Reddit Starts One-Sided Censorship

[Purgatio]

Trying to get your intellectual opponents banned off an online platform for having a different definition of feminism is the epitome of intellectual intolerance, parochialism, and close-mindedness. The feminist activists on r/GenderCritical weren't hurting anyone, they just held views that the radical trans activists don't like and disagree with. The Internet doesn't exist to conform and comport to their every ideological belief.

The nazi activists on Stormfront aren't hurting anyone, they just hold views that radical nonwhite activists don't like and disagree with!
Yeah, no. "Gender critical" ideology is based upon intellectual ignorance and closed-mindedness. It's an insult to even call them "intellectual opponents" when the whole thing is based on lies, conspiracy theories, and bigotry.
You are right about one thing, though - the Internet doesn't exist to conform and comport to ideological beliefs. Which is why Reddit's perfectly free to ask them to take their business elsewhere.

What lies? What bigotry? Gender-critical feminism is not about hating trans people, they have a specific worldview as to how to define "women" who are oppressed under patriarchy, they believe women are oppressed on the basis of biological sex, rather than gender identity, they don't hate or disrespect trans men or women, they just disagree with trans people on a number of linguistic issues, in particular how the words "he", "she", "male", "female", should be used to discuss socio-political issues that affect women's rights on an everyday basis. That is not the same as disrespect or bigotry.

[Crockerland]

Trying to get your intellectual opponents banned off an online platform for having a different definition of feminism is the epitome of intellectual intolerance, parochialism, and close-mindedness. The feminist activists on r/GenderCritical weren't hurting anyone, they just held views that the radical trans activists don't like and disagree with. The Internet doesn't exist to conform and comport to their every ideological belief.

The nazi activists on Stormfront aren't hurting anyone, they just hold views that radical nonwhite activists don't like and disagree with!

Feminists who don't think transwomen should be allowed in girls' locker rooms = Nazi holocaust deniers who actively advocate for genocide and celebrate mass shooters

Yeah, totally the same thing

[Dawn Denac]

Rowling and Linehan actively spread their own brand of hatred and rhetoric. These gender-critical people are well aware of what they're doing and you know it. The entire point of a woman or man to transition in that manner is to be utterly regarded as the gender they are transitioning to. The argument of our rights being erased from policy issues is flimsy at best, considering how long woman's suffrage has been going on for even before the transgender movement started to gain traction and I'm going to be damn vocal in making sure that's understood.

Pretty sure the agitation for trans-inclusive language wasn't a thing when the suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote. Regardless, the argument of gender-critical feminists is they object to attempts to erase female vocabulary that describes the reality of biological sex, and that in turn nullifies their ability to call our sexism on issues that directly concern or pertain to biological sex. For instance, talking about period equity, so many organisations like Planned Parenthood would retweet information about the 'tampon tax' and have to use the word 'menstruators' instead of 'women', in order to be trans-inclusive. Or, when discussing abortion rights and reproductive oppression, so many organisations speak of 'pregnant persons' instead of 'pregnant women'. Trans activists forced a women's college to end their staging of the Vagina Monologues, because the reference to 'vagina' was apparently offensive and bigoted against trans women. Trans activists have spoken up against free-bleeding protests at feminist marches, against the 'pussy hates' at the Women's March etc. etc., slowly the concept of biological sex is being erased from political discourse, the very word 'women' is being erased from issues in which biological femaleness is clearly at play. The issue, then, is gender-critical feminists are slowly losing the lexicon and the vocabulary needed to call out institutional sexism where it exists and arises, because of the demand for 'trans-inclusive language' erasing female vocabulary on all these issues.

No, you're entirely missing the point. There is no regardless here. If you as a man want to make the transition to identify as a woman, you are entitled to the rights of a woman as a living human being. These aren't attempts to erase female vocabulary or "the reality of biological sex." We're entirely capable of calling out rampant, disgusting and stupid sexism without a bunch of men in their basements screeching on a reddit sub about how our identities are being erased from the human vocabulary because of trans-inclusive language. It is this type of ignorance and close-mindedness, the very same you are projecting is the type I will continue to call out and hammer into your skull until you get the point.

[Major-Tom]

Reddit is a privately owned site, they are within their rights as a private enterprise to do with their site whatever they please so long as it's within the bounds of the law. So, really, who cares? If you don't like it, great, there are millions of platforms where you can speak to other "like-minded people."

