Rules change, so far

submitted by grixitperson from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (44 children)

That would likely be the end of my participation then. If I can’t say cis but they can call me a man, that isn’t a balanced space.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

It’s also unbalanced to expect us all to think or speak like ‘man’ means what it means to you.

Nobody is forcing you to make negative connotations to a term that has no inherent negatives to it.

[–]Greensquidsphone 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

It's clear you're using them negatively though. You know for a fact sexless pronouns work fine, you just don't want to use them out of... Spite? No term has negative connotations. Language is applied and not static. Obviously you care particularly strongly about this though house, since, insofar as I can tell, the removal of that rule protects literally just you.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

No, I’m using it factually. It’s neutral. There’s no judgement of the person in the word man.

It refers to nothing but sex. The rest is all coming from the reader.

I didn’t make the rule. You’re free to request it be changed.

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

And again language is not a static thing. Context is important, House. It doesn't really matter though, if a mostly echo-chamber space on an off brand alt-right website becomes a full on echo chamber, more power to you, you guys need more of them.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If man is defined contextually it’s being defined by sexist constructs, which is sexism.

Male/man does not change meaning in any context. We aren’t alt right but sure, Juno right to accusing us of being whatever group you like. Weird how you don’t care about the rules put in place about the ridiculous comparisons and acting like gc is a hive mind. We’re bad for being on saidit and you’ve made two saidit accounts just to say so? Doesn’t really make sense.

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

alt-right website

We aren’t alt right

Reading comprehension. Its important.

you’ve made two saidit accounts just to say so?

I never set an email on my main account (on account of not wanting to give my email to an alt right website) and couldn't access it on my phone. Not really sure this is the gotcha you think it is though, house, considering it literally benefits saidit zero whether I have one account or two.

Male/man does not change meaning in any context.

Just... Wrong.... Like i can't even argue it it's just so stupidly wrong i dont even know where to begin. 5th grade, maybe.

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

So which contexts change the meaning of the word man?

In what context does man not mean adult human male? When does male not mean developed to produce small motile gametes? Clearly man as in mankind is not what anyone is talking about.

Why bring up the website having alt right shit if you weren’t trying to slip in some comparison as a jab?

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

man does not change meaning in any context.

Clearly man as in mankind is not what anyone is talking about

I don't even need to talk about trans people you proved yourself wrong for me in the very next post. Wow!

Why bring up the website having alt right shit if you weren’t trying to slip in some comparison as a jab?

I really don't want to have to explain it, House, but if I'm making a comparison as a jab do you really think that jab is "haha ur alt right" and not "this is the only space that will take you"?

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

We're here because most plataforms on internet don't allow any wrong think, particularly as transgender issues are concerned. Any slight doubt about the official narrative are heavily punished, especially if the offender is a woman. Transactivists also strongly discourage its follower to read what the others sides have to say. "No debate" is literally one of its slogans. So, I find it curious you're complaining this sub of being mostly a echo chamber.

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

So, I find it curious you're complaining this sub of being mostly a echo chamber.

Is it not? I mean, by raw metrics the gc to qt poster ratio is at least 6 to 1, and even gc posters are posting in this thread saying these new rules skew it GC.

Transactivists also strongly discourage its follower to read what the others sides have to say. "No debate" is literally one of its slogans.

Are you joking? I've never known a trans person who doesn't read bad gc takes for fun. I don't really know trender types, so maybe you and I are thinking of very different groups, but that's what it is I guess.

We're here because most plataforms on internet don't allow any wrong think, particularly as transgender issues are concerned

Then be more advertiser friendly? Idk that's all big platforms care about so if they see you as a hate group I really don't know how to help you with that. At least on reddit plenty of spaces still exist to hate on trans people in a less mask-off fashion.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I do agree most regular users of this sub are GC, but that is because many QT supporters are NOT interested in having a debate.

