t say qt shouldn’t call themselves women, argue that TW are female, or advocate for transing children, even though I find all of those abhorrent. I understand that both sides may say things the other finds offensive, the Nazi comparison is crossing a line and we have people who participate in this sub who are Roma and Jewish and some who may come from other races/cultures who were victims of the Holocaust.

QT can chime in on this post, it wasn’t directed solely at GC. If we compare them to anything that’s inaccurate, irrelevant to the topic and offensive to them, and they brought it up, I wouldn’t protest.

You keep saying it’s a debate forum- I’m well aware. The thing is, we need rules in place that make both sides want to participate. That’s why I said what I said about pronouns in my comment, and that’s why Im saying that the Nazi comparison is too much and shouldn’t be used here. every time it is used, it derails the post and that’s what we focus on instead of the topic and it is offending people who very well could have had family affected by the Holocaust.

I agree that letting people see what they’re really like is beneficial to gc, I’m just saying I see how explosive the comparison gets, every time it comes up it leads to both sides attacking and saying rude things (I’m obviously guilty of this myself). It just seems better to stop allowing it. Every single rule here could be argued to go against free speech, so unless you are pushing for no rules at all, everyone just says whatever they want, it doesn’t make much sense to oppose the idea of a “no Nazi/Holocaust comparison” rule, but not the other ones that restrict the language we can use Imo

Eta- I doubt this will become a rule, I’m just saying I agree that it should. These types of comparisons are just a way for qt to avoid addressing the actual topic of discussion, aside from it being offensive

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Technically it’s already a rule

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I knew you’d come back lol didn’t think it would be the same day

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

You’re right it is a rule, my point is just that in order for the debate to remain active, both sides have to compromise. Both sides have to feel the environment is balanced enough that we are willing to participate. Removing any type of restriction guarantees the sub dies out. The Nazi issue always causes drama and even on Reddit we had people who come from the ethnicities and communities that were victimized by Nazis speak out against it. I argued there frequently that the racist comparisons about black people shouldn’t be allowed, so I guess I think I’m trying to support people who may feel similarly about the Nazi comparisons (I also just think it’s going too far, but my thing is more about trying to support the people who are the same ethnicities as the victims in particular, along with it just being an offensive analogy )

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

It technically isn’t where I am.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What isn’t?

Eta- I get you. You mean it’s not the same day where you are?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Yes

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My point is that I agree with u/houseplant lol

Okay, I guess I made the mistake of thinking that by replying to me you were addressing my comment rather than just seconding the person I was responding to. My bad.

Why exactly should abhorrent speech be allowed on a debate forum?

I explained why in detail in my last comment.

Slurs are abhorrent speech, but we ban some slurs/offensive terms

I don't agree with that either.

If we compare them to anything that’s inaccurate, irrelevant to the topic and offensive to them, and they brought it up, I wouldn’t protest.

So transwomen objecting to being referred to as 'male' on the grounds that's it's offensive or inaccurate (to them) is fine with you? Or would you say, well no, because it's not actually offensive and inaccurate? And then turn around and not be okay with QT vetoing the things that YOU want to police because THEY don't find them offensive and inaccurate? Consistently apply your values. Don't just apply them to others.

The thing is, we need rules in place that make both sides want to participate.

What about people who won't participate because their arguments are censored? I won't participate if I can't call a transwoman a male, for example.

Every single rule here could be argued to go against free speech, so unless you are pushing for no rules at all, everyone just says whatever they want, it doesn’t make much sense to oppose the idea of a “no Nazi/Holocaust comparison” rule, but not the other ones that restrict the language we can use Imo

I already gave some examples of things I think should be off limits in my first comment. Inciting violence, doxxing, rape or death threats against other participants, etc. But other than that, yes, I don't think rules that restrict what language we can use have any business being put in place, for reasons I have already outlined in detail.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Transwomen objecting to being called male is not the same as someone who is not a Nazi not wanting to be called a Nazi. TW being male (or not for some qt) is very obviously related to what we are here to debate- that’s why I said inaccurate and irrelevant as well as offensive. If gc wanted to line up trans people and gas them, obviously the comparison to Nazis would be applicable and relevant.

If qt said they didn’t want to be compared to totalitarian governments, fascists or dictators just because they want to compel speech, and it became a rule, I’d avoid using that comparison. I’m not applying different values, I’m saying yes offense is expected- but the offense should be restricted to things that are actually related to what we are discussing. GC should be prepared to see misogynistic comments (to an extent, especially since qt often don’t see the misogyny in their words), we should be prepared to see all manner of things that qt don’t realize are misogynistic, and qt should be prepared to hear gc people make biologically accurate statements about them, and say that women deserve their own spaces- that’s a huge part of the very thing we all come here to debate over. Nazism is not related, and despite the many times it’s been thrown at us, nobody has ever made a compelling argument for claiming it’s comparable. I think even qt can see why and how gc referring to TW as male is relevant to the sub.

