Can we talk about censorship on this sub?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

Some of the rules in the old sub said stuff like "don't be hateful," basically, in a variety of ways.

But many here agree that "transphobic" was sometimes used inappropriately, implying that e.g. "I don't think spermatogenic organs are female" is the same sort of thing as murdering a man for using makeup. Similarly, content was removed from this sub (and its submitters banned) that was not hateful towards anyone, with the same sort of implication that it was "phobic" or "bigoted".

As GCdebatesQT has now just experienced this same sort of treatment from reddit -- being banned for "hate" -- can we talk about it?

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]DistantGlimmer 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"I don't think spermatogenic organs are female" is the same sort of thing as murdering a man for using makeup.

Not sure where this is coming from certainly all GC people and even many of more moderate trans people will agree and not call you transphobic if you say penises aren't female. Certain concessions with language (i.e. not using "TIM" ) are probably needed if we want trans people to come here and debate in good faith or at least that's how it was in the old sub.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not sure where this is coming from certainly all GC people and even many of more moderate trans people will agree and not call you transphobic if you say penises aren't female.

Right, I agree, that was my observation on the sub as well.

I tried to explain in OP, but what I wanted to talk about was not the concept of "transphobia," but other "-phobia" or "bigotry" concepts that were used to moderate the sub. I drew the comparison to "transphobia" because I think most here recognize that "transphobia" has sometimes been used in inappropriate ways. I think similarly other "-phobia" or "bigotry" concepts were at times used inappropriately in this sub. The similar inappropriate use of those other "bigotry" and "-phobia" concepts to censor content here is what I wanted to open conversation about under this OP.

[–]DistantGlimmer 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

OK...I mean personally I do believe in free speech (within reason) and probably more so now because I agree with you that what has happened to us shows that the concept of "fighting bigotry" can be abused. but this is still a group where people are supposed to agree on the basic principles of feminism and many of us are quite left-leaning. That being said, a lot of the TRAs in the old sub were quite misogynistic so I can't imagine you'd be worse than that. If you stay on topic I don't think you should be banned just for an unpopular opinion (of course it depends on what kind of opinion we're talking about though - like MRA talking points for example are specifically not going to be welcome here.).

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the concept of "fighting bigotry" can be abused

Yeah I think this is really the issue I'm trying to open discussion for. How this may have been taking place here for issues other than "transphobia".

And yeah, I understand that this has always been a sub meant for discussion of particular topics.

My concern is that, in a way similar to what Reddit has done to this sub, this sub listed various words for "bigotry" as stuff that wasn't allowed, but, similarly to reddit, removed stuff that was not hateful. The current rules imo seem much better, "no abuse, no pejoratives" seems pretty fair to everyone, as long as "abuse" isn't misused.

If people want to say "hateful" content is removed, then only actually hateful content should be removed, not just content that's not ideology-compliant. If people want to remove stuff that's not ideology-compliant too (as I assume the sub is going to want to), then it should be clear that that's what's happening. It's not for "hatefulness" but just for ideological difference.

To be fair to participants, I think it's also important to be clear about what ideas are censored here. So that people know in when an apparent consensus is the effect of censoring differing perspectives, and when it's an effect of organic consensus. So I think for example "we remove stuff that isn't feminist" isn't particularly clear, but "we remove content arguing in favor of raping anyone, male or female" is pretty clear.

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

This is reasonable I think. I can't speak for the mods but as I said despite the rule about a basic knowledgeand acceptance of feminism a fair number of misogynistic comments were posted by the pro-trans side on the old sub. Only the worst of these got deleted. We also had a zero-tolerance rule on rape apology like you suggest and it caused a huge issue a couple of months back when some pro-trans people started saying rape by deception wasn't really rape. I totally agree with the mods here that people who start arguing about the definition of consent to try to excuse their behavior or their friends' behavior should be just removed. That is not what this sub is meant to be debating. It is a legal issue.

I do agree with you saying that clarity in rules is a good thing. One of my biggest issues with the Reddit bans is that we were not told what rules we broke or given an opportunity to rectify our behavior in line with their new rules (something the mods of our sub at least expressed the precise intention to do.)

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

I've been told numerous times that its "transphobic" to say transwomen are transwomen, and they aren't females or women.

[–]MatH0 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First of all, I think the massive ban wave on Reddit is just ridiculous. Some subs definitely deserved to be banned for promoting abuse/rape or racism. But this subreddit was literally about debate. Every single opinion was valid there with moderation. They even removed detrans for a few hours, and uncensored lgbt. Freedom of speech should be allowed unless if it's literally harassing individuals. And yes, not only on Reddit, in Twitter too, the word 'transphobia' has almost lost its meaning.

[–]luckystar 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I lean GC but this subreddit absolutely has to be far stricter than the Reddit version was for it to be more than a GC echo chamber. I once saw that one described as "GCberatesQT" and I kinda agreed. It's an emotional topic for sure and both sides disagree on certain fundamental issues so I don't know how to make such a space more productive in terms of dialogue. But I do wish there was more of a dialogue because right now it seems like people are getting further and further siloed into bubbles

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

Yeah I think having fairly applied and transparent rules might help with this too.

This was an issue I saw come up frequently in the old GCdebatesQT, "why don't more QT people participate"? This might be a good opportunity to examine rules regarding that. Personally I would have chosen another name for a space like this because I feel "debate" is a bit combative. Maybe "GC and QT discuss gender".

I feel the political groups kindof get people riled up against "the enemy" and solidify "our positions" and I don't think it has to be like that. A lot of the /r/GCQT subs in the sidebar seemed more like this, and seemed maybe better set up for it, but they never seemed to take off really. Maybe people actually like combative stuff, or it's addictive, or something?

