you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]soundsituation[M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

u/Kai_Decadence, this type of question would be better suited to s/GCdebatesQT, s/AskSaidit or s/whatever.

[–]FlippyKing 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Is it? Kai seems to be asking for a gender-critical take on this variation of "gender-woo", not debate which would be GCdebatesQT (if that ever actually happened there), and it is too specific for the other two subs.

[–]soundsituation 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think so. It's the same as all the other posts: "here is something I heard a trans activist say, please tell me why it's wrong". The way it's worded always makes it sound like it's coming from a GC perspective but it's a call for refutation from the GC side. I do see your point about the hyper-specificity of the question, but literally anything is allowed on s/whatever, same for s/AskSaidit as long as it's a question.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I'm not saying it's not allowed there, but that the specificity of the topic places it here. Kai is asking for a GC perspective, not a debate. I don't think Kai wants more QT or Trans input on this topic. Who does, really?

[–]soundsituation 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think Kai wants more QT or Trans input on this topic.

Yes, this is my point. It's a representation of a gender ideologue's argument, with a call to the GC crowd for refutation. I don't know if you've read or participated in the debate sub but this is exactly the format that posts take over there: "Hey [either GC or QT], please refute this argument." That's why I believe this question is best suited to that sub. The other subs I listed are decent alternatives if OP would like wider engagement.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

fair point. Kai is not asking GC to debate Kai, but Kai is asking GC to debate or refute this QT trans idea.

Still, if this is not relevant to the GC sub, then does that limit the scope of this sub? I think it is reasonable for there to be overlap in subs where a matter could be appropriate for many subs, as you pointed out the other two more general subs are places where this could go.

[–]soundsituation 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It certainly does limit the scope of the sub, which, frankly, is a consequence I'm not fond of. I want to do whatever you guys want, and personally I'd rather not remove anything unless it's off topic, but I also want to honor the rules of the sub. It gets especially tricky when users report these posts. The reports are legitimate; if you're curious, try reporting something on here and you'll see that the very first justification listed is breaking the "not a debate sub" rule.

I'm actually of the opinion that this community has outgrown the need for such a rule. I understand why it was useful, even necessary on reddit, because the demographics and voting system there are such that the entire sub would turn into a defense of the gender critical position, and actual useful discussions would be suppressed. But we don't have that problem here (although perhaps it would arise if we did away with the "no debate rule", I don't know). On a more practical note, I have the least seniority of the three active mods here and I don't believe they would support a rule change. There is always the option of starting a new sub. If you have any other suggestions I'd be happy to hear them.

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

OK, so I want to rethink the "Kai is looking for debate" or "this is a debate topic", because I think the only problem with the post is that appears to be of that sort. And, that does not have anything to do with there being a debate sub (and if debate happens there is debatable), but has to do with the rule that 'this is not a debate sub' and the implications of that.

That this is a debatish topic is clear. Kai is probably seeking rhetoric to debate the bad ideas. But, I think this falls under the topic of either clarifying a gender critical idea, or under the topic of "apologetics". Apologetics would be like the training or prep work one would do for debate, but it is not about debate and that "debate" could happen in one's own head. That people use the debate sub but specify which team they want responses doesn't mean that is a debate/apologetics sub because it can be either side asking either side for responses, though I acknowledge that usually it is someone asking the other team to respond.

If Kai is engaged in apologetics here with this post and not debate, how would that sit? Also, I hope I don't come off as breaking your chops or being difficult, I just think clarity now would make future issues easier. I also just am on team "on topic" here.

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

That’s an interesting approach. So in this virtual anonymous space how would you distinguish an apologist post from a debate post? Perhaps another way to ask that, and/or a follow up question, is, what kind of post would constitute breaking the sub rule?

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The problems that created the need to say this is not a debate sub go back to reddit if I remember correctly. It was tras coming in and being disingenuous douches and just trolling with bad faith arguments. To call it "debate" is too kind, but in essence that is what it was attempting to appear as. But creating a rule around the idea that this is not a debate sub, it allows the mods to remove content like that as well as content from mras and "social conservatives", the kind who would rather say "make me a sandwich" than speaking meaningfully with a woman, that wants to argue with GCs over basic ideas. The rule might also be intended to, as opposed to just make available the option to, remove infighting withing strains of GC thought which has happened more than once. I am making a distinction between an interpretation of the purpose of a rule and an interpretation of the letter of the law of a rule.

Here Kai is not doing that. Kai is looking for ways GC people would address the topic, so in that sense I see it as debate-training and not debating. Kai is not coming here for debate but technique-sharpening amongst liked minded people. In the above examples, a fight is sought not help from an ally. The same could be said for our troll whom I LOVE to respond to, but I acknowledge annoys everyone. Since our troll never responds, instead doing the equivalent of walking into a room to fart and then run out of the room, they are not here for debate either, just trolling. But, there have been posters that roll like our troll does but then stick around and use various bad faith techniques to question responses. This is really the only kind of debate I've every seen from team QT or tras, where they try to ambush people with details or bs or exceptions or "the margins". Kai isn't doing that. Kai is not a stranger. So, a bad-faith poster can come on appearing to do what Kai is doing, but once the bad-faith responses come in, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

What would that proof be? Well, I think previous posts from Kai where discussion and clarification and variations on approaches (the kind Trent Horn discusses in my recent post in the GC guys sister-sub) are brought up, but no one is debating each other.

Another view on what proof there would be is: what debate is occurring? We can tell when a post is here for debate and not discussion or apologetics/debate training. Those are picking fights right away. We can tell when it turns into a fight, just as we can tell when good natured joking gets nasty and fists start flying-- but with words here. Debate has not happened here yet.

Even in our exchanges. I ask about the potential differences between apologetics and debate. I do not say "You are wrong and here's why" (open debate) or "Here's what's weak in your argument" (tra ambuse and chisel-away at the margins, bogus debate). I'm also not being disingenuous in my questions and I'm offering what I think are substantive views. We're discussing, not debating. I'm not offering a firm position and I'm not chipping away at your position, which parallels the second sentence in this paragraph. We're also not egaged in apologetics or debate training, but I think Kai is doing that.

I don't think I missed anything. If I did, let me know.

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

Flippyking was right that I was looking to get a gender critical perspective and not a "Trans" perspective because I know it'll just more or less be the same. I wasn't looking for a debate, just a perspective since it was the first I got someone trying to answer the questions they usually can't answer.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are correct. I wanted to get insight from gender critical take.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I assume you share a gender critical take, that how you act or live is an individual's personality and is malleable, not some innate trait or identity that most be discovered separate from the outside reality, and our sex is simply that.

Am I correct? Or do you buy into the QT/tra view of things?

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No you are correct with the form, I don't think how you act or live as an individual through personality determines your sex. Gender as far as I'm concerned is just personality and/or demeanor. It doesn't change your sex. Biological sex is immutable and cannot change. In short, no I don't buy into the QT/TRA view of things, I find it utter nonsense.