Meta: What can we do to stimulate more activity here?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LemurLemur 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I poked my head in to lurk, and this post inspired me to go dig up my old sign-in info.

I think this sub and the GC people behind it probably should figure out what they want the purpose of this sub to be - civil communication, or "bravely standing up to evil trans people and finally getting to tell them what you REALLY think". I made exactly one post here, asking if the "rudefem" behavior was intentional on GC's part or if it was just an unfortunate byproduct, and I think you, worried, were literally the only person who didn't refuse to even admit that rudeness happens at all. I got a lot of the same answers: 1.) GC aren't rude, you're just stupid 2.) They're rude because this is the only place they can be, so they're allowed to be (but also they aren't rude, you're just stupid.)

I should point out I'm not even trans. My sibling is. Out of curiosity as to what sort of shit they're likely to get for it, I looked at what GC people say, and... yeah, mostly it's "they're disgusting narcissistic degenerate criminals who live to rape and masturbate to violent porn". Hell, the top bullet to most "guide to peaking people" usually starts with "make sure to tell people the transes are doing it for sexual pleasure and they'll rape you as soon as they can get you alone".

So... I'm a little surprised this even needs to be said but... stuff like this isn't fun to interact with. Not for a trans person, and not for anyone that has trans people they care about. It's literally just prejudice, coming from people who claim to want to fight prejudice.

I hang out on other debate subs, and what makes them fun is getting to learn more about people different from you; I've gotten to like people I never thought I would, just by being open minded. I don't get the feeling that is possible here. I don't know if feelings are just too raw for most GC to be neutral about it, but diverse, mixed communities have to rely extra hard on giving each other the benefit of the doubt, and proactively trying to find ways around insults, name-calling, prejudice, stereotyping ect. This sub does not offer that. It's not required to, and I'm not saying it has to. But it doesn't want to. And that makes it hard for anyone non-GC to feel motivated to contribute.

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

So... I'm a little surprised this even needs to be said but... stuff like this isn't fun to interact with.

Does it need to be said though? I’m sure all GCers have heard at this point that the lack of participation from the QT side is actually GC’s (read: women’s) fault for not being nice enough. As much as everyone who has come swooping in with this hot take over the years seems to think GC just isn’t aware that QT thinks they’re ‘rude’, I can assure you that that is not the case. We know. But it’s never been a convincing argument to me, considering how transwomen speak to and about women on this sub and the former reddit sub (and in general).

It’s no wonder women get defensive every time this is brought up; there’s a ridiculous double standard at work here. QT has been complaining about this since the old sub, so there’s been plenty of discussion about it with QT always inevitably failing to provide examples of GC ‘rudeness’ worse than their own.

Do you have an example of GC rudeness on this sub that’s worse than being called dense? Because even on this sub where we have, at best, four non-GC participants, there have been incidents like ‘rape fantasies are innate in women’ or the masks debacle which I’m not sure I’m allowed to rehash.

I also remember when QT made their own subreddit, installed their own mods, and then still immediately complained about GC bias and GC cruelty and left the subreddit (I hope a particularly wounded QTer has recovered from being called ‘cupcake’ by this time). At some point you can’t blame GC anymore (you still will though).

And if you’re going to bring Ovarit (I’m assuming) and therefore spaces outside our debate space into it—even if I were to grant your obviously exaggerated characterisation of the discussion there—then the evidence against QT is even more damning. QT regularly uses misogynistic hate speech to terrorise women. Remember when that male professor suggested JK Rowling be ‘punished’ with a ‘vaginal injury’? This is one example out of literally thousands. How can you, without a trace of shame, chastise radfems for not being nice enough when there are QTers running wild on the internet calling for the 'corrective rape' of 'T*RFs'? Is it ‘fun’ for women to interact with QT in that context? What makes GC women ‘motivated to contribute’ under those circumstances? I’ve curiously never heard an explanation as to why women are able to dialogue with people who talk to and about them like that when it’s absolutely impossible for trans people and their allies to talk to ‘rude’ women. Perhaps it’s time to consider that there might be another factor at play here in QT’s lack of participation.

The bad behaviour of male people towards female people is so ubiquitous that it’s considered normal and inevitable and is therefore barely even noticed—to give the most charitable explanation for your insane double standard that I can give. And while GC women sometimes police each other, I have literally never in my eight years in these spaces seen a QTer call out another QTer for misogyny (or homophobia, for that matter). To my knowledge, no one has ever made a post or comment telling QT they need to ‘work extra hard’ to not insult or stereotype female people. But QT is largely male, and housekeeping is female work, right?

