you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]teelo 6 insightful - 7 fun6 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 7 fun -  (34 children)

They've already done it here. The radfems remade their groups here and went straight to work censoring wrongthink the way they did on Reddit.

[–]GenderCriticalOnly 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

Think of GenderCritical as more like a fansub for people super into the Lord of the Rings. You have maybe a dozen people in your group who have read all the books 20 times, and all the surrounding materials, and they want to be able to discuss that. But they are vastly outnumbered by the people who keep coming into their sub and talking about how much LotR sucks, or asking them what a Hobbit is, or saying they watched one of the films and isn’t Legolas super hot, or trying to start arguments about whether there are three books because they read it as a child and they’re sure it was just one book.

And if they left all those comments up, new people arriving in the sub would think that was what the sub was set up for, and that that is the sort of content that was welcomed. New people who actually had read the books 20 times and wanted to discuss them in depth from that perspective wouldn’t see that it was a place for them, and wouldn’t be able to see the people they could have that conversation with.

In order for them to build a community where they actually get to have the conversations they want, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say “In this sub we are not having arguments about LotR sucking, and we are not having basic arguments about the existence of the books, and we are not for really basic engagement by people who haven’t read the books. There are other subs for those conversations, and we will even set up a sub to have those conversations with you, but this space isn’t for that.”?

[–]teelo 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Think of SaidIt being a free speech site. You came here because you were censored on your original site. You complained about being censored. And now that you're here, you've gone straight to work censoring others. Do you see the irony?

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

Sure, but I think there’s a difference between “here is a site where we can all freely post, and in this one tiny part of it various repetitive comments will be removed (and the sidebar says this)” and “nobody can talk about this anywhere without being, at best, removed”.

Imagine people hated LotR so much, that they organised on Discord to disrupt and shut down any site that discussed LotR positively. Imagine knowing that people are openly talking about having followed the little group of people who want to talk about the books, that they are discussing what they post on Saidit now, and that they want to continue disrupting any attempt at conversation. If the GC subs were not proactive about removing that disruption, they always got derailed by organised groups who are open about using multiple accounts each to disrupt the subs and prevent normal conversation from taking place.

I am all for transparency in modding, and transparency about the rules, and people having the right to discuss things. I think as long as there is transparency (and I agree, the lack of transparency was an issue), it’s reasonable to have some spaces that are only about discussing something from a particular perspective, and to disallow the sort of basic questions and arguments that we hear all day every day, as long as that doesn’t impact the availability of other spaces to have those conversations: if you don’t do things like that, all spaces become the same having the same conversations dominated by the same loud people, and if nothing else that is incredibly boring. Nobody was saying anywhere else on Saidit shouldn’t allow those conversations, and places are easily available to have them.

[–]teelo 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

Your wall of text does not disprove the simple fact of irony: if you're going to engage in censorship, then don't come here complaining about censorship.

[–]GenderCriticalOnly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you’re not here to discuss, then that’s fine.

[–]teelo 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I am here to discuss. You're the one who has failed to refute my point.

If you want to continue to fail to refute my point, then thats fine. Just admit that you believe the rules apply to others but not yourself. Just admit that you believe that others should be censored while you should not.

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

I explained that I saw a difference in two different behaviours, and explained why. You responded that it was a “wall of text”, reiterated your initial statement, and did not engage with anything I had said. That’s not discussion.

If you walk into the cat-appreciation room, rather than the dog-appreciation room, and start going on about how dogs are much better than cats, I don’t think it’s censorship for you to be told to talk about it next door in the dog-appreciation room. It would be censorship to shut the dog-appreciation room, or make sure nobody could hear what you said in the dog-appreciation room, or whatever.

Not being able to talk about every single topic in every single space in any way you want isn’t censorship in the same way that shutting down easy access to spaces where you can discuss every single topic in any way you want is. I am fine with the former, and oppose the latter.

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

You're still refusing to address the point I raised. Just admit that I'm right and you have failed to provide anything to counter my point.