I wasn’t saying that gc shouldn’t call TW male in my original comment, maybe I worded that poorly, I apologize. I was saying that I think us calling TW participants he/him is going to make them not want to participate.

I get that you don’t want to restrict any type of speech unless it incites real life harm- but I only get that now. Because previously the only thing you focused on was the Nazi comparison, you didn’t make a case for no restrictions acro the board, you specifically spoke out about the Nazi stuff. I respect the argument of us all being allowed or say whatever we want- except if you want the sub to survive, if you want there to actually be qt/trans people willing to regularly participate and engage, we have no choice but to restrict some language. That’s just how it is. If we have free reign to call them Tims, tifs, or t****ies, they won’t come here. We already don’t have many qt members with the restrictions we currently have in place.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The rules say we posters on this sub must eschew terms like TIM & TIF and instead use

"(trans) natal male" or "(trans) natal female" when discussing issues relevant to one's assigned sex at birth.

Which has always made me feel very unwelcome, on tenterhooks and hesitant to post here.

Fact is, the terms "natal male," "natal female," "AFAB" & "AMAB" don't just appropriate the experience of some people with DSDs in previous eras, they reflect total ignorance of how common prenatal testing is in our age. These acronyms & the thinking behind them erase the experience of billions of women who've learnt the sex of their fetuses long before their pregnancies resulted in live births, miscarriage or stillbirth. And it erases the experience of all the girls & women forced into sex-selective abortions in the first or second trimester.

Whenever I see "natal male, "natal female," "AFAB" & "AMAB" I flash back to the unpleasant, anxiety-producing experience of having CVS 30 years ago, to the trauma of suffering a miscarriage of a fetus whose sex was known - and to the experiences of my sisters and friends who had their own miscarriages and stillbirths of fetuses whose sex was already known or was determined in post-mortem testing.

The terms "natal male," "natal female," "AFAB" and "AMAB" seem to suggest that the only persons who count during pregnancy, childbirth and the neonatal period are the offspring. The women who've conceived, gestated and risked their lives to give birth seem not to matter at all. To the "natal male/female" & "AFAB/AMAB" crowd, the women from whose bodies they issued seem to be totally invisible.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

IMO not using TiM or TiF and instead using trans natal whatever, is a distinction without a difference. I doubt understand how it’s supposed to be a concession to QT

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It was acceptable to qt on Reddit, and I haven’t seen any comments from qt about what rules they want specifically. I don’t think we’d know what terms qt is open to us using unless qt chimes in and we discuss from there.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

It was discussed on the old site briefly. It didn’t seem like many QT people thought it was a compromise at the time either. I think maybe it was something one of the Mods suggested when the old sub was created or something? It was a while ago.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Idk I was only there for about 8-10 months before it got shit down, and I didn’t I wow what term to use so I asked and I was told that qt said to use natal female/male. I don’t like the term, so I never used it, I just always use transwoman/transman or male/female

But if we have need of another option, qt would have to speak up about what works for them otherwise all gc can do is guess. I’m not fully understanding why we need terms besides transwoman/transman, male/female, man/woman? But if others need other terms we still need qt to speak up so we can figure out what terms to use

Eta- apparently my phone autocorrects “shut” to “shit”

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Yeah I don’t see a point to such terms either. If calling trans women male is allowed then just use that, calling us trans natal male or even TiM seems like extra steps with no real benefit to QT. Maybe the transmedicalists or GC friendly trans people feel differently, idk.

I remember you from the old sub, you told me the sex spectrum was a silly idea there as well if I’m not mistaken.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It’s very likely that I did, I stand by that statement lol

I have a lot of reasons why I think it’s silly, but I don’t think this is the post for that

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Of course

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I never liked the trans natal male or female thing to be honest. I've only used it because it was recommended in the rules and I wanted to make clear to what sex I was talking about.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It just seems like extra steps that don’t really benefit either side.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, I can see it now, but I joined the sub about 2 months ago and I though QT have accepted it as a compromise.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe some do, but I don’t understand why. Perhaps the transmedicalists like it?

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Thank you!

    I do wonder if the misgendering thing will cause fewer qt to be willing to participate? I’m personally fine with using neutral pronouns, if cis isn’t being used for gc.

