r/actuallesbians are super paranoid right now about making sure "No terfs get in here." It's kind of funny

submitted by [deleted] from (self.GenderCritical)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Maeven 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Sure I can understand that not everyone sees it that way. But the abuses happening in the industry are undeniable and we already outlaw prostitution. I don't see any difference between prostitution and pornography. Both situations involve women who get groomed into performing sex, who are frequently misled about what they will actually be doing/drugged/and prevented from leaving the industry.

I suggest reading Pornland if you want a complete explanation of why radical feminists believe that the coercion in the industry amounts to rape. I'm just offering some highlights.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ah, but should people be censored from speaking their heterodox opinions on the subject? That's what Dworkin et al were arguing. Heck, they made it illegal. With jail time and everything.

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

That's not what I see in the links you provided.

Actually what I do see is feminists focusing on material remedies for physical harms caused by the porn industry, instead.

"the ordinance sought civil remedies that would enable women who are harmed in the making of pornography, or as a result of its consumption, to sue for a future ban on sexually explicit material demonstrated to be harmful and to collect damages from pornographers for provable harm done by that material"

Interesting that this was not a ban at all. It's actually a lot more powerful, because it is an attempt to hold an abusive industry responsible for the repercussions of their actions.

Where is this ban on speech? Where is this ban on contrary opinions?

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

Where is this ban on speech?

These unconstitutional laws were overturned on the grounds they violated free speech. Go argue with the judge.

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/02/24/The-Supreme-Court-handing-feminists-and-religious-conservatives-a/7440509605200/

Do you realize that this was something that Christians agreed with? Eww. That could have given everyone a clue that it was the wrong thing to do. When you got a table with a nazi and 10 people talking to her, you got a table with 11 nazis.

Where is this ban on contrary opinions?

the Ordinance rests on the "frightening principle that considerations of equality require that some people not be free to express their tastes or convictions or preferences anywhere."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/10/21/women-and-pornography/

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

Nah, man. None of that supports your conclusion. You are Hella stretching here.

Those judges were biased for sure. Male judges have made a lot of decisions that directly caused or allowed harm to happen, historically.

Shit happens, mistakes are made. Whatever.

I'm not talking to these judges, I'm talking to you. And you have yet to show me how holding an industry accountable for proven damage to performers and women is violating anyone's freedom.

Since I do not have a law degree or know legal jargon, you'll have to address it in your own words if you want to make your point.

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

You've just told me you're not going to believe anything I say, I don't know how open-minded and likely to change your mind based on new evidence you are. It sounds like you're saying "Your response to the evidence rests on different philosophical premises than mine. Prove your premises are better. Do it using my premises."

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

Right. Seems more like you disregarded the entire issue of demonstrable harm because it is inconvenient for you to actually respond to it.

But either way, you came here with a question about feminism and its been answered as well as it can. I won't put any more thought into answering things like this if you aren't listening.