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

No, censorship in general is not the problem. GC (maybe similar to a Christian group) doesn't claim to be a general platform like reddit does. It's censoring things that do not violate GC's stated rules that I disagree with.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

GC is full of gross hateful cunts. Nothing changes, no matter where they are. They cannot deal with debate at all, and banned everyone who didn't suck their clits in worshipful cuckdom when they were on reddit. Of course they'll do the same here. Being able to follow saidit rules is far far beyond their abilities.

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

you complain about "gross cunts" not being able to follow rules, yet you're so incapable of following rules yourself that you end up on the second lowest section of the pyramid of debate

https://saidit.net/wiki/index#wiki_rules

https://infogalactic.com/w/images/thumb/e/ef/The_Pyramid_Of_Debate_v3_Detailed_TT_Norms_Medium_Text_Outline_Grey_BG.png/1024px-The_Pyramid_Of_Debate_v3_Detailed_TT_Norms_Medium_Text_Outline_Grey_BG.png

smh such projection

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Mate, I generally combine elements from the very bottom as well as the top of the pyramid. Mix it up a little to keep things legit.

Sure, I occasionally just call people cunts, but at the same time I also post thoughtful and considered reflections. depends on the value I place upon the person I'm talking to and whether I consider them to be respectful enough to meet me on the level for rational and constructive debate, or whether they are just fuck wits who say 'no u' and then wave their internet dicks about

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

Ok.

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

There used to be a debate sub, /r/GCdebatesQT, but that one is private now.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

My complaint about GC is GC's complaint about reddit: stuff that followed the rules was silently removed anyway.

/s/Gender_Critical/comments/550p/what_were_your_opinions_on_radfeminism_that_got/

And aside from silently removing rule-following content and hiding that from participants, GC is more like a Christian sub. GC's canon and ideas as they are derived from radical feminist thinkers are more loosely defined than the Christian bible, but it's for a group with specific dogmatic beliefs, not a group that wants to discuss a particular topic in depth. It's more like "Eowyn is best forum" than "serious Tolkien discussion only please." If it were not dogmatic it would have been named "gender criticism" or "gender discussion" or "international women's protection league" or something. There is a LOT of room for discussion of what's going on with gender roles, and with transgender activism and it's effects on women, but GC does not allow a lot of that discussion.

And aside from that, GC very much emphatically is a place for "newbies" to post. There's a whole thread entirely dedicated to people who have "hit peak trans" (perhaps the equivalent of "discovered how great Tolkein is for the first time"). Newbies posted all the time -- "I don't agree with everything but I'm having this issue" "Looking for advice on this topic even though I haven't learned everything about radfem yet" "Only been here a few weeks but I have to say they're wrong about what they say about you," etc. Many women seem to think "gender criticism" refers to the current transgender stuff with a bunch of different gender options, not gender as a whole. It's not uncommon to see that sentiment.

I wish GC would be more honest about what it is.

[–]GConly 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

GC's canon and ideas as they are derived from radical feminist thinkers

Anything that didn't follow radfem canon was excised ASAP on Reddit.

Any dissent with the (minimal and shoddy) science they posted was crushed.

Sorry GC, but the overwhelming majority of scientists researching the human brain will tell you sex differences do exist, they do matter, and they aren't from socialisation. You can see them in neonates.

Just because you've found about four authors who say otherwise and you post them repeatedly in a cycle does not make them correct.

We've known how how induce male aggression, play patterns and sexual behaviour in females via extra androgens in the fetal stage since the fifties. You look ridiculous insisting that all the differences are down to socialisation. Fine and Joel are laughing stocks and their work is widely criticized. For a start multiple people have pointed out Joel's work demonstrates male and female brain can reliably be identified even with the limited criteria she used. Fine just omits huge chunks of data about testosterone and prenatal exposure because it disproves her.

Don't worry we ladies, the latest research debunks the wrong brain sex BS pretty thoroughly, but it does so while accepting brain sex differences exist, and proving homosexuality is hard wired into the brain at the same time.

It means that radfems don't get taken seriously when professionals get involved, which is a terrible thing because it's the paediatricians and scientists pulling this apart the who will eventually sort all this out. If GC keeps contradicting them and undermining them, it's just going to prolong a bad situation.

We need to move on from GC being a radical feminist sub, and make it over into an activist base for women's rights with a coherent policy that's based in good science. Not junk science.

