you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]malleus_maleficarum 38 insightful - 2 fun38 insightful - 1 fun39 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

And GC views are borderline illegal in some countries (see police logging hate incidents in Britain) so why would women want their faces attached to their membership if their faces can be searched against a database of driver's licenses? It can so easily used to shut down free speech. And what if a TIM breaches that database and uses womens' photos to hunt them down and murder them? Just...no.

[–]mangosplums 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But people wouldn’t know you were GC just because you were a member.

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

Mention anything that suggests GC such as trans should not be in female sports or even voice support for Rowling and you'd be targeted

[–]jet199[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, it's not a GC app.

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

They'd know you were GC if you engaged in conversation or interaction with others... Not sure how one would use it meaningfully without that coming up.

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

when you refuse to pretend that some particular transwoman is a real woman, even on a website forum, then yes they are going to notice