People who equate this with "the nazis" as the OP did are absofuckinglutely being ludicrous here, as are people who wanna blame this on progressivism, seeing as Reddit has banned a whole plethora of left-wing subreddits now and in the past. They're milquetoast, they want content that generally isn't all too provocative. Whether or not you agree with their reasoning is irrelevant on account of Reddit's rights as a business.

[Gravlen]

Oh no, have fun pointing it out. I, too, have shaken my fist against percieved injustice and then gone about my day doing absolutely nothing to change things, as you seem to be doing.

You know, you are allowed to express opinions without those opinions changing the world overnight? If your criteria for when you're allowed to speak is your opinion must enact radical policy changes that solve earth-ending problems, then you can't ever speak your mind on anything. This is such an intellectually-disingenuous argument.

I don't know why you feel people are telling you you're not "allowed" to speak, in particular when responding to a post saying quite clearly that it's something you can do.

You're allowed, under the ToS of NationStates, to speak out against this all you want - within certain limits. If you don't agree with those limits, you can ask the owner of the site to change the rules. You're not victimized if you go outside those rules and get yourself banned, however.

You can speak about this elsewhere too. You could even do things that have a chance to make a difference, if you want to. Send a strongly worded letter to Reddit, and maybe they'll see the error of their ways. See? You're allowed to both say and do things, even if it's unlikely that you'll make them change the rules!

[Purgatio]

If you are fighting for women's liberation, and your definition of the oppressed class at issue, "women", is based on biological sex, then yeah, trans women aren't biologically-female, and therefore not "women" in the eyes of a women's liberation movement based around biological sex. Its perfectly rational.

The notion that trans women are men pretending to be women for the purpose of entering women's locker rooms and other women only spaces is not rational. In fact, it is a stereotype that works to harm trans women. Just one of the ideas that people like Rowling spread.

There actually are specific examples of trans women who have assaulted natal women in women-only spaces, like Katie Dolatowski, Karen White, Michelle Martinez, etc., but regardless, its not about stereotyping all trans women as violent men, gender-critical feminists don't hate trans women and they certainly don't think all trans women behave or act in one uniform way. The point is to have a rational debate about the normative basis for sex-segregated spaces, and in the view of a gender-critical feminist, those spaces exist to protect the safety of natal women who are oppressed and subjected to violence owing to their physiology, rooted in biology and sex.

You can disagree with that view, and in fact there are perfectly rational arguments against it (like pointing to the sexual violence suffered by trans women), but you can't say it isn't an intellectually-coherent position for the gender-critical feminists to take, to regard women-only spaces as demarcated based on biological sex rather than gender identity. There is room for rational argument without heavy-handed, authoritarian censorship.

[Dawn Denac]

The nazi activists on Stormfront aren't hurting anyone, they just hold views that radical nonwhite activists don't like and disagree with!

Feminists who don't think transwomen should be allowed in girls' locker rooms = Nazi holocaust deniers who actively advocate for genocide and celebrate mass shooters

Yeah, totally the same thing

I think Necro's attempting to compare the logic to that amount of ridiculous. They're not spreading "transphobia," they just don't think a certain sect of humans should have rights. It's different from a direct comparison/usual callout of "LITERALLY HITLER" people like to use. It sounds silly to say Stormfront is that, right? Radical non-white activists just freely expressing their opinion? Why is it different for the "gender-critical" to do the same for their own brand of rhetoric?

[Ifreann]

Sure, ok.

But that's rather beside the point - there was also the hatred that went with it.

Hatred of who? Believing in the concept of biological sex, distinct from gender identity, isn't synonymous with hating trans people.

You keep trying to force an argument about gender when this is a thread about Reddit. Your "gender critical" beliefs aren't at all relevant here. And I don't mean this as a personal criticism of you, obviously none of us would be on this website if we didn't like arguing. My point is that the intellectual or philosophical validity of your beliefs is entirely beside the point. TERFs weren't allowed to have a subreddit in the first instance because your beliefs are sufficiently valid to be worthy of debate in the free marketplace of ideas, and you haven't had your subreddit deleted because Reddit thinks your beliefs are invalid. Reddit has only ever cared about making money. There was money in advertising to you. Now there's money giving you the boot. The problem for you is not, as you seem to believe, that your enemies have suborned Reddit with their duplicitous and underhanded tactics, the problem for you is capitalism. You don't get your rational online discourse because of capitalism.

