I know you're new here and just getting set up, but that's why I wanted to get these things addressed early on; it's the right time.

You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

I checked my DM log and I don't have any DM history with the GC mods. Are you thinking of a different user?

Locking threads does not seem to be a standard practice in general on the sub, and I do still feel it's a bit troubling that someone would find the need to lock that thread in particular. The purpose of locking a thread is to stop women who want to from continuing that discussion.

You are already engaging in ideology-based censorship in a way I believe is not transparent, just as it was not on GC. This is dogma-based censorship that has nothing to do with being pro-female or anti-abuse, but with enforcing LGB dogma.

It's not "perceived censorship," it's just normal censorship. Same exact kind GC just experienced in getting kicked off reddit, same kind Meghan Murphy experienced earlier getting kicked off twitter. (This is the same language my abusive family used towards me when I tried to call what they were doing "abuse" -- "I'm sorry you feel abused". "No I'm not willing to call it 'abuse', maybe 'mistreatment' but not 'abuse'." It's not "all in my head".)

What has bothered me about GC:

1. you claimed to be speaking for the general benefit of women, yet you did not allow all women to weigh in on what that means

2. you allowed anti-Whiteness but remove anti- content for other groups of women.

3. the group has not been honest that it is enforcing a dogma. (the exception being its position on abortion). It has instead presented its position as "just true based on science/reality" or "not hateful". But this is not the case.

The existence of "sexual orientation" is even disagreed with by large swaths of women involved in radical feminism because they believe women can (and should) choose to avoid interest in men. Same for censorship of positions regarding various ethnic groups. Non-hateful content is removed, but the rules imply that only hateful, evil, disproven content is removed ("racism, anti-semitism, bigotry"). It is not about protecting all groups of women, because open hate of some groups of women is not removed. It is not about protecting all vulnerable women, because open hate of some vulnerable women is allowed. It is not about removing all hate, because content that would be considered hateful towards other groups is allowed when directed towards men (c.f. "name the problem").

It shouldn't be possible for a woman to go onto GC and think "oh they allow open discussion here, it's so nice" or to think "oh they only remove hateful content." She should know right away that many viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons, and she should know which viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons. This allows her to recognize when an apparent consensus is the result of a dogma-based moderation policy, and is not a genuine organic consensus.

I know the old GC sidebar said stuff like "here are some resources to learn more about radical feminism," and yes Dworkin and Mary Daly and all that stuff is interesting, as is "pronouns are rohypnol" and all that stuff, but it leaves women without a clear understanding of what positions are being dogmatically enforced, and who counts as a "real radical feminist" for the purposes of sub moderation.

To avoid gaslighting women into perceiving a false consensus, more clarity is needed about what positions are being dogmatically enforced. And it needs to not euphemistically stated as "removing bigotry," or "not radical feminist." The actual positions that are censored need to be clearly stated (as it was clearly stated that certain positions regarding abortion are censored).

That's my opinion anyway. If this is done right, every women there will know exactly what dogma is being enforced in the space and can participate in a fully informed way.