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

As I've had to say to another person... I'm not trans or QT, tho. I've never done any of that. Is there room for discussion with people who don't threaten rapes and call people "cupcake" but just... aren't GC?

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, given that you want to talk about self-criticism, maybe you should have a look at how QT posters behave. Seriously, I'd say they are way more rude in average than GC poster despite being only a handfull of them. The rules banning rules nazi comparisons and banning baseless acussations (like suggesting saying x thing will lead to suicide/genocide) have to be added because of QT.

And giving your talk about fun, let me tell you that I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who act like if they were making a big favour by showing up here. I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who believe I'm akin to nazis. I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who cannot answer basic questions about their own beliefs (I 'm still waiting for QT tell me what is a woman, you know?) I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who keep denying all the evidence about how pro-QT policies hurt women and children. I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who ask me to care above and beyond about the feeling of males who identify as trans (aka "transwomen") while they show no emphaty for women.

Also, let's not forget it was QT who got the old sub banned and that is why we're here right now. Let's not forget that QT posters here aren't shy about admitting how much they love the fact GC discourse is shut down in a lot of mainstream plataforms. So, maybe we can stop pretending there are few QT users here because of all the mean GC users when QT have made clear they are NOT interested in debate.

[–]LemurLemur 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But I'm not trans or QT and haven't called anyone a nazi. I've never threatened anyone or banned anyone. I've never hurt women or children (that I know of??) I don't think it's a "huge favor" to show up (tho I do think it's silly to expect people to stay if there's nothing enjoyable about it, but that applies to anything.) I wasn't the one that got the old sub banned. I've never said I was happy that GC was shut down.

What can GC do to distinguish the "evil transes who threaten to rape everyone" from the normal people who just aren't GC?

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

I never said you personally did any of those things. I just pointed out the typical QT behaviour. You came here saying you were worried about your trans identified sibling, and saying GC was too rude to QT while ignoring QT bad behaviour. I just assumed you were QT because that seemed the most likely explanation.

Anyway, I insist, QT have made quite clear they don't want to debate and they want to shut down GC voices. There is no point in pretending QT just don't come here because we are too rude or that both sides are equally bad.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It was even more of a problem on the old sub, but I agree, a lot of GC women are very "facts don't care about your feelings." Which is true, of course, but even if you don't care about making friends or having true discourse, it's still easier to catch flies with honey. If you want someone to talk to you and consider your perspective, you can't be going 100 miles an hour in the opposite direction. I was often told this is "tone policing" women, but honestly, the same holds true for men. I know a lot of women feel pressure to be nice, but you can not act like a dick and still be strong in your position. Not wavering in your morals and ethics or belief system does not mean bowing down. It just means being genuine and interacting in a respectful manner even with those you adamantly disagree with.

2.) They're rude because this is the only place they can be, so they're allowed to be (but also they aren't rude, you're just stupid.)

Honestly, I get the need to vent. There are certain topics that make me very upset and depressed. But you can't just be venting angrily all the time. It's not a productive use of energy.

I looked at what GC people say, and... yeah, mostly it's "they're disgusting narcissistic degenerate criminals who live to rape and masturbate to violent porn". Hell, the top bullet to most "guide to peaking people" usually starts with "make sure to tell people the transes are doing it for sexual pleasure and they'll rape you as soon as they can get you alone".

Honestly, I think this is overstating it a bit, but there is a certain segment of the GC population who just go on and on about sex offenders and AGP and stuff like that. Of course it exists and is an important issue, but I think they forget that over half the trans population these days is actually natal females and that doesn't even apply. And then they completely forget about the natal male HSTS transsexuals and the transitioned male children. Sometimes on Ovarit, I'm like, can we chill about the trans women just a bit? Frankly, unless it's involving prisons or sports or safeguarding in general, I rarely even think about them. My concern is really for minor children of both sexes and GNC women and girls.

So I agree with you for the most part, but many QT people refuse to argue in good faith. That can also be maddening. The old sub was particularly prone to fights. Safety and employment concerns are also very real for many GC women. On the old sub, there was occasional doxxing. One QT member reported a GC member in New Zealand for child abuse and tried to get her kids taken away from her. There are unhinged people out there. Several women have lost their jobs for being gender critical. So it's not like all the QT people are nice and innocent. There are bad people out there, although I continue to believe that most pro-trans and trans people are decent. The professional activists and Twitter warriors may not be, but ordinary people often still are.