    I also think there should be some type of rule about addressing points made, and citing proof of claims (for both sides) when someone makes a statement and claims it to be a fact. Though idk how those rules would be enforced lol

    I also wonder about the misogyny, transphobia, and racism rule. Like, what are we considering each of those things?

    I think maybe it would be nice to have some clarity about that, but it’s difficult because it seems like each of those things means something different to both sides.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

    Seems like a fundamental issue since both sides seem to think the other sides premises are inherently misogynistic/transphobic

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    I’m not talking about our views and comments overall, I’m talking about specific language things.

    Gc:

    doesn’t want to be called “cis”

    Don’t want to be compared to Nazis.

    We want to be able to use what we consider biologically accurate terms (idk the consensus on pronouns, im talking about male and female, tho as I’ve said I think neutral pronouns for qt is the best compromise)

    Qt

    Don’t want to be misgendered (I’m talking pronouns, I don’t think we can have any type of discussion if we can’t refer to TW as male or tm as female)

    Don’t want to be called tim/tif and the other list of things I can’t remember all of them

    ...I’m not qt so idk what else they want they haven’t commented much on this post

    I think both sides should address the points, questions and comments they receive, especially before making a new post or thread

    And I think both sides should have to cite their sources if they claim something is fact and it’s factuality is called into question

    As far as misogyny and transphobia- I think those are both a large part of why we’re here, they’re both going to come up in almost every post. To be fair, gc calls “misogyny” just as frequently as qt calls “transphobia”. And both sides think we are right to call it out, as well as both sides thinking that we aren’t being misogynistic/transphobic, so it’s a draw.

    I think mods should clarify what specifically is considered misogynistic/transphobic as far as the rule, but my point is just that I don’t have a problem with gc calling someone or something misogynistic, as long as we can explain why in a reasonable way, and even though I usually disagree, I don’t have a problem with qt calling out what they consider transphobia, as long as it can be explained in a reasonable way thats not based on feelings or disagreement.

    I also still think the “basic understanding of human anatomy and biology” should be a thing but I think I’m alone there lol

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

    I mean I don’t think “cis” is super important to the QT side. For years I would just say “non trans woman” and it seemed to work out well.

    I think the problem with explaining accusations of transphobia or misogyny is that both sides won’t agree on what constitutes that even with explanation. So yes the mods offer some guidance as to what the subs position would be helpful.

    A rule that wasn’t really followed on the old sub, but that I think would be helpful theoretically would be not to reference sub members sex/gender when making arguments unless they themselves make it a topic of conversation. Where it broke down the last time was that the GC side would respond to QTs arguments with “oh you just think that because you’re x” even when they had not referenced themselves. I don’t expect GC to go for it though as accusing people of thinking a certain way because of whatever demographics they are thought to belong to seems a pretty standard procedure for GC. Such a rule worked for a bit though in the “Moderate Politics” sub on reddit, before the mods gave up on keeping discussions moderate.

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

    I always took the misogyny/transphobia rule to mean “no blatantly irrefutably misogynistic/transphobic comments” like advocating violence or threatening violence type of things, otherwise we’d all be breaking this rule from someone’s perspective. I’m not a mod so of course I have no idea what they mean, but I can’t imagine it means the things either side generally calls out. I can think of very few comments I found misogynistic that I thought went just beyond anything that should have ever been said here, as opposed to typical misogyny as I see it, or even misogyny that the commenter doesn’t recognize in their own views, and same for transphobia, I can acknowledge between this sub and the Reddit one, I’ve seen some transphobic comments (from my perspective). But I think generally, the disagreeing is fine, even if it gets frustrating.

    I don’t know how we’d really not bring up someone’s sex/gender? Unless you mean something like me saying “I don’t want to share spaces with males” vs “I don’t want to share spaces with you because you’re male? Like as long as qt is speaking generally not specifically about themselves, we should only speak generally about sex/gender?

    I think that’s fair for the most part, but like my convo with masks* today on another post (talking about women’s hobby groups including TW or not), it’s hard sometimes to express that we see a flaw/inconsistency/overlooked aspect without addressing the fact that qt is looking at things from only their perspective (saying I view myself as a woman, therefore I don’t see the problem), as opposed to from the perspective of everyone involved (saying it’s more about the women in the group, not just the individual who wants access). I don’t know how we’d navigate that. I hope that makes sense.