Big Tech only care about profit, not morality, just like any other big company. The fact they claim to care about social issues is pure marketing. However, it seems not all social issues are seen as marrketable. For instance, big plataforms often turn a blind eye to the many rape threats that women receive in them, especially if said threats are sent by transactivists. Big Tech is also very pro-pornography despite all the abuse perpetrated in the industry and all the blatant misoginy and racism promoted by porn. They are also very pro-prostitution despite this being basically paid rape. Also, like the latest reddit drama has showed us, they also doesn't seem to be too bothered, if at all, by pedos and their enablers. So, I don't really trust their judgement about what a hate group is.

[–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (8 children)

I do agree most regular users of this sub are GC, but that is because many QT supporters are NOT interested in having a debate.

I'm glad you've rationalized it that way, it couldn't possibly be anything else, your conclusion is definitely the right one.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Add an "I think" or an "in my opinion" in the middle of the phrase if you like it more. Though, honestly, I don't see how this is a controversial view when I've seen countles of QT supporters literally saying "shut up" to anyone expressing the mildest criticism. To say nothing of all those who jump straight to death and rape threats. And what about all the users who have been banned from platafforms like twitter, reddit, etc from saying the wrong think? And what about reddit banning the gender critical, GCdebatesQT, LGBdroptheT, superstraight and several others for "wrongthinking"? And what about Medium u others banning articles or users that are critical of transgenderism? And what about people being fired, doxed, smeared or harrased IRL over this stuff? And what about things like the hashtag #RIP JKR? And what about all the people I've seen saying you should not read JKR's essay because she makes "transphobic" stuff sound as too reasonable? And what about all the people who have been accused of wrongthinking because they follow or retwitted the "wrong" people? And what about some transactivists literally burning books? There is even English proffessor at Bekerley who have advocated stealing and burning books, didn't you know? And what about the "hate speach" laws transactivists would like to pass in many countries? And what about the fact transactivists want to ban any therapy that is not affirming of a transgender identity? And what about compelling speach like mandating people to use prefered pronouns? There is even a law firm, Dentons or something like that, that have adviced transactivists to work behind the scene and not let the general public know what they advocate for.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to interpret this as anything but QT supporters don't wanting to debate this stuff. But if you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it. If you want receipts about what I'm saying, I cand post a lot of links to prove it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

With neutral language as an option allowing you to misgender us but not even letting us refer to you as cis formally establishes that this is an anti trans space.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That’s an entirely seperate argument and I’m not preventing you from bringing it up with the mods.

My point is that we do not use the terms man or woman the same way as you do. Our use of the term does not mean anything about a persons character. Your use of the terms do.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I don’t believe you first of all, but that aside when I say cis I literally just mean not trans but you’ve made some grand on the cross issue about that.

This fails even to maintain the pretense of balance.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can you please show me where I’m putting myself on a cross over the term cis? I’d prefer not to be called it but I don’t lose any sleep over it.

You’re free to tell yourself I’m lying to you and what you project onto the word man is actually a universal truth if that helps you. 🤷🏼‍♀️ Not my problem. I just felt the need to point out that most of the issues here with the word man come from people’s own personal hang ups with the word, rather than any actual insult intended.

I’d also like to remind you that I’m not making the rules.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You are defending the obviously one sided rules.

It’s an insult to call a trans woman a man. Every time no exceptions. Allowing it while not allowing language GC takes exception to means this isn’t even pretending to be a balanced space.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So you double down on your insistence that man is an insult, without any explanation of why it’s an insult beyond ‘I hate it and it just is’ instead of acknowledging you have some major personal bias about what the word means.

Again, I’m not making the rules. If you find them unfair bring it up with the mods and argue your case. I’d suggest arguing it more than ‘it’s an insult and you know it and lie when you say you don’t know it’.

You are free to choose to receive it as an insult but that’s not how it’s intended. It does not mean to us what it means to you.

Is the defending the rules the part where I’m hoisting myself onto a cross? You didn’t answer that bit

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

Play dumb if you want, but we both know you only want to be able to call trans women men because you enjoy hurting us and don’t want any repercussions.