[Farnhamia]

If your favorite subreddit got banned, consider it a badge of honor, because it means one of two things, either it hurt Steve Huffman’s feelings, or it hurt China’s feelings

no worries, i'm not a subhuman so none of my favorite subreddits were banned :^)

*** 3 day ban for trolling ***

[Atlexil]

Okay, Purgatio. I'm gonna just say this as a cis guy who hangs out in a few LGBT spaces along with knowing some transpeople. But you aware that TERFs consider transwomen to be "dirty orcs" and that transmen are "women brainwashed by the patriarchy", yeah? Seriously, TERFs consider transpeople to be their ideological enemy for some weridass bullshit reason and don't think they're actual people. And on the subject of Rowling and Lineham. Rowling is a shit author because of her stupid as fuck Word of God statements and basically virtue signaling for progressive points. While Lineham was somebody who was obsessed about hating transpeople to the point their family had to do an intervention before cutting ties with them.

Calling them gender infiltrators seeking to undermine "true" feminism for some strange reason.

Oh yes, how can I forget about that conspiracy/fearmongering bullshit they use to whip themselves up into a frenzy.

Okay, Purgatio. I'm gonna just say this as a cis guy who hangs out in a few LGBT spaces along with knowing some transpeople. But you aware that TERFs consider transwomen to be "dirty orcs" and that transmen are "women brainwashed by the patriarchy", yeah? Seriously, TERFs consider transpeople to be their ideological enemy for some weridass bullshit reason and don't think they're actual people. And on the subject of Rowling and Lineham. Rowling is a shit author because of her stupid as fuck Word of God statements and basically virtue signaling for progressive points. While Lineham was somebody who was obsessed about hating transpeople to the point their family had to do an intervention before cutting ties with them.

Whatever you think about Rowling and Linehan, they did not deserve the harassment and abuse that they received for simply having an opinion that the trans activists and agitators disagreed with. Regardless, gender-critical feminists don't hate trans women or trans men. They believe that trans women and trans men should not be referred to based on their gender identity, but their innate biological sex, because they want to maintain a coherent vision of radical feminism and women's liberation, and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that oppression under patriarchy rests on biological sex, the belief that biologically-female people are normatively-expected to perform gendered roles associated with that sex (pregnancy, making babies, child-rearing, being a submissive house-wife, sacrificing career etc. etc.), but that opinion does not come with any inherent hatred, bigotry, or dehumanisation of trans men and women, just a difference of opinion as to whether language like "he" or "she" should flow from biological sex, or gender identity. Gender-critical feminists believe it should be the former, because they are worried if trans men and women get their way in terms of vocabulary, it would erase female vocabulary in respect of policy issues that concern natal women and girls (i.e. saying "pregnant people" instead of "expectant mothers" or "pregnant women", saying "menstruators" instead of "women", that kind of thing), and thus nullifies the ability of gender-critical feminists to call out the sexism and misogyny involved in such policy issues.

And you've just proven my point by basically repeating the same talking points TERFs use as a cover to basically treat transpeople like some marauding band of raiders aiming to destroy civilization. I could spend countless hours bringing up the myths TERFs use to fearmonger/discriminate against transpeople or pull up articles that show these so-called "radical feminists" allying themselves with groups that traditionally abhor feminism and consider women to be "uppity bitches". But it's probably going to be arguing with a brick wall and just end in frustration.

Now, before I go, I will say this. Transwomen and transmen are people that deserve the same equal rights and protections as cis-gendered people. If that is an issue for TERFs and their supporters then I already know who I am not going to be listening too.

[Dawn Denac]

Hatred of who? Believing in the concept of biological sex, distinct from gender identity, isn't synonymous with hating trans people.

You keep trying to force an argument about gender when this is a thread about Reddit. Your "gender critical" beliefs aren't at all relevant here. And I don't mean this as a personal criticism of you, obviously none of us would be on this website if we didn't like arguing. My point is that the intellectual or philosophical validity of your beliefs is entirely beside the point. TERFs weren't allowed to have a subreddit in the first instance because your beliefs are sufficiently valid to be worthy of debate in the free marketplace of ideas, and you haven't had your subreddit deleted because Reddit thinks your beliefs are invalid. Reddit has only ever cared about making money. There was money in advertising to you. Now there's money giving you the boot. The problem for you is not, as you seem to believe, that your enemies have suborned Reddit with their duplicitous and underhanded tactics, the problem for you is capitalism. You don't get your rational online discourse because of capitalism.

