GenderCritical sub still showing up on /s/all New. Is that intended behavior?

submitted by rdh2121 from self.SaidIt

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What is rule 4b? I see rule 4, prohibiting astroturfing and artificial amplification.

When I look at https://saidit.net/s/all/new/ I see posts from the books sub. That is at least two years old. Should that also not show up, or am I looking at this wrong?

[–]rdh2121[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Here are the rules in question.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Excellent, thanks. I get it now. Maybe it comes down to an interpretation of "high on the pyramid of debate". I know the amount of trolling GC subs get, and none of that trolling is very high on the pyramid of debate. I can't speak for everything that got deleted, but I imagine that's the crux of the issue.

[–]rdh2121[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Absolutely, trolling is a problem on subs like GC, but moderators are allowed to remove comments low on the pyramid, and that's not a violation of Saidit's rules.

The problem is that GC also doesn't allow good faith disagreement or debate, which directly goes against the rules of Saidit, and therefore can't be allowed on the public /s/all page, and I think that should hold for New as well.

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

I know what you mean. On the one hand I can see that there are few "good faith" arguments over what a man or woman is. Even if one tries to extend a kind of olive branch to the other side (the Gender accepting side I guess) where you could say there is the term "woman" as defined by biological sex and a term "woman" as defined by gender, they do not accept the gender one and would insist on using the biological sense one. That would eliminate a lot of things that seem to be in good faith but violate an agreed upon vocabulary. This kind of thing makes sense in many fields of study where the use of terms only makes sense when the definition is agreed upon. The beginning of Plato's dialogue The Sophists deals with this, where Socrates asks a "stranger" from Syracuse about the Sophists there. The stranger is more than happy to talk about them, but first he has to makes sure they are talking about the same people or school of thought. Otherwise his "sophists" and Socrates could be two completely different populations and schools of thought, and they would not really be making sense to each other even if they were in agreement. It's the same with GC, just what one means by "woman" and "man" has to be agreed upon or else the discussion is not in good faith.

As for other discussion about gender roles, I think it can be fair for them to be suspicious of anything that looks like an attempt to put them back in the kitchen. I'm glad I don't have to decide if anything along those lines violates rule 4b or not, just as I'm glad I don't have to deal with any ramifications if I were to decide that such a violation might not deem enforcement. The concern stated by the OP (which might be you, I don't really keep track of those things) is about the spirit of the rule and not the technicality of the rule. In the same way getting a ticket for going 36 in a 35 mph zone would be considered a dick move, I can't really fault women for being hyper vigilant. More than that, they were a fastly growing community in reddit and in the world, as women might finally be organizing or at least motivated in large numbers, against what is an obvious attack on their rights-- if no other right than the right of free speech and freedom of assembly. Removing their ability to assemble on reddit was a dick move, a panic move showing they know women are gaining ground. To knock them off "new" as they try to reorganize over a technicality at the time when they are trying to reorganize and undo the damage the banning did, seems to be a dick move hiding behind technocratic bureaucracy.

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

In the end, it's pretty sad that we've come to a point in society where one, we deny people the right to free speech, and two, we don't know wtf a woman is (because let's be real, most of this gender mumbo jumbo is aimed at women. I don't see it anywhere near the same extent towards men).

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

It's affecting women more for two reasons:

  1. MTF has long been more common than FTM. There's good reason to believe this is strongly influenced by biology.
  2. Women are higher than men in the progressive stack, rendering 'female' a more desirable identity in the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy of identity politics.

Ultimately this comes down to social constructionism and postmodernism. Gender is positioned as being socially constructed. The idea that gender can be decoupled from sex really kicked-off in the 1950s with Money, among others, leading the charge. Postmodernism applied social constructivist thought, adding the idea that all truth is subjective and personal. Chuck in some Marxism and critical theory and you have this nonsensical thinking that has long since unmoored itself from reality. There's a reason why Wikipedia articles on these ideologies/movements always reference feminism, as they were readily adopted by most feminist thinkers and feminist movements. Feminism was one of a few genetically linked ideologies that led us to where we are now. Not all feminists are intersectionality, although most of that camp were happy enough until transgender men climbed to the top of the progressive stack, at which point some feminists began hurling cats and blaming patriarchy for being dethroned. This idea that patriarchy, seen as a conservative mode of thought, would be interested in seeing men become women is laughable and readily rebutted by pointing to feminism's ideological lineage and role in fostering identity politics. All significant intersectionality theorists, at least so far as I can see, are drawn from feminist and/or Marxist schools of thought.

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

What type of feminism are you referring to here? Because when I see men (what I'm assuming you are) blaming feminism in any way, it's usually not the type of feminism they should be blaming. If you're talking about 3rd wave, liberal feminism, then I'd say I agree, to an extent.

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

Second wave onwards. Third wave didn't appear out of nowhere. All the elements required for intersectionality (e.g. postmodernism, social constructionism, and the oppressor/oppressed worldview derived from Marxist thought) were there in second wave feminism. In the context of second wave these were used to describe how women are perpetually oppressed by males through societal construction of gender and gender roles. If women truly can do everything then it follows that so can men, and some men became women.

Not all feminists subscribe to intersectionality, although it's quite noticeable that dissenters, previously content with the change, seem to have increased in numbers when the ideological view led to a small percentage of primarily white heterosexual men finding their way to the top of the progressive stack. It was at this point the implications became rather clear, with lesbians who refuse to have sex with transgender women becoming bigots and the male invasion of previously female-only spaces.

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

Everything you said in the first paragraph is 100% wrong lol.

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

We know what a man and a woman is, and we've known since we've been old enough to know which one has the who-ha and which has the other one. It's just "triggering" to the mental health of the mentally ill to say it plainly.

Women do bear the brunt of it, because they're mere existence is a threat that exposes the "toxic mimicry" that transwomen very often are (as opposed to being simply neuro-divergent, or victims of abuse, or mentally ill)