People really don't like getting banned.

submitted by [deleted] from self.censorship

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

view the rest of the comments →

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

There's a lot here. I appreciate your explaining your perspective.

Firstly, I'm not exactly a feminist (radical or otherwise) and I'm not exactly not. I've found a lot of things about radical feminism immensely valuable, and I also disagree a lot with some things.

A lot of the feminist ideas you're talking about here seem to come from a lot of different places. I think there's truth to some of them, but I don't agree with some of them.

As for making a sub women only, are you checking anyone's passport or their genitals? Again, you have no idea who is in your sub. The only thing you can police is opinions, so you might as well come out and say that. How does that not occur to your types of people?

I'm aware of this, that's why the rules were written the way they were, "known to be male". I had actually assumed you were female (because I had assumed goodwill, and I saw that you posted in /s/Gender_Critical, and I assumed that you had at least skimmed the rules which indicate that it's meant for women), until I saw you state that you were male. It was disappointing to find out you had just chosen not to listen to the rules, especially after choosing a screen name referencing a work on morality I personally have a fondness for.

I could be wrong about all of this, too, I don't think I have all the answers, but this is where I am at.

I agree that an open discussion sub about these issues might be really nice, for this reason! We're all just figuring it out. I don't like that a lot of the time we have to talk in these ideologically enforcing spaces. I made the decision I did regarding s/ G_C for the reasons I tried to describe, but that doesn't mean I don't also think an open discussion space is valuable. I really do think /s/feminism could work for right now on a lot of these topics, I was sincere in suggesting it. There's already been a lot of interesting interchange here on feminist topics. I learned stuff I didn't expect to.

Maybe we can start to admit that men and women are not equal, on average, and that not every disparity in outcome is due to oppression and patriarchy. Maybe we can start to see that we can treat each other fairly despite our differences and that meritocracy, even if it does not work out to a perfect gender split, is the fairest way to treat people. Then you can get transgender people out of women's sports again. Then we can stop blaming men, many of whom have given their lives to protect women, for every problem women have.

Yeah I think it's fine to discuss these ideas, and probably important as these are pretty powerful political movements right now.

I don't know why you're so interested in feminist stuff. But if it needs to be said: you're not a bad person for being male. If you think someone isn't treating you right, you don't have to listen. If you've treated someone wrong, you should clean up whatever problem you caused. If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't need to apologize or act like you've done something wrong when you haven't. Like anyone else, it's your personal actions that count, good or bad.

I have many people in my life that are important to me, some men and some women. I do not want the women in my life to get hurt and I do not want the men in my life to face any of the abominations that some of the feminists have unleashed on society in the form of MeToo, family court, Title IX or similar. I despise what the transgender movement is doing and I despise what I understand radfems to believe. But the hipocrisy and lies of the transgender movement ironically really helped to shine a light on the bullshit that radfems appear to believe. For that I thank the transgender movement.

It sounds like maybe you're looking for a place to discuss and maybe work towards fixing issues in transgender ideology and activism? A place that anyone could participate? And maybe a place to discuss fair policies for women and men (you mentioned metoo, family court, title ix).

Frankly I would love to see a positive space for all this that worked towards good solutions for everyone. We'd all have to actually listen to each other, which a lot of us aren't used to. But it could probably happen on SaidIt. These are the conversations it was designed to facilitate.

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

I'm aware of this, that's why the rules were written the way they were, "known to be male". I had actually assumed you were female (because I had assumed goodwill, and I saw that you posted in /s/Gender_Critical, and I assumed that you had at least skimmed the rules which indicate that it's meant for women), until I saw you state that you were male. It was disappointing to find out you had just chosen not to listen to the rules, especially after choosing a screen name referencing a work on morality I personally have a fondness for.

Maybe that was immoral. I do not know. I assumed that saidit was a free speech platform and I had already been familiar with the GenderCritical group on Reddit, so I had assumed that it would be about the same topic, just minus the censorship or identitarianism, surely. That, I had thought would have been left on Reddit. I had also actually invested quite a bit of thought into the post, so I thought it would be a welcome contribution. That is a big part of why I am so mad about this. I did not think that I would have said anything in the post that would not be on topic, and therefor valid, or I would have read the rules more clearly, at the point when I was conducting myself in a manner that I would be unsure about, such as certain rules about how to post certain content or in which style to reference sources -- things that regulate formality. In a place of free speech, I always assume aspects of what is true to be beyond regulation. If I run afoul of any rules in that manner, by expressing what I think is true, I usually do not care enough about the rules of a space. My rationale is that this is automatically hypocritical and that such a space did not respect me, as a user, enough to be morally consistent. At that point, all bets are off for me about many aspects of moral conduct.

Truth, for me, except in limited circumstances such as privacy, is an absolute defense in speech. That I would not have input on a topic because of my assumed gender (I am still not sure if I disclosed it) is inherently repugnant to me, so I did not inform myself about such rules, as I would have had no respect for them. I would have probably intentionally violated them, in that case, and I am not at all certain that would have been immoral. If you wish to talk about morality, I think we have an obligation to resist both immoral laws and immoral rules. And identitarianism of this sort is immoral to me. I am glad I violated that rule and if moderators had continued to assume that I am female I might have never noticed.

But that is the thing about truth: eventually you run into all those inconsistencies, you are bound to, sooner or later. We two seem to have very different ideas about morals.

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

I assumed that saidit was a free speech platform and I had already been familiar with the GenderCritical group on Reddit, so I had assumed that it was about the same topic, just minus the censorship or identitarianism.

Ok, I guess that's understandable. That wasn't what was going on, and it was clearly stated on the sidebar, but I can see how someone might have that expectation. I've done things based on false expectations before. For example SaidIt was presented to me as a free speech platform, and I was unhappy about it when I found out it wasn't.

I had also actually invested quite a bit of thought into the post, so I thought it would be a welcome contribution. That is a big part of why I am so mad about this.

I really meant what I said about just crossposting it in /s/feminism... you could still do that you know. It might have generated the discussion you wanted. I said it because I thought it was the right solution. It think it really will pop up in an "other discussions" tab for anyone who wants to participate, so they can find it easily.

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

Yes, I will do that. It's not really my position. I do not even want to admins to step in on any of this, because that would make me a hypocrite. I do not want this to be resolved through the use of power and force. I want the better ideas to prevail. What I would like to happen is for Gender*Critical to remain as it is and for the quality of people's ideas to win out. As soon as I have the account age I will set up a free speech version, unless there already is one.

But that is not a contradiction with me attacking radfem ideas. Bring them here. I want to see them dismantled, just as any bad idea of the likes of flat Earthers or social constructionists.

Now I know what to expect. I won't invest effort in posting in those subs anymore. If you want to do something moral, state clearly what you are doing and let the world see it. Say which opinions are off limit, because you cannot police people's gender in the end. You can only police opinions. Even if I had outright said to be male, do you know if that's true? Maybe, if women are such victims online, I would have reason to pretend to be male. No? Seems like something that wouldn't be out of line with radfem beliefs: women pretending to be male online. But, instead, I see women disclosing their gender online more frequently. Seems like GOTIS. Seems like hypocrisy and it smells of bullshit.

Maybe what you have actually just done is excluded a woman who was seeking community online and pretended to be male for the safety against the dangers of said being woman in such misogynistic society. You keep running into contradictions with that belief system, it seems. If women really were the subjects of constant attack, why create a community online that explicitly exposes the gender of their members? If you say that you would not know, then you are proving the nonsense in your own rules. If you are saying that you could tell, then you are contradicting your ideology.