    You’re also kind of accusing gc of something you’re currently doing by leveling that accusation at us, lol

    The threads are gonna get tense at times, people on both sides will get angry or frustrated for sure, I don’t think we’re ever gonna have a perfectly polite and civil environment all the time, but I do think with more clarity surrounding the rules, things could get better and we could focus more on the actual debates rather than petty insults and tangential back and forths

    *not at all trying to come for masks, this was just the most recent example I could think of

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    I think that is how the rule about no transphobia/misogyny is generally viewed, but the part of me that is an absolutist can’t help but see prejudice almost everywhere in all conversation and feel like it should all be treated the same regardless of how small or large the acts are. I realize though that constantly policing everyone for subjective purity isn’t conducive to the running of a healthy sub, but I have a problem figuring out where that line is, and whether or not I’m upholding systems of oppression by not calling out everything I think is problematic. But I guess other people feel the same way, maybe? idk.

    Yes that’s what I mean, and it does make sense what you’re saying and if someone is using their identity rather than arguments to make declarative statements about issues then I feel like critique is fair. I just feel like sometimes there might be assumptions about why people believe things. Like someone can hold a problematic opinion because of the context they were raised in, but pinning it on simply being a member of a demographic is a simplification of a more complex chain of events that led them to those beliefs. And to be honest you don’t need to know why someone is wrong or problematic to identify that they are wrong or problematic or to explain to them the same. It just seems unnecessary to some extent and can cause defensiveness if the other party feels that you are mistaken. Maybe I’m wrong though.

    That was not my intent, and certainly not all GC posters behaved that way on the old sub. I was probably just extra sensitive to it happening as obviously I didn’t want myself to be the topic of conversation, so from my perspective I specifically tried to keep things general and not refer to myself or my experiences as being why I believed things, but it didn’t seem to help much. I was probably just noticing though the minority of the time when my own status was brought up rather than the majority of the time when it wasn’t.

    Here’s hoping 🤞

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Fair points.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    These rules/clarifications seem fair, I like them and would be happy to follow them. Anything to cut down on meanspiritedness or nasty or rude language. I don't really know what else to say about them or suggest.

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

    Thank you!

    [–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I also still think the “basic understanding of human anatomy and biology” should be a thing but I think I’m alone there lol

    As tiring as these discussions around biology are, I don't think we can really ban them since many of QT talking points depends on sex being a spectrum and "medical transition" results being more successful than they are.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about the posts where people have to literally explain how babies are made and how female vs males function.

    I don’t think referring to a spectrum or a medical transition is the same, I can’t word it well but I have an old comment I’ll look up and paste here. I feel like most of gc is tired of explaining the basic functions of male and female bodies.

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

    Idk why it won’t let me copy and paste or link, but it’s in a thread from two weeks ago, iworewhat asking about definitions.

    Even if people are gonna claim a spectrum or “medical transition” I think they should understand typical male and female functions. How many times can we be asked the same questions that have nothing to do with spectrums, gender, transition, no debates- just gc explaining that a vagina and a penis aren’t the same sex organ (eta for clarity- I’m not even talking and bottom surgery, I’m referring only to genitals at birth and people saying that humans all have the same genitals), and that a person who didn’t/can’t have kids is not sexless?

    [–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah, I understand what you mean, the weekly threads about "but what about this?" are tiresome, especially because the OPs don't even bother engaging with what we say. And some questions just look like trolling. I just feel like if we ban those threads, the same questions will pop up in other threads' comments. The reason why I keep the same questions is because it feels like a lack of understanding of science in general and biology in particular has helped to pave the way to the sex denialism we're living right now. Honestly, likely I won't convince any QT user, but maybe some fence-sitting users or lurkers will find useful. Or at least I hope so...

    [–]Penultimate_Penance 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

    I liked the old reddit GC debate QT rule where you couldn't use tim or tif, but you could write out trans identified male and trans identified female to avoid confusing people new to the debate. That rule made a lot of sense to me. We could have similar rules for AFAB and AMAB from the QT side.

    Natal male and natal female also feels like conceding the point, because it implies that sex isn't set for life, that it could somehow be changed later on.

    If someone demands atheists not use the Lord's Name in vain makes it impossible for atheists to effectively argue. Demanding that Gender Critical Users do the TRA equivalent of not using the Lord's Name in Vain aka using preferred pronouns and other language like AFAB and AMAB that all plays into the faith based belief in a gender identity and the erroneous idea that sex isn't set in stone.

    Demanding preferred pronouns is too much. No one should have the right to impose their own subjective personal beliefs on the rest of society. GCs need to be able to effectively argue clearly and concisely without kneecapping our language to appease the faith based beliefs of our opponents. Some Qt people's fragility is not GCs problem, just like fundie religious people's fragility are not Atheist's problem. Deeply held beliefs should be just as open to challenge as any other belief.