Like Bear and I have pointed out earlier in this thread: It's not. About. Politics. It's never been about politics. If Max Barry wanted to make money off this site and silence anyone he didn't agree with, what would you people do? Nothing, because it is his private organization and he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Corporations like Reddit only care for the money, and they're entirely fine with you complaining about politics to keep the attention off of them and continue to use their site.

[Crockerland]

Feminists who don't think transwomen should be allowed in girls' locker rooms = Nazi holocaust deniers who actively advocate for genocide and celebrate mass shooters

Yeah, totally the same thing

I think Necro's attempting to compare the logic to that amount of ridiculous. They're not spreading "transphobia," they just don't think a certain sect of humans should have rights. It's different from a direct comparison/usual callout of "LITERALLY HITLER" people like to use. It sounds silly to say Stormfront is that, right? Radical non-white activists just freely expressing their opinion? Why is it different for the "gender-critical" to do the same for their own brand of rhetoric?

Because the gender-critical are not advocating for genocide or celebrating rampage killers going on mass shootings.

[Purgatio]

Pretty sure the agitation for trans-inclusive language wasn't a thing when the suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote. Regardless, the argument of gender-critical feminists is they object to attempts to erase female vocabulary that describes the reality of biological sex, and that in turn nullifies their ability to call our sexism on issues that directly concern or pertain to biological sex. For instance, talking about period equity, so many organisations like Planned Parenthood would retweet information about the 'tampon tax' and have to use the word 'menstruators' instead of 'women', in order to be trans-inclusive. Or, when discussing abortion rights and reproductive oppression, so many organisations speak of 'pregnant persons' instead of 'pregnant women'. Trans activists forced a women's college to end their staging of the Vagina Monologues, because the reference to 'vagina' was apparently offensive and bigoted against trans women. Trans activists have spoken up against free-bleeding protests at feminist marches, against the 'pussy hates' at the Women's March etc. etc., slowly the concept of biological sex is being erased from political discourse, the very word 'women' is being erased from issues in which biological femaleness is clearly at play. The issue, then, is gender-critical feminists are slowly losing the lexicon and the vocabulary needed to call out institutional sexism where it exists and arises, because of the demand for 'trans-inclusive language' erasing female vocabulary on all these issues.

No, you're entirely missing the point. There is no regardless here. If you as a man want to make the transition to identify as a woman, you are entitled to the rights of a woman as a living human being. These aren't attempts to erase female vocabulary or "the reality of biological sex." We're entirely capable of calling out rampant, disgusting and stupid sexism without a bunch of men in their basements screeching on a reddit sub about how our identities are being erased from the human vocabulary because of trans-inclusive language. It is this type of ignorance and close-mindedness, the very same you are projecting is the type I will continue to call out and hammer into your skull until you get the point.

Are you just ignoring literally all the examples I gave of trans activists literally demanding trans-inclusive language, even in the context of feminists and women's rights activists discussing issues in which women are undeniably disadvantaged on the basis of biological sex? Like the debate about women's athletics, where you have trans women like Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy making the argument that biological sex is irrelevant in deciding if a person should get to play in women's sports, even though the whole reason women's sports exists is because there are biological, physiological differences between men and women? Or trans activists demanding organisations use words like "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women", "menstruators" instead of "women", the BMA erasing the term "expectant mother" in favour of "pregnant people". This is erasing female vocabulary. It is erasing the concept of biological sex, and biological womanhood, from everyday lingo, radically changing how we use words and talk to one another. A gender-critical feminist is entitled to raise concerns about what this means for women's rights activists discussing women's issues.

[Purgatio]

Hatred of who? Believing in the concept of biological sex, distinct from gender identity, isn't synonymous with hating trans people.

You keep trying to force an argument about gender when this is a thread about Reddit. Your "gender critical" beliefs aren't at all relevant here. And I don't mean this as a personal criticism of you, obviously none of us would be on this website if we didn't like arguing. My point is that the intellectual or philosophical validity of your beliefs is entirely beside the point. TERFs weren't allowed to have a subreddit in the first instance because your beliefs are sufficiently valid to be worthy of debate in the free marketplace of ideas, and you haven't had your subreddit deleted because Reddit thinks your beliefs are invalid. Reddit has only ever cared about making money. There was money in advertising to you. Now there's money giving you the boot. The problem for you is not, as you seem to believe, that your enemies have suborned Reddit with their duplicitous and underhanded tactics, the problem for you is capitalism. You don't get your rational online discourse because of capitalism.