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

Mkay. You’re clearly insistent on projecting still. Bye.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I do think using neutral language for other users could work as a compromise. However, do you realize that the inverse case (i.e. "cis" was fine, but "misgendering" not) was the norm before and no one on the QT side thought this favoured them?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Cis isn’t the opposite of misgendering. It just means not trans. It’s not an insult. It’s a good thing. I wish I was a cis woman.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m on your side with this rule, but “cis” means more than “not trans”. It’s literally saying that our “gender identity” is in line with our sex, so it supports both the idea of gender identity (as well as assigning a gender identity to us), and supports the idea that TWAW and TMAM, neither of which gc agrees with. I’m gonna keep using they/them, and I think this should be the rule, but it’s not as simple as saying “cis” just means “not trans” when in reality it pretty much is meant to validate trans people. There’s no such thing as a “cis woman”. There’s woman and transwoman. At least that’s how gc sees it and that’s why we don’t want to be referred to as cis.

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

That’s not what cis means but I’m not fighting about it. My point is banning one sides language but not the others destroys even the veneer of neutrality,

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I literally looked it up to make sure I was correct before commenting but okay.

I agree that we should use neutral pronouns, I was explaining what I explained because that’s what biologyisreal is saying, that gc had the no misgendering rule while qt could call us a term that means we align with qt ideology.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Someone could have dysphoria and still be considered “cis” unless they identified as something else. Not transitioning or identifying differently shouldn’t imply any feelings about someone sex, but I feel like “cis” does that.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It’s literally a binary. Trans or not. That’s all cis means. Just not trans. All humans are contained in the set [ trans people and cis people]

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you really gonna argue that the definitions that pop up when someone looks it up as well as all of the pro trans articles that pop up and define the word as well as the Wikipedia page are all wrong about what this word means?

I know that’s not the point of this post but it’s just odd that you think this word simply means “not trans” when even qt sites explain it to mean exactly what peaking and I (and several others) are saying. If it just meant “not trans” gc wouldn’t care about it’s usage.

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

We’ve literally had this exact discussion. The “dictionary definition” is there to look fancy it’s not how anyone actually uses it. They use it to mean not trans. There’s literally a whole branch of language philosophy about this exact issue.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You’re the only person I ever see act like the word doesn’t mean someone whose gender identity aligns with their sex but I’ll just drop it.

It’s not just the dictionary definition, even qt friendly articles define it this way. I see people on Facebook, Twitter, and ig use it to mean exactly what I said it means.

Again, if it only meant “not trans” gc wouldn’t object and would maybe even use it ourselves.

It’s not “cis sex” it’s “cis gender” the implication being that TW and “cis” women are the same gender and share a gender identity, just different sexes (some even going so far as to say “different sexes at birth, implying TW change sex). like- I’m stunned you can’t admit what this word means but there’s no need to go on a tangent we should focus on trying to get the rule about pronouns changed.

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

Look at the usage. Someone would say “cis and trans (whatever). Not cis, trans, and people who are neither cis nor trans. But we’ve been over this so what’s the point in rehashing.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because people who don’t support qt ideology wouldn’t say “cis, trans, and people who are neither” we’d say “transwomen and women, or transmen and women, or trans people and people who aren’t trans”

The usage is literally the problem. You can say you personally aren’t using the word to mean anything about gender identity or gender and you only mean it to mean “not trans” but that’s not what the word means. Anyone can look it up and verify

Eta- the fact that you dispute what houseplant is saying about man just meaning “adult male human” but can argue that “cis” just means “not trans” is kind of funny

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Agreed with this but I'm more than comfortable not using terms which make gc uncomfortable if they can put forth the modicum of effort it takes to do the same.

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

That the thing. Both or neither.

[–]kwallio 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I wish I could believe you, but personal experience and people's behavior in this own sub its blatantly obvious that people ARE using it as an insult.

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

It’s literally a better thing to be. That’s insane.