    We need to be able to say the emperor has no clothes, there is no gender soul, that person is a man, no one is born in the wrong body and clearly argue where the line between unchecked entitlement and actual civil rights issues should be drawn. If the QT side can accommodate the GC side on this I can tolerate them referring to people as Cis to make it easier for them to make their arguments and using their own terms that they are used to using, so they are not kneecapped either.

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

    Irrelevant question: Did you have a different username on Reddit? Your phrasing seems familiar, but I don’t recognize your username

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

    Yeah I did, but it was too closely linked to my real life so I changed it and used a more secure email for this account. With how virulent and violent many trans activists are I want to be as anonymous as feasibly possible. I don't want to deal with the McCarthy inquisition in real life if I can help it. Gosh it feels so weird having this level of totalitarianism coming from the left. Go figure, no political party or ideology is immune from tyranny. Got to push back no matter where it comes from even if I'm just doing it anonymously.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

    Ive never understood what difference it makes whether TiM/TiF, trans natal x, natal x, or just male/female are used. All seem equally GC in my view, so how is the preference for one over the other a compromise?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

    Tim and tif were formulated to be inflammatory and evocative of the male name Tim and the female name Tiffany. It’s formulated as an insult.

    [–]kwallio 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Thats not actually true. It was formulated to avoid referring to trans women as women and to point out that they are males. You may not like it but it wasn't about the female name tiffany and it wasn't made to be insulting.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

    I’ve heard the logic I just don’t agree. I find that for me terms like male and female are just as or even more offensive than TiM of TiF. I would prefer them honestly.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    That makes no sense to me at all. Tim is just male but purposefully more insulting.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    I don’t see how it is. It’s just a more con isn’t way of saying “male people who identify as trans women”. It seems functionally equivalent to calling trans people male. As for the “name” aspect I don’t consider names to be inherently gendered so it doesn’t bother me.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    I feel like TIM/TIF are always used by people think we are bad for most part. I read lots of GC content and it’s always negative towards the people those term refer to. Male and female can be neutral. If you feel like it’s in an insult to be male, that sort of is a personal hang up I feel like.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I never used it to be insulting, I didn’t realize it was used as an insult for a long time.

    I’m not at all advocating for adding it as an acceptable term, just offering that for me, I preferred using it in some instances because I understood it to mean that a trans person identified as trans, as opposed to as a man or a woman. I guess it felt less misogynistic to me to think that a “tim” is a male with dysphoria who connects internally with his perception of women and wanting to appear as one- as opposed to truly thinking of himself as a woman, if that makes sense? my brain is a mess but it just seemed like a more accurate and less sexist way of saying “identify as a woman”. I didn’t realize that trans people were upset because the acronyms were gendered names, I thought they were upset because it implied they didn’t in fact identify as the opposite sex, only the desire to be the opposite sex.

    In hindsight that was a pretty stupid interpretation for me lol

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Hi loveSloane! Maybe it’s my fault for spending so much time lurking in GC spaces, but I feel like it’s the only group that uses those words and everything said using them is negative. Years ago, GC used MTT or FTT instead, but they moved to TIM/TIF because of the misgendering aspect. I can’t link anything anymore since it’s gone, but people on r/GC said as much. I feel like if you want to refer to a trans person neutrally while acknowledging sex, there are better ways. I’m sure you didn’t mean it in a negative way, but I feel like the words have baggage at this point (not unlike the terf slur, albeit to a lesser degree).

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

    No I’m agreeing with you! lol just wording things badly. I’m saying I thought it was a neutral term and eventually realized it wasn’t. I was trying to say when I first heard of the terms I thought they had an entirely different meaning

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Lol. It could be me too. I’ve been all over the place mentally this week. 😜

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    Nah it isn’t “being male” that is an insult, it’s “applying a term that I don’t believe actually exists” that is the insult. It’s the same feeling that GC presumably has towards the term “cis”. They’re not offender by being cis, they’re offended at having a term they believe is part of an opposite ideology applied to them that is offensive. In any case my point was that given that the more offensive term (to me personally) is allowed, then why ban people from saying a acronym that is functionally equivalent (and honestly a little less offensive to me personally as it’s at least in acronym form) but with that added utility of referencing trans women specifically? If the other trans people here view it as more insulting though I suppose that’s reason enough to ban it.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    Nah it isn’t “being male” that is an insult, it’s “applying a term that I don’t believe actually exists” that is the insult.

