The very real and ongoing effort to censor the internet is years in the making and soon to be achieved. The establishment is getting creative in their methods.

submitted by BraveAndStunningTERF from self.GenderCritical

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

view the rest of the comments →

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

I agree that internet censorship is a problem and is clearly going on, but I disagree with a lot of the other opinions here. It seems like many of these things are more opinion and sometimes political spin for existing narratives than "the way the world really is factually". Why no mention of the displacement of ethnic brits in the discussion of the brexit? I'm not a brit so I might be out of the loop but was brexit really just about economic issues?

I agree divide and conquer is used and works and we shouldn't fall for it along any spectrum. Infighting is not good. Focus on building and building positive relationships.

When i stumbled upon GC i became aware months later that what i really liked about it was the fact that it wasnt just irrational emotional opinions, it was intelligent people (mainly women obviously) that were looking deeper into the world we lived in. Not in a conspiratorial way either, but more of a "I want to live in a sane world where facts, truth and honesty are a baseline as to what i expect to be surrounded by"

There is a lot of real discussion on GC, but I would personally characterize it as rooted in a dogma rather than rooted in facts, truth, and honesty wherever they lead. And it seems to me the mods were very much participating in some of the general information suppression agendas, and suppress information that is contrary to dogma particular to radical feminism. For example I just cannot believe that humans are the only animal species to have no sexual behavioral dimorphism, that's almost as impossible a claim to me as "JY is a literal female". I do not think it's science-based.

There are censorship resistant technologies being explored, and I hope people will make more use of them, including technologies that do not rely on the internet... which afaik was itself designed for resilience to losing part of the communication network.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Who said (and where) humans are the only species with no sexual behavior dimorphism? Cos that's silly: males and females have obviously different reproductive roles to play, which includes behaviors (like breastfeeding). I was a regular reader (occasional commenter - different username than here) for nearly 6 years on r/GC and I would see things like this only very occasionally, and they'd be challenged.

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

by behavioral sexual dimorphism I mean some of the things attributed to gender. it seemed like gc pretty consistently had the view that something called "biological essentialism" was bad. That we had to believe people behaved the way they did due to socialization only, that it wasn't innate, and that they could change. I didn't feel like I could bring up and discuss stuff about how this or that gendered behavior may arise from hormonal differences or genetic differences or whatever. Was/is that your impression too?

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

The problem is that essentialism was one of the tools used to exclude women from rightful access to education and career opportunities, among other things. It's also known as "lady brain". I'm not ready to completely discount the idea that some non-reproductive behaviors could be tied to sex, but being a scientist, you'd better damn well bring the evidence for me to not dismiss it out of hand. And I've read oodles of crappy science too. Most of the "evolutionary psychology" I've seen is just laughable motivated reasoning, and has less empirical support than the weirdest astrophysics.

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

suppress information that is contrary to dogma particular to radical feminism. For example I just cannot believe that humans are the only animal species to have no sexual behavioral dimorphism, that's almost as impossible a claim to me as "JY is a literal female". I do not think it's science-based.

What I'm trying to say here, in regards to OP, is that it seems to me like there are some positions that are enforced here on the basis of dogma. And if the motivation is that challenging those ideas might lead to negative outcomes for women, then I can see why people might be motivated to be dogmatic about those ideas. But that's exactly why we have science! That's exactly the sort of reason heliocentrism met with such resistance, in a different time.

I'm not ready to completely discount the idea that some non-reproductive behaviors could be tied to sex

For me it seems like that's what's going on when I look around. The birds male and female have somewhat different behaviors, the lizards, the bees, maybe the spiders. It seems like humans would have to be very unusual for things like that not to exist in humans too.

I think also, from my observations, that often when people make claims about biological inferiority in this or that task, it's exaggerated and intended to demean or harm the "inferior" person. For example there are human subpopulations that are probably measurably biologically advantaged in certain ways at certain sports, but that doesn't mean humans from most populations can't do those sports well, or that they won't improve their performance through training or other interventions. There's also a ton of stuff we probably just don't understand, like that Wim Hof guy. Also behavior and social situation affects hormones and stuff. We just don't understand everything about how humans work at all. So when someone comes along and says "we shouldn't let X people do that because they have Y measurable comparative disadvantage," ... well, idk. I feel like I should consider it, but usually when you see it on the internet it seems like people are trying to feel superior when it's not warranted for them personally, or trying to discourage someone when it's inappropriate (again c.f. Wim Hof).

I haven't read many other people's scientific explorations of this topic in humans though. If looking into existing scientific exploration of this topic interests you, this comment about it that might be interesting.

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

The absolute refusal of the possibility that some behaviors might be based on biology rather than socialization, and that sex is an innate biological characteristic was actually the dogma on GC.

It just doesn't make sense that humans would be the only mammal species to have their behaviors completely disconnected from their biology.

There can be debate on what is ascribed to socialization, and what is ascribed to biology. And it cannot be only male aggression....