Well they are relevant, because Reddit's basis for kicking r/GenderCritical off its site is violating its 'Remember the Human' policies, in other words, accusing the subreddit of dehumanising a vulnerable community, or posts that "promote hate based on identity or vulnerability", and I'm here questioning that assessment, scrutinising the view that radical feminism and women's liberation, based on sex rather than gender, is somehow an inherently hateful or bigoted thing to believe, worthy of being deemed dehumanising in the eyes of Reddit.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'm pretty sure everyone has been missing the point for the past 3 pages or so.

The argument isn't whether gender critical ideology hates trans people, that's irrelevant. The argument is whether it should be banned from online platforms.
I don't think I can argue in good faith that anything should be unbanned if it's been banned on hate grounds if I don't also argue that things I disagree with that have been banned on hate grounds should also be unbanned. Folding to mob mentality, like online platforms have recently been doing is what I'm against, I don't really support the groups that have been banned but you're pretty hypocritical if you support the right of one to speak and not all.

[Gravlen]

Reddit has only ever cared about making money. There was money in advertising to you. Now there's money giving you the boot. The problem for you is not, as you seem to believe, that your enemies have suborned Reddit with their duplicitous and underhanded tactics, the problem for you is capitalism. You don't get your rational online discourse because of capitalism.

Repeated for the people in the back.

[Purgatio]

Calling them gender infiltrators seeking to undermine "true" feminism for some strange reason.

Oh yes, how can I forget about that conspiracy/fearmongering bullshit they use to whip themselves up into a frenzy.

Whatever you think about Rowling and Linehan, they did not deserve the harassment and abuse that they received for simply having an opinion that the trans activists and agitators disagreed with. Regardless, gender-critical feminists don't hate trans women or trans men. They believe that trans women and trans men should not be referred to based on their gender identity, but their innate biological sex, because they want to maintain a coherent vision of radical feminism and women's liberation, and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that oppression under patriarchy rests on biological sex, the belief that biologically-female people are normatively-expected to perform gendered roles associated with that sex (pregnancy, making babies, child-rearing, being a submissive house-wife, sacrificing career etc. etc.), but that opinion does not come with any inherent hatred, bigotry, or dehumanisation of trans men and women, just a difference of opinion as to whether language like "he" or "she" should flow from biological sex, or gender identity. Gender-critical feminists believe it should be the former, because they are worried if trans men and women get their way in terms of vocabulary, it would erase female vocabulary in respect of policy issues that concern natal women and girls (i.e. saying "pregnant people" instead of "expectant mothers" or "pregnant women", saying "menstruators" instead of "women", that kind of thing), and thus nullifies the ability of gender-critical feminists to call out the sexism and misogyny involved in such policy issues.

And you've just proven my point by basically repeating the same talking points TERFs use as a cover to basically treat transpeople like some marauding band of raiders aiming to destroy civilization. I could spend countless hours bringing up the myths TERFs use to fearmonger/discriminate against transpeople or pull up articles that show these so-called "radical feminists" allying themselves with groups that traditionally abhor feminism and consider women to be "uppity bitches". But it's probably going to be arguing with a brick wall and just end in frustration.

Now, before I go, I will say this. Transwomen and transmen are people that deserve the same equal rights and protections as cis-gendered people. If that is an issue for TERFs and their supporters then I already know who I am not going to be listening too.

Of course trans women and men deserve equal rights. No one is disputing that, including the gender-critical feminists. I'm not even a gender-critical feminist myself, as a gay man I've also been in a lot of LGBTQ+ spaces and domains all across social media, be it Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, even NSG, so I've heard the trans rights argument many times before, I'm just someone who is open-minded enough to always consider alternative viewpoints, including the gender-critical point of view. Now, I might not agree with everything gender-critical feminists say, but I think its only intellectually honest that I hear them out, especially given how reasonable rational GCFs tend to be in explaining their positions and point of view, and I should also hear out what trans rights activists have to say on the subject, so I can make an impartial and reasoned judgment.