    So you’d equally put off if people insisted on saying you were female? I’m skeptical. :P

    [–]kwallio 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Just for the record I'm GC. I don't have a problem with the term cis as long as its referring to groups as a whole, like cis women or cis men. I feel like lately the term cis has been thrown about as an insult to specific posters on here who have repeatedly said they don't want to be referred to as cis. I think if people say they don't want to be referred to as cis then that should be upheld. In general - don't be an ahole. To me it seems like the sub moderation has slanted QT here on saidit, but the old sub got "its r/gendercritical pt 2" feedback from QT posters on reddit.

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

    I understand if there is a need to make some compromises with language. However, I think the rules should be balanced for both sides. So, if GC can't "misgender" other users, then it's only fair QT don't call other users "cis" for instance.

    I don't think it's a good idea to allow anyone to acuse other users of things like genocide or inducing someone to suicide. Honestly, it seems hard to have a debate when you're defending yourself of those and, imo, things can only go downward from there. And besides ad hominem are low in the Pyramid of Debate.

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

    I don't think "no misgendering" automatically means using users' preferred pronouns. GC can pretty easily avoid that "concession" by avoiding the use of user's third-person pronouns. I don't sympathise with the QT side, but I think the "no misgendering users on this sub" rule is not an unfair one.

    I take issue with the language "misgendering". From GC's perspective "mis-sexing" = "misgendering". I would prefer the term "preferred pronouns" being employed instead. I don't know how to formulate the rule in a non-awkward way though, my attempt: e.g. use of non-preferred pronouns of other users is prohibited

    [–]grixitperson[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Good discussion so far. I'll do a summary tomorrow and hopefully move towards a consensus.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

    Hi everyone! I was away for a few days and everything has blown up!

    It looks like Gritix added another GC moderator, which is wonderful. I had asked for GC females to reach out to moderate previously, but no one had reached out. We need more people to moderate clearly.

    I will log in later as I have time to weigh in more on the rules discussion.

    I added nazi comparisons to the sidebar after we had an issue with that, although I’m not sure how many noticed.

    I would support something like banning “cis”, but I don’t think we should remove misgendering rules all together or remove the bans on tim/tif. Calling someone a male or a female isn’t misgendering though, but calling a transwoman user a man or transman user a woman is. I feel like a lot of QT doesn’t understand that distinction and a lot of GC consider man and woman to be purely sex words too, but feel like we should maintain that. This space is and, has been since the early Reddit days, dominated by GC. I feel like some compromise is important for dialogue. The main GC subs, Ovarit, Spinster, etc. already exist if someone just wants to vent without having to watch their language at all. We want QT people to come here (I believe) so I feel like that is a fair standard to have.

    We just need more moderation, especially lately. I clearly don’t have time to keep up with the number of requests this year and I tend not to be on when the most activity is happening.

    [–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Well, this was an unexpected development. I never was mod before and I still not sure whether I'm the best fit for the task, but I'll try to do the best.

    I'm afraid I didn't notice your addition banning nazi comparisons until you point it out, though.

    [–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I think you’re a great choice for mod.

    You’ve always come across calm, measured, and reasonable. Exactly what we need. (I turned down the offer cause I’d be a power tripping jerk no matter how hard I tried lol). You’re a great choice for the role.

    [–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks! Although, I'm not that calm. I just try to focus on the arguments and leave unsaid any not-so-nice thought I may have because I don't like scalate things if I can avoid it.

    [–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

    Are you a woman?

    I was shocked to read grixit is a dude lol I think I mixed him up with a lesbian Redditor named griffxx. 🥺

    [–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes, I'm a woman.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Wait, Gritix is a dude...

    He rarely says much and I guess I just assumed. I’m really not sure how I feel about that.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    I mean ideally it seems like you should judge them by how they’ve behaved right? No offense.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I don’t really much experience with how he behaved, because he rarely interacted with me or posted very much. I reached out, but we never got very far. Life as taught me repeatedly to have my guard up with men (and male trans people for that matter) especially if I don’t know them very well in a way I don’t with women. I don’t think that’s wrong of me necessarily.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Agree to disagree I suppose.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I’m glad you are mod! I’m sure you will do fine. Thank you for being willing to do it. I really do feel like another GC female mod was overdue. When they asked to make new mods at the beginning, the only two volunteers were trans and that’s not really balanced I feel like (even if we aren’t all QT). My 2021 real life has just been super busy (in a good way) and will only get to be more so, so having more people watching here will be such a big help. There has been more drama lately. We are growing so it’s expected I guess. Welcome!

    [–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks!