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

an activist base for women's rights with a coherent policy

I might be able to get behind something like this. maybe it should be a new space though and women from GC can join if they want. & GC's contributions to womens rights should be credited if things do go in a different direction.

I wonder now though, if this is really inconsistent with GC. And brain differences can also be due to non-genetic factors and epigenetic factors and all that. "man" and "woman" are not static things, we're always in the process of evolving. GC doesn't claim all men and all women are the same, but says these differences are due to individual personality.

They do seem to be pretty against any biological origin origin of behavioral differences though, which does seem probably not right to me, and I wish we could talk about it.

A bit off-topic, but what does the latest research say about homosexuality/sexuality?

We've known how how induce male aggression, play patterns and sexual behaviour in females via extra androgens in the fetal stage since the fifties.

did people actually... do this?? this is a bit disturbing.

It means that radfems don't get taken seriously when professionals get involved, which is a terrible thing because it's the paediatricians and scientists pulling this apart the who will eventually sort all this out. If GC keeps contradicting them and undermining them, it's just going to prolong a bad situation.

How do you think this interaction could work better?

[–]GConly 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

did people actually... do this?? this is a bit disturbing.

Did it with quite a few mammal species including primates. Started in 1953.

And brain differences can also be due to non-genetic factors and epigenetic factors and all that. "man" and "woman" are not static things

Well, you can see the brain of male and female fetuses are different upon autopsy from preterm stillbirths. That paper was quite a grim read.

You can also find that puberty levels big hormones make alterations to the brain. Which debunked the old Swaab paper that started this wrong brain sex area BS back in 94. Long story but will explain if asked.

How do you think this interaction could work better?

They've really got to drop the 'all differences are all socialisation /no brain sex' stuff. It makes me cringe every time I see it.

I know why they stick to it. If it's socialised into them you can fix it, if it's innate you give them an excuse to shrug their shoulders and claim it's natural and therefore okay/forgivable. There's also the issue that accepting innate differences exist means people accepting unequal representation in positions of power is inevitable.

From my POV, you have to know what actually causes a problem before you have a hope of fixing it, or at least coming up with effective coping strategies.

The data coming out lately is showing straight TIMs have normally masculinised brains. And that's the ones who had a childhood GD diagnosis. It's also showing sexual arousal when cross dressing is definitely an issue with a lot if them.

Personally I think we need to focus on a workable strategy based on what the public believe after being fed TRA bullshit for years.

From a lot of arguing with the average Jane libfem, they believe that all TIMs have gender dysphoria as kids, they are mostly gay, and they have wrong sex brains. They also believe most have had SRS, are in hormones, and have female violent and sex offending behaviour. They think TIMs are dying by the thousands from hate crimes, and gd kids are committing suicide all over if they aren't instantly transitioned.

They also believe all kids turning up with GD are permanently trans, don't know about the high desistance rates, and genuinely think puberty blockers are safe with no long term negative effects.

I think strategically we need to stick to presenting people with the facts in a consistent non hostile manner, carefully documenting how the TRAs are actively lying or being disingenuous.

A bit off-topic, but what does the latest research say about homosexuality/sexuality?

Varies. With females it seems to be down to getting excess testosterone. For example,, my female family members have a condition that means we produce excess t, a lot of the girls are gay or bi.

In men, they seem to be getting normal male T levels, but epigenetic changes that lower the response to it in the brain are the issue. They also seem to have an overall lower response to t because the average gay man has subtle differences to his face, and they average out at a cm or two shorter.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing this, it's all pretty interesting.

I think strategically we need to stick to presenting people with the facts in a consistent non hostile manner, carefully documenting how the TRAs are actively lying or being disingenuous.

This seems pretty doable. And it will probably help.

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

Saved. BTW, if you don't already have something like this, use a reference database such as Zotero. It makes it much easier to manage research, bibliography and dump those references into a text box. If you just didn't have the time here, that's fine, too. Your post was already long and informative enough, I was just wondering if you were in a similar place as I was and grew tired of pulling up the same studies over and over again. They also have a browser extension, called Zotero Connector or something similar, through which you can automatically create bibliographical references from a web page, a Wikipedia article, a Google Scholar reference, an arxiv page, a researchgate page, etc. I have come to love it and I have every study at my fingertips I could ever wish for when arguing now. It also was a huge help with my dissertation.