I'm totally all in for respectful discourse. I don't think of this sub as a place to "own" anyone. I would love for us to be able to have conversations and friendships.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's policing women because QT are NOT hold to the same standards. Why is always on us to behave better? Why act as if both sides are rude when one side is objectively far worse in how they behave.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

QT should be held to the same standards. If we want this place to be for genuine debate and discussion, then both sides should be civil. We shouldn't tolerate rudeness from either one.

And, yes, obviously QT on places like Twitter are objectively far worse. How does that give us license to act like that right back on the debate sub? How random assholes are acting on Twitter has nothing to do with what conduct we should expect from each other here.

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

If you think GC users in this sub are as bad as TRA on Twitter, then you're not applying the same standards. Where are all the death and rape threaths, the doxxing, etcetera? I already intervene when arguments get more heated up than usual. If you think we need to get more severe with the moderation, then I assure you there are going to be even less QT posters here.

Worried19, you may not want to hear this, but QT have made quite clear they are NOT interested in debate. It was QT who got the old sub banned. They were the ones who celebrated the ban and chose not to come over here. The posters who came here are not shy about how much they like GC dicourse being shut down in mainstream plataphorms. And the only reason they aren't calling us nazis or acussing us of causing mass suicides every five comments is because we added rules against it to make them stop.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TRAs on Twitter are far, far worse. I don't think that's in question. But I do believe the rules of our sub should be upheld. It's not okay for GC posters go around calling QT posters their biological sex pronouns or referring to them as "a man" or "a woman." If we can't even refrain from doing that, you can't blame QT for not wanting to stick around. I'm not saying anyone has to lie. That's why "natal male," "natal female," and "they" were considered acceptable compromises.

Worried19, you may not want to hear this, but QT have made quite clear they are NOT interested in debate. It was QT who got the old sub banned. They were the ones who celebrated the ban and chose not to come over here.

I only recall one former QT regular who was happy about the ban. Several of our trans posters were upset by it. We had trans moderators, too. I'm not saying all QT people are happy to debate. Most probably won't engage with us. But some will. And not everyone who arrived on the old sub QT or QT-leaning stayed that way.

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

My concern is really for minor children of both sexes and GNC women and girls.

I'm interested in why you single out women and girls you deem "GNC" for concern, and how exactly you would define someone as "GNC" versus "not GNC." What are the specific criteria that make a girl or woman "GNC" in your view?

To me, separating out and judging girls and women according to whether you perceive us to be "GNC" or not is just another form of genderism. Prioritizing girls and women who in your eyes appear "GNC" over those you perceive as "not GNC" seems like it's just setting up a new oppressive hierarchy based on extremely regressive and often superficial sexist sex stereotypes. Only in this new hierarchy, the girls and women you regard as "GNC" are more worthy of concern than girls and women you perceive as "not GNC." In this view, girls and women you regard as "not GNC" are the "other" and lesser. Censorshipment has expressed similar ideas on this sub recently in the thread about sexual violence prevention.

Today in the USA, Lia Thomas is racing in the NCAA women's swimming finals. Thomas's actions already have had myriad negative effects on thousands of female swimmers, and have lowered the morale of millions and girls and women in the US and elsewhere. Do you really think the harm Thomas and the NCAA are doing to girls and women really has more of an effect on those who meet your criteria for being "GNC" than those you perceive as "not GNC"? All the female college and uni swimmers in the USA whom Thomas has pushed off the podium, out of competition, or down a peg in the rankings - does the impact of the injustice being done to all of them really differ in degree and quality based on how those women individually dress, style their hair, groom; what kinds of personality traits they possess and display; which sex they feel erotic attraction to, date, sleep with, seek to partner with; and what kinds of interests, hobbies, dreams, work aspirations and life goals each of one of those women has?

The line of thinking that sets up a hierarchy where "GNC" girls and women are favored and seen as better and meriting more concern than women deemed "not GNC" inevitably leads to a place where some (not you necessarily, but others who follow your logic) will claim that it's not really a big deal when some girls and women are treated with injustice or abuse, because due to the way they dress, groom, "present" and what kinds of personality traits they have, some women and girls can't feel or be harmed by injustice and abuse the way other girls and women can - or, worse, that they deserve injustice and abuse. Indeed, it leads directly to saying that through by being "not GNC" some girls and women are asking for injustice and abuse. This genderist view smacks to me of "Animal Farm" - where all the animals are supposedly equal, but some are more equal than others.