Unfortunately, my ability to engage in that process of rational debate and intellectual engagement has been interrupted by authoritarian trans rights activists deciding that, instead of debating, they were going to weaponise malicious reporting on Reddit to silence and suppress an opposing point of view that they disagree with. And I find that repugnant.

[Gormwood]

I think Necro's attempting to compare the logic to that amount of ridiculous. They're not spreading "transphobia," they just don't think a certain sect of humans should have rights. It's different from a direct comparison/usual callout of "LITERALLY HITLER" people like to use. It sounds silly to say Stormfront is that, right? Radical non-white activists just freely expressing their opinion? Why is it different for the "gender-critical" to do the same for their own brand of rhetoric?

Because the gender-critical are not advocating for genocide or celebrating rampage killers going on mass shootings.

Just treating transpeople as mentally ill at best and legislating the attack helicopter meme as a rationale for denying gender recognition and associated rights. Denying transwomen access to abuse shelters or restrooms on the assumption that the point of them transitioning is to gain easy sexual access to women?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Because the gender-critical are not advocating for genocide or celebrating rampage killers going on mass shootings.

Just treating transpeople as mentally ill at best and legislating the attack helicopter meme as a rationale for denying gender recognition and associated rights. Denying transwomen access to abuse shelters or restrooms on the assumption that the point of them transitioning is to gain easy sexual access to women?

Your point, please.
You've still not said why these things mean they should be banned.

[Dawn Denac]

No, you're entirely missing the point. There is no regardless here. If you as a man want to make the transition to identify as a woman, you are entitled to the rights of a woman as a living human being. These aren't attempts to erase female vocabulary or "the reality of biological sex." We're entirely capable of calling out rampant, disgusting and stupid sexism without a bunch of men in their basements screeching on a reddit sub about how our identities are being erased from the human vocabulary because of trans-inclusive language. It is this type of ignorance and close-mindedness, the very same you are projecting is the type I will continue to call out and hammer into your skull until you get the point.

Are you just ignoring literally all the examples I gave of trans activists literally demanding trans-inclusive language, even in the context of feminists and women's rights activists discussing issues in which women are undeniably disadvantaged on the basis of biological sex? Like the debate about women's athletics, where you have trans women like Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy making the argument that biological sex is irrelevant in deciding if a person should get to play in women's sports, even though the whole reason women's sports exists is because there are biological, physiological differences between men and women? Or trans activists demanding organisations use words like "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women", "menstruators" instead of "women", the BMA erasing the term "expectant mother" in favour of "pregnant people". This is erasing female vocabulary. It is erasing the concept of biological sex, and biological womanhood, from everyday lingo, radically changing how we use words and talk to one another. A gender-critical feminist is entitled to raise concerns about what this means for women's rights activists discussing women's issues.

Okay, I can see your point and the viewpoint you yourself are coming from and speaking from this position on. I'm going to say here and now that both sides have their issues, but this sub was more than likely not for that explicit purpose of simply criticising transgender people and the language used to do such judging by the ban and the ban put on other threads. There are still ways to make an active difference, Reddit isn't the only one way that this can be discussed or to make an active difference in the world.

[United Dependencies]

There actually are specific examples of trans women who have assaulted natal women in women-only spaces,

The plural of anecdote is not data. However, we are digressing into a discussion of transgenderism when this topic is about reddit "censoring" certain subreddits.

To get back to the topic at hand, it is perfectly valid for a communities, such as reddit, to determine that certain viewpoints are harmful to the point that debating them does more bad than good. They are then free to eject people from their community if those members refuse to stop bringing up certain topics. The harm seems to be rather small since people can, and have, formed up in other communities. There's a TERF version of twitter if I recall correctly.

[Gravlen]

I'm pretty sure everyone has been missing the point for the past 3 pages or so.

The argument isn't whether gender critical ideology hates trans people, that's irrelevant. The argument is whether it should be banned from online platforms.
I don't think I can argue in good faith that anything should be unbanned if it's been banned on hate grounds if I don't also argue that things I disagree with that have been banned on hate grounds should also be unbanned. Folding to mob mentality, like online platforms have recently been doing is what I'm against, I don't really support the groups that have been banned but you're pretty hypocritical if you support the right of one to speak and not all.

We are not allowed to debate the ethics of zoophilia on NSG. If you didn't know, now you know; so will you now create a thread in moderation asking for that rule to change? Since it would be pretty hypocritical if you support the right of one to speak and not all?

