All: Disclosure and Consent

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

but trans identified females get instead this word for them?

They use the word for themselves, whereas no one uses the word "fuckhole" to describe their own body.

then why don't we stop worrying about "misgendering" the trans users here?

I'm not worried about it. As the rules were just explained to me, "all trans women are men" is an acceptable statement, just not referring to individual users. I think that's a fair compromise

QT have all the rest of the internet to use derogatory words for the female body, they should be able to handle being told "no" for once.

Is that the purpose of a debate sub?

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You're misunderstanding the situation. Heim is a "trans woman", not a "trans man". We cannot "misgender" Heim, yet Heim thinks Heim feels entitled to use such language to talk about female bodies. And as I said there is a clear double standar in regards to what language is used to talk about male and female bodies. You don't see things like prostate-havers, semen producers or other ridiculous terms being pushed as "inclusive", either. I'm objecting to peope of Heim's sex using it. If trans identified females were to refer this word for themselves, I'll reluctantly accept it. Though, I'd still challenge them about this double standard.

I'm just tired that GC are always the ones asked to make compromises.

Is that the purpose of a debate sub?

I don't know why you think that asking them to use the word vagina means they can't still make their own arguments.

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

I believe prostate "owner," not "haver," is the going lingo. But yeah there aren't nearly as many reductive words for male anatomy. That's worth discussing, which we can't do when there are bans on phrases. The same rules have to apply to everyone.

The whole crux of gender identity is people's perception of themselves as men or women, so it's unsurprising there is a rule on how we refer to other users. But this compromise doesn't force anyone to use preferred pronouns, while allowing "natal male" and "natal female," so we're not stunted in expressing any ideas. And not all GC want "front hole" banned, so that's not a strike for "always the ones asked to make compromises."

It sounds like you really just want to punish Heim. Or not writing "fuckhole" is an ask too great?

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Feel free to make a thread about "inclusive" language. I made one some months ago, but got off-topic. The only problem, I think there is only a "trans man" in this sub.

"Cis" being nonsense is one of the key ideas of GC, yet they still can call GC users "cis". That is what I meant by GC being the only ones making compromises.

I don't have any problem not using "fuckhole". I don't see what is the problem for QT to use vagina instead of "front hole".

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

"Cis" being nonsense is one of the key odeas of GC, yet they still can call GC users "cis". That is what I meant by GC being the only ones making compromises.

I see. I think they probably feel similarly about natal fe/male as we do about cis. Not that they're the same in my view, but that gets to the differences that bring us here. I think gender identity ideology is inherently sexist, thus its vocabulary embodies sexism. If we scrub out everything that is offensive we'll end up debating a phantom, and people who visit here won't understand the nature of our disagreements at all.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not scrubbing everything that is offensive. Unfortunately, I cannot satisfy everyone. You and others think I'm too harsh as a mod. On the contrary, others think I'm too bland.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I'm dumb, in my comments today I didn't realize I was communicating with a mod and thought this was more theoretical. I was confusing you with a different user, maybe in part because I didn't expect a mod to say "GC have to walk in eggshells." Do you disagree with the rules here? How were they made, and how are new rules made going forward? Do all the mods agree that "front hole" should be allowed on a case-by-case basis?

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

I didn't write the rules. I think it was one of the GC mods from the old debate sub on reddit who wrote them, but she has left the sub. I joined the sub early this year and I've been a mod for only around 3 months. Being a mod was not in my planes, but u/grixit have been looking for another GC mod for a while and I was the one who accepted the offert.

I don't think the subject of "front hole" came up before during my brief moderation time, so I'm asking the other mods what they think.