As for your claim that "GC women" should heed the admonition that

it's still easier to catch flies with honey

I wonder if you would say that to men who've proven themselves to be pretty good at debate and effective at swaying public opinion like Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Murray, Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, Trey Gowdy, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Seems to me quite a lots of men over the course of history have been most effective using means of persuasion that are far more vinegar that honey.

Also, if it really is "easier to catch flies with honey" [than with vinegar], I wonder how you'd explain the enormous gains the QT side and gender lobby have made by hurling abuse at women, issuing death and rape threats, trying to cancel everyone who disagrees with them and issuing the edict: "No Debate!" To me, your recommendation that "GC women" use honey to make our points in a manner meant to seem sweetly inoffensive to the group intent on dehumanizing us and removing our hard-won rights is playing on a lot of extremely sexist old tropes about girls and women being made of "sugar and spice, everything nice" and our genitals being "honeypots." Sounds to me like just another way of telling women to "be kind."

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because I'm GNC, and I'm concerned in particular for girls who are like I was and the GNC women who have all but disappeared from society. Everyone is at risk, but GNC women are at special risk. I'm talking about women who are masculine. Picture butch lesbians. It feels like we masculine women specifically have been targeted for extermination. There are almost no female GNC public figures under 40 left. Even butch lesbians as old as k.d. lang have been lost. Feminine girls and women are also at risk, but at least they still exist. They haven't had their entire historical record wiped and posthumously transitioned. They haven't seen all their peers and current cultural figures disappear. It is quite a different problem if you yourself are a young GNC woman and you have seen literally every GNC friend or ex-girlfriend transition, as some have. One woman on Reddit or Ovarit (can't remember which) posted that all 11 of her exes had transitioned. To me, that feels like a cultural genocide is taking place. It's not literal murder, but those women's minds and bodies are altered beyond recognition, and the rest of society pretends they were never women or girls to begin with. If you are not personally GNC, you may never understand how this feels.

I think you are reading too much into the "honey" thing. It's a common saying I reached for, and it's not gendered. Basically, my position is "don't be a dick." Don't hurl insults or threats or abuse at people. I don't think any of the male people you mentioned have done that except Trump, and I'm not familiar with some others you listed. The QT side gets away with such abuse online because they somehow have convinced people that their bad behavior does not exist. They've successfully hidden it or convinced all the good liberals that mean conservatives are making it up.

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

it's still easier to catch flies with honey

I have tested this hypothesis and it did not turn out to be true. Vinegar attracts more flies than honey does. Whiskey attracts more than either.

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

"facts don't care about your feelings."

Honestly, I get the need to vent. There are certain topics that make me very upset and depressed.

This is... sort of what makes conversations here hard. You claiming "GC are just too rational, we don't worry about feelings" and but also claiming "we're so repressed that we need to be able to vent our feelings." You can't "vent your feelings" and also "put facts over feelings" at the same time, you know?

Which is why I say this sub first probably needs to figure out what it wants this sub to be - a place to "vent" or a place to communicate objectively with people who don't necessarily all agree. It can't really be both.

I should clarify, I see plenty of trans people that are rude as well and I'm not a part of their culture any more than I'm part of GC. I argue with trans people plenty as well, over similar topics (ie burning bridges instead of setting good examples, prioritizing venting over objectivity, us vs. them mentalities ect). I'm not saying any of this with the intention of implying GC are the only people who do anything wrong. If this were a trans-heavy sub trying to increase GC contributions, I'd be just as forthcoming with issues I've observed from the trans community. This is just a GC sub, with a primarily GC demographic, so I'm just talking about things GC do.

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

Facts don't stop being facts just because they aren't told in the nicest way possible.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not that GC people are "too rational," but that some women are very blunt and don't try to cushion their words to spare the feelings of QT.

I was thinking more of Ovarit. A lot of women see it as a place to vent, for better or worse. However, I believe this sub should be focused on discourse and debate.

This is just a GC sub, with a primarily GC demographic, so I'm just talking about things GC do.

And that's fair. We are almost completely GC, so it makes sense to address things that might be holding back the QT demographic from participating. Honestly, I think what really killed us was getting banned from Reddit. There are thousands of QT people there, and dozens or maybe even hundreds who were willing to debate with us. Very few here on Saidit. I don't think most QT people know we still exist. I don't believe it's so much the behavior of GC that stymies participation as the change in venue. But good debate does require GC to think about how we can most effectively impart our message.

If you are mostly on the QT side, please feel free to stick around! We could use more of you guys for sure.