[Purgatio]

Are you just ignoring literally all the examples I gave of trans activists literally demanding trans-inclusive language, even in the context of feminists and women's rights activists discussing issues in which women are undeniably disadvantaged on the basis of biological sex? Like the debate about women's athletics, where you have trans women like Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy making the argument that biological sex is irrelevant in deciding if a person should get to play in women's sports, even though the whole reason women's sports exists is because there are biological, physiological differences between men and women? Or trans activists demanding organisations use words like "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women", "menstruators" instead of "women", the BMA erasing the term "expectant mother" in favour of "pregnant people". This is erasing female vocabulary. It is erasing the concept of biological sex, and biological womanhood, from everyday lingo, radically changing how we use words and talk to one another. A gender-critical feminist is entitled to raise concerns about what this means for women's rights activists discussing women's issues.

Okay, I can see your point and the viewpoint you yourself are coming from and speaking from this position on. I'm going to say here and now that both sides have their issues, but this sub was more than likely not for that explicit purpose of simply criticising transgender people and the language used to do such judging by the ban and the ban put on other threads. There are still ways to make an active difference, Reddit isn't the only one way that this can be discussed or to make an active difference in the world.

But that is what r/GenderCritical was about, at its core. They are radical feminists who support the abolition of gender, and believe women are oppressed for their biological sex, and should be liberated on that basis. Hence, they object to any attempts to obscure that goal, including the use of gendered pronouns divorced from biological sex, or trans-inclusive language that erases the concept of biological sex, and in particular, biological female-ness from everyday lingo. That's not hateful, and it sounds based on your post that you agree that that's not an inherently hateful, bigoted, or transphobic worldview for people to have. It's a fair, reasonable position to take, and whether you or I agree with it at the end of the day, it certainly doesn't warrant or necessitate a total ejection from Reddit and the elimination of the online platform at issue.

[Ifreann]

You keep trying to force an argument about gender when this is a thread about Reddit. Your "gender critical" beliefs aren't at all relevant here. And I don't mean this as a personal criticism of you, obviously none of us would be on this website if we didn't like arguing. My point is that the intellectual or philosophical validity of your beliefs is entirely beside the point. TERFs weren't allowed to have a subreddit in the first instance because your beliefs are sufficiently valid to be worthy of debate in the free marketplace of ideas, and you haven't had your subreddit deleted because Reddit thinks your beliefs are invalid. Reddit has only ever cared about making money. There was money in advertising to you. Now there's money giving you the boot. The problem for you is not, as you seem to believe, that your enemies have suborned Reddit with their duplicitous and underhanded tactics, the problem for you is capitalism. You don't get your rational online discourse because of capitalism.

Like Bear and I have pointed out earlier in this thread: It's not. About. Politics. It's never been about politics. If Max Barry wanted to make money off this site and silence anyone he didn't agree with, what would you people do?

I would simply abolish capitalism and private property.

Nothing, because it is his private organization and he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Corporations like Reddit only care for the money, and they're entirely fine with you complaining about politics to keep the attention off of them and continue to use their site.

Yep. It benefits capital for us to wage our culture wars among ourselves rather than recognise that they are the problem and we could take their power away from them. Whether it's trivial nonsense like people arguing about which console is better or actually important shit like trans rights.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'm pretty sure everyone has been missing the point for the past 3 pages or so.

The argument isn't whether gender critical ideology hates trans people, that's irrelevant. The argument is whether it should be banned from online platforms.
I don't think I can argue in good faith that anything should be unbanned if it's been banned on hate grounds if I don't also argue that things I disagree with that have been banned on hate grounds should also be unbanned. Folding to mob mentality, like online platforms have recently been doing is what I'm against, I don't really support the groups that have been banned but you're pretty hypocritical if you support the right of one to speak and not all.

We are not allowed to debate the ethics of zoophilia on NSG. If you didn't know, now you know; so will you now create a thread in moderation asking for that rule to change? Since it would be pretty hypocritical if you support the right of one to speak and not all?

I criticised it pretty vocally back when that rule was put in place, I criticised the deletion of the person who was the catalyst for that rule. I'm pretty sure I was about 16 at the time though.

This isn't an issue you can play the consistency game with me and win on. I don't support the removal of any viewpoints, so long as there are people who wish to express them.