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

was and grew tired of pulling up the same studies over and over again.

Even more tired of being able to recall reading something and not being able to track the source down later. I have so many bookmarks on my laptop I can't find stuff on there either.

I'll have a look at Zotero, thanks for the heads up.

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

And brain differences can also be due to non-genetic factors and epigenetic factors and all that.

Except there ARE differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXUS0MRcFWM

Click Cc for English subs.

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

I just lost a long comment because I misclicked. I'll dump a few sources here for people to know where to go down the rabbit hole from:

Satoshi Kanazawa, Gad Saad, E. B. Bax, Camille Paglia, Janice Fiamengo, Lawrence Kohlberg's moral stages, Sonja Starr's research on sentencing disparity, evolutionary psychology, Selective Service Act, Women are Wonderful effect, automatic in-group preference among women, simping behavior, etc.

https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich

Hugenberg, Kurt, and Sabine Sczesny. “On Wonderful Women and Seeing Smiles: Social Categorization Moderates the Happy Face Response Latency Advantage.” Social Cognition 24, no. 5 (2006): 516–539. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kurt_Hugenberg/publication/247838456_On_Wonderful_Women_and_Seeing_Smiles_Social_Categorization_Moderates_the_Happy_Face_Response_Latency_Advantage/links/0046352af27bc710f1000000.pdf

Rudman, Laurie A., and Stephanie A. Goodwin. “Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women like Women More than Men like Men?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 4 (2004): 494.

Starr, Sonja B. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 17, no. 1 (2014): 127–159.

I do not know if this contradicts who I am replying to. Whatever is consistent with truth and reality I support. This comment is not meant as disagreement. If we have taken any positions in the past that were nonsense, just because it seemed to strengthen our group, those should be abandoned, of course. Let science speak for itself, but I also would not rely on professionals too much, many of which have been rather spineless, as it's their job at risk, not ours. Whatever literature there is to bring more truth to the world, spread it and share it. I would be afraid to sit back, relax and assume that the establishment is going to sort itself out. The Internet has been a great tool at pushing back against mainstream narratives.

Your affectionate uncle,

Screwtape

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

I am very late seeing this post but I agree 100%. I wish the name Blanchard would die in a fire. He is widely discredited and quoting him just makes GCers look like anti vaxxers or flat earthers of gender. There is enough valid criticism of gender both from a scientific/medical and philosophical/human rights view that doesn't have to rely on "but what if literally all trans women were either perverts or self hating gays" levels of narrow mindedness. It just makes GC look embarrassing.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Blanchard's typologies are holding up.

The heterosexual males doing it do seem to have a sexual motive. I don't think thier offending is much different to standard male, and I think pervert is a harsh term for it. Although I'm sure it's been thrown at them.

The homosexuals.. well I wouldn't say GC labels them as self hating, just really effeminate and tending to confirm to female norms.

Not that I really hold with a lot of what GC thinks as to why people develop gendered behaviour.

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

Even if it seems true (which intuitively it does to me too), the field doesn't really accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Criticism I think it'd be easier to use newer data/terms because it's too easy to find arguments against Blanchard.

If nothing else it's too outdated to account for "trenders" (cringey teens on TikTok)

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

Well, Ann Lawrence really ripped Moser a new one.

You'll also note that it's TIM transactivists who really have an issue with it.

It's been rather supported by fairly recent work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180619/

Blanchard’s prediction follows from studies that have repeatedly shown that the homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are “female-shifted” in multiple, sexually dimorphic characteristics, whereas the heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals are not

Someone recently posted a paper that claimed to show AGP wasn't a thing, and it did say that, but when you read the text it noted arousal in the hetero males.

Significantly more exclusively gynephilic than androphilic trans women reported a history of sexual arousal in relation to cross-dressing. Interestingly, a statistically non-significant trend indicated that gynephilic trans women who had not yet undergone gender affirming surgery showed the highest levels of sexual desire

I'm guessing the intact genitalia had to do with the last statement.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not just research, but real-world experience. When I run into someone in the LGBT community and trans topics come up, I send them "The Elephant in the Room" (https://medium.com/@sue.donym1984/the-elephant-in-the-room-dc822144a81b). A lot of them really connect with the article, because they know someone that fits that mold really well.