    [–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Thanks for stepping up to be a mod. You'll be great. I was asked to be a mod a while back but did not pursue it coz I believe I'd be terrible at it. Best wishes to you in your new responsibilities.

    [–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks!

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I spoke with Gritix a few months ago about rules. Here is what I said at the time and it’s still basically how I feel.

    Thanks for responding! I appreciate you creating this space. The current rules are the ones that were agreed to for the Reddit GCDebatesQT sub. I’m not sure who put them here if you didn’t (Ellie maybe), but my understanding is that this sub is a continuation of that one. We can certainly change the rules, although it should probably involve a conversation of more than just us. Maybe we could create a meta thread for feedback? I feel like the boundaries that exist here are generally good and I like us having a slightly different culture here than Gender Critical because we are ideally looking to debate the other side. I feel like disallowing terms like TIM/TIF are a part of that because rightly many trans people view those acronyms as misgendering. Since this is a debate space, we want those people to participate. It makes more sense to me just to ban “cis” for a similar reason than allow TIM/TIF. I think there is value in this place not just being another Gender Critical and I feel like having different rules helps with that. If GC users just want to speak without any limits, the main sub, LGBDroptheT, Ovarit, Spinster, etc. already exist for that I feel like.

    If you really do want to change things though, I feel like we should either do a meta thread seeking feedback from the users or at least have all mods discuss it (I don’t know the best way to do that or if there is a mod chat). I had never moderated anything before this and I only volunteered because mods were needed and no one else wanted to. GCDebatesQT is a special space though (only place like it) and I worry about changing too much.”

    I’m happy the meta thread is happening! I’m also happy to step away as mod if that would help. When Ellie asked for mods, I volunteering to do it because no one was really volunteering, but I don’t know if I’m active consistently enough right now. For moderation to be healthy though, we also need more communication between the mods and agreement on rules. I do really want a space that is a continuation of the Reddit debate sub.

    Edit: I edited the last part because of new information. Are there any other GC females interested in moderating? Maybe it’s wrong of me, but I’m not so comfortable having a guy make decisions for this subs direction.

    [–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (28 children)

    The primary/sole issue with this sub has always been one side is too hypersensitive, and rules are set in their favor so they will participate/debate.

    QT = Piers Morgan storming off set because someone said something (the truth) that he didn't want to hear. Lol

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

    What rules are set in QTs favor?

    [–]censorshipment 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (26 children)

    Trans people can't be called delusional. A person believing that she/he is something/someone that they're not is, by definition, a delusion... but here, it's a transphobic remark.

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/10/transgender-delusion

    Now consider one of our current popular delusions: that gender is a social construct rather than a biological fact. This is the notion that there are no biologically determined characteristics of either sex—that “male” and “female” are socially assigned roles. According to this worldview, a person is not simply male or female. In fact there are no “opposite sexes,” only a gender spectrum between femaleness and maleness (hence the prefix “trans-” in “transgender”), and one may choose to identify oneself with any point on the continuum, or to remain undecided.

    This delusion has infected groups that are presumed to be the most highly educated, sophisticated, and worldly-wise in our society. Its contagion to elite academia was exemplified in 2005 after Lawrence Summers, in a thoughtful and nuanced speech, suggested that perhaps one of the factors behind the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering is a natural difference in aptitudes. He even prefaced his remarks with what is now called a “trigger warning” for fragile sensibilities, to the effect that he was attempting to provoke a discussion. But the storm of hysterical outrage that followed drove him from the presidency of Harvard.

    Another manifestation of denial of the biological differences between the sexes takes the form of a man’s declaring, in effect, “My gender is what I say it is. I feel like I’m a woman in a man’s body, and I demand that I be treated like one.” The demands that society accommodate such absurd personal delusions are becoming ever more aggressive.

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

    This is by far the hardest rule for me, honestly.

    Eta- I get why it’s there and I don’t know that I care to have it removed but it’s hard to follow all the time lol

    [–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (21 children)

    I actually would call that an ad hominem an treat it as such. Calling trans people delusional in general calls their rationality into question and tries to weaken their argument without addressing it.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

    What if someone is saying that the concept of gender identity is delusional, but not being trans or having dysphoria?

    Like what if we think a specific person (not in the sub) is delusional? Or we think an aspect to a point made is delusional?

    Basically I’m asking if we can’t use the word at all, or if we specifically can’t refer to trans people in general as delusional?

    [–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    If you're saying "trans people are delusional" or "you're delusional" I consider that an ad hominem. If you give a specific person for the sake of argument it's fine. If I say Margerie Taylor Greens belief in God is delusional thats fine. If you call everyone who beliefs in God delusional it's not. Attack beliefs not people and I don't care.