The same goes for me personally, even though I'm not a part of the alphabet community. I have people in my life where AGP just explains their behavior really well.

Some of Blanchard's pet theories may not hold up, but the basic typology is pretty close to the mark. AGP is totally a thing.

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

I have people in my life where AGP

I have a very creepy male relative that's a transvestite dominatrix. Nasty sort (sadistic and manipulative): makes my skin crawl. He keeps a carving knife under his pillow, obvious mental health issues.

He's close to coming out as a TIM, I swear. Also married to a doormat of a woman.

The idea of people like him in changing rooms with young girls scares the shit out of me.

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

I don’t disagree with much of this: I think there was a failure of transparency, and I think transparency is important.

When GC started as a subreddit, it was much more about in-depth discussion by women who had deep backgrounds in feminist theory. And it was supposed to supplement the existing feminist subs, because nobody expected them to turn so hostile to criticism of gender or of porn and prostitution. As it grew, a lot of people came drifting in for other reasons, because it was the only place openly discussing any of this. Some of the strict modding was an attempt to stop these newbies from diluting the original ethos, but it could only do so much. Waves would come in, and many would start to bed in or be sent elsewhere, but towards the end the influx of newbies was very high and not slowing down. The Peak Trans thread served to compile experiences, but it also served to keep those comments contained rather than making the entire sub about them because people always wanted to make a post about it early on.

There were a lot of discussions among older users about the impact this was having, and if there were ways to counteract it and restore the sub as a place to actually discuss things in depth. That’s where the creation of subs like radicalfeminists and radfemtheory (also banned) came in, and trollgc to try to move that sillier content out of gc, and actualwomen to try to move conversations not about feminism, and GCdebatesQT and ask_radical_feminists and gendercriticalguys and so on.

They may have been losing that fight, but it was absolutely what they were trying to do. In the most recent wave, for an obvious example, a lot of memeposts were getting through on GC (rather than trollGC), because the level was so high of newbies posting who didn’t know how it was supposed to work but had been told this was the place for terfs who agreed with Rowling: I hadn’t seen memes getting through in years, so this gives an idea of the battle the mods were facing.

It’s been Eternal September. The influx of young teenagers to Reddit during lockdown hasn’t helped, either.

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

That's really interesting about the history, I didn't know that's how all the GC sister subs came to be, and the peak trans thread, though that makes sense now that you explain it.

I had heard that when GC started it was more about actual gender criticism, and was not primarily focused on trans issues. Is that right? How did that change happen? (if you want to answer)

[–]GenderCriticalOnly 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

more about actual gender criticism, and was not primarily focused on trans issues

I don’t think you can really separate those two things anymore, sadly, which is why the subreddit had to be created. What had been perfectly normal feminist discussion criticising gender had become cast as transphobic and unacceptable in the existing feminist spaces, even when it wasn’t about trans issues, and discussions of trans issues kept ending up at sexist statements that you couldn’t criticise without being called a bigot.

Here is the sub in October 2013 already showing a mixture of the two, and being brigaded. You can see it in September, too. It’s very much a place for women (and see the emphasis in the sidebar on lesbians) to go and talk about what’s been going wrong in their existing spaces, so I suppose you could call that being about trans issues.

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

Bindel was getting death threats over transgender stuff back in 2013? wow. It looks like this war between, well, gender critical / radfem feminism and liberal feminism has been going on for a while now. It says "community for 9 days..." so it was made back around 2013? So it was made directly as a response to this transgender stuff. It did not start out as a community discussing how to liberate women from sex-based expectations as I had thought. I guess there was a lot of that going on in any feminist context. And this is just the continued manifestation of the split or attempted takeover or whatever you want to call it between people who think feminism should include transgender males and people who think it's about female people. Which put opposing feminists in the crosshairs just as much as any organization that goes against lgbt, with the same standards of "disagreement is tantamount to violence", used as an excuse to enact violence.

Was the sub made by feminists on reddit who were getting pushed out of other feminist spaces on reddit?

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

Great.