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

    Thank you

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

    I guess the question is why use an emotionally charged term that is widely considered an insult outside of specific medical contexts, when you could accomplish the same goal of pointing out that a persons viewpoint lacks logical coherence with terms that are more neutral sounding?

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    It’s not really an emotionally charged term. Nor is it an insult. If we were talking about any other situation where someone sees themselves as something they aren’t, people would be okay with using it. People have used it here to reference other conditions (im not calling dysphoria delusional, I think gender identity is).

    What word would we put in place of “delusional”?

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

    I mean it widely seems to be considered insulting when used outside of medical contexts from a quick perusing of the web, regardless of how any individuals feels about the term. Also objectively it seems inappropriate if the person is just using different definitions from other people to describe themselves. For instance if a boy from the 1600’s were to time travel to the present day, no would consider him delusional to describe himself as a “girl” because the term had a different definition back then of just meaning any young child. So since I feel that most trans people are using different definitions than GC people on these terms, then it is unfair to call them delusional for not fitting GCs criteria for a term when they’re usage of the term is logically consistent to how they define the term.

    Doesn’t make sense, nonsensical, illogical, wrong, doesn’t match reality.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    I’m just waiting for a mod to tell me if referring to a specific thing as delusional is okay, vs referring to trans people in general is okay. I respect your opinion I just disagree.

    The argument of it’s an insult because some people think it’s an insult isn’t enough for me to personally think it’s a word that should be off limits. I’m a firm believer in the idea that words have meaning, and whatever implications an individual puts on words regardless of their actual meaning is their own thing to deal with. I get we can dispute the meaning of sex based words here, but we shouldn’t dispute the meaning of words that aren’t related to sex/gender at all. If the mods say not to use the word at all I’ll respect the decision, of course. But I think if I said “gender identity doesn’t make sense/is nonsensical/illogical/wrong” I’d still end up having to describe it being delusional without using the word, and it would still upset some qt.

    [–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I don't think trans identified people are delusional, at least not in a clinical sense. I think deep down they do know they are not the opposite sex, they just wish they were for a variety of reasons. And that is why they so keen on redefining words, etcetera so as not to aknowledge their biological sex. I supose that is why QT are protesting the use of "delusional".

    Grixit has disallowed describing trans people as delusional in other post recently.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

    Do you not feel that what constitutes an insult is subjective? A term can go from neutral to widely viewed as an insult depending on the context that it’s used in regardless of the dictionary definition.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I’d be fine with delusional being allowed. I still feel like it’s probably not a nice thing to say to posters, but if someone feel like trans people are delusional, they should be able to say that. I don’t believe we’ve ever taken any action against someone saying delusional here, but it is still in the rules.

    I feel strongly that rule against calling people mutilated should remain though. It just seems needless dehumanizing regardless of how you feel about sex/gender reassignment surgeries.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

    I think having differences in definitions isn’t delusional. If I agreed with your definition and thought that under your definition I met the criteria for being a woman then I would think you’d have a point, but that isn’t the case.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Trans people can't be called delusional. A person believing that she/he is something/someone that they're not is, by definition, a delusion.

    It literally doesn’t meet the diagnostic criteria for a delusional condition. That’s exactly the issue.

    [–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I think he current rules of the sub are fine. The only one I don't agree with is having to use np.reddit.com to link to a Reddit sub. This is not Reddit and who cares about their TOS.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    If you allow tif, Tim, and misgendering you are going to essentially ensure that almost no trans people participate here.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I actually agree with you on this. That’s what I was saying in my comment to someone else. I worded my original comment poorly. I do think, for the sake of the sub, we should compromise and use neutral terms despite how both sides feel. I don’t think calling TW “male” should be banned, but I agree that if we use those other terms or if we call a TW participant he/him then we’d just end up as gcpostsbutqtneverrespondsbecausetheyallleft

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Rare as it is, I believe we agree on this.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I can deal with whatever, I just want the rules to be followed fairly. No insults being a cardinal one.

    [–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm cool with pretty much anything. I think the atmosphere on our new sub is relatively laid back. Not as contentious as the old place. I'm in favor of keeping the rule against misgendering. GC people can refer to trans posters as "natal male/female" or "they" if they don't want to use preferred pronouns. I don't really feel strongly about "cis," but I would prefer not being called that.

    I think the main thing is no personal attacks and no slurs. And please no referring to trans people as delusional or mutilated or using highly inflammatory words. I like Ovarit, but I wish they didn't allow so much of the latter.