So yeah... it might be a good opportunity at a new beginning here to see what rules could help set up a space that more QT people would like participating in. I wonder if there's a good QT place where we might invite people to discuss. It would help balance the discussions on SaidIt more too, to have more people from that perspective on the site here. They could be invited to join here, and/or to help design rules that would work well for everyone who'd like to participate.

[–]luckystar 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This all is so true. I'm honestly really fed up with how extreme everything related to gender has to be. I saw somebody call the BBC "TERFs" today ffs! On one side nothing is permitted but 100% positivity regarding trans and trans women are biological women in literally every sense and there is no need for a space for "AFABs" ever. (That was literally how the banning of so many subs went down, every AFAB only space is 'TERFs') On the other side, chromosomes are destiny and nobody ever transitions unless they are : (1) a perverted man; (2) a self hating gay man; or (3) a self hating lesbian. That's not exactly the most discussion friendly space when both sides are so absolutist. Plus, being women that are (again) getting unfairly and disproportionately maligned for being women, many GC posters seem to have this need to be as aggressive as possible, a kinda "I won't take your shit"/"You can't just put me in my place" type mindset. I only imagine that feeling has deepened considering the ban wave. I kinda agree with parts of both sides but I'm not sure how to facilitate dialogue that won't turn into the combative setting like you say.

Another problem I've had is that the QT side generally seems averse to debating or explaining their positions in detail? IRL I know more people who sway that way so I'm not really open about the GC views I hold, but I have tried asking people to explain how they feel on these issues and why and it's almost always shut down with "stay in your lane" or "it's not my job to educate you" type answers (sadly this is very common in progressive circles in general and it drives me crazy-- people want you to accept their positions without even explaining why). I literally have never had somebody explain what this gender stuff means to them, and I probably know at least half a dozen people who are hardcore tucute type "everything is VaLiD" types. It almost seems more like... not exactly a religion, but something that can simultaneously be based more on feelings than objective facts AND be extremely important and sacred to them. So asking them "What does it mean to you to be a transfem demiboi non binary lesbian?" is like asking them "What does it mean to you to believe in Jesus Christ?" There isn't anywhere for debate to go because it's not something they consider debatable. In the past the debate sub would get mostly sensible transmeds coming in and being like "No I personally do not want to compete in the Olympics in the women's category" or "Obviously that one example of a trans woman who is a sexual predator is a bad person and I do not support them" or whatever. Whenever tucute gender snowflakes would wander in they would get bullied into leaving pretty damn quickly. But I'm not sure how to more effectively engage these gender ID people since all my attempts have failed so far.

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

many GC posters seem to have this need to be as aggressive as possible, a kinda "I won't take your shit"/"You can't just put me in my place" type mindset.

Why do you think that is? I'm genuinely curious. Why do you think women would have this 'take no prisoners' stance? And, do you have examples of this?

Whenever tucute gender snowflakes would wander in they would get bullied into leaving pretty damn quickly.

Bullied in what way? Being disagreed with is not 'bullying'.

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

Yeah I agree about a lot of the QT people who ended up coming to r/GCQT being transmed, that was my observation too when I used to participate.

It almost seems more like... not exactly a religion, but something that can simultaneously be based more on feelings than objective facts AND be extremely important and sacred to them.

Idk, I feel like I can kinda relate somehow. Like these personal experience things, it's sometimes hard to point to obvious material stuff, but that doesn't mean they're any less real or important necessarily. Like interpersonal relationships, love, things you care about in life, and yeah, who you see yourself as, what you want to become and make your life about, who you are in the world... these are extremely important things! People don't like having them challenged, told they're wrong, whatever. Sometimes it's harmful to do that! Sometimes people can't really explain but that doesn't mean their felt sense of stuff isn't related to something real and important.

And yeah I don't think it helps to show up and everyone's just been taught how to fight with each other. The conversations could be a lot more about understanding and working with each other. Though I had expected QT people to obviously care about the plight of women when they encountered the discussion about it, and immediately want to stop hurting us. And that didn't seem to happen. But maybe the rhetoric has changed some now. Maybe it's also a matter of the kinds of people that come to spaces like this. I still don't understand how this happens, why people aren't sympathetic like I expect them to be when obvious problems are pointed out. It doesn't just happen in this space or just from more hard-line QT cross-sex identified people.

Maybe there are people who would be looking for more of a conversation though, or maybe the discourse has shifted some and people are more open to discussion and respect. And maybe it matters where participants come from, there are probably some more QT people somewhere who would be interested in talking, as long as it's talking and not attacks and everyone gets treated with respect. I wonder where they are. Do they have any of their own "ask about trans stuff" places where people more interested in dialogue can go? Their own "debate" subs?

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

I have tried asking people to explain how they feel on these issues and why and it's almost always shut down

Try a different tactic. Wait until they're in a thoughtful mood and then say, "wondering if you could help? I'm dealing with some people at work (or school or whatever) who keep asking awkward questions and i never know how to respond. I don't think just telling them that I am unable to address or refute their questions is helpful in the long run. I need to be able to explain why something is wrong with this article but I just can't figure it out. Can you read it and then tell me what to say which will answer their questions?"

And then give them this:
https://medium.com/@genderdetective/an-open-letter-to-the-guy-on-twitter-who-wonders-if-biological-sex-is-real-58d2cb4403f5

Do NOT be fobbed off if they try to send you away to read yet another piece of protrans word salad gibberish. Say you need to hear the response in their own words.

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

"What does it mean to you to believe in Jesus Christ?" There isn't anywhere for debate to go because it's not something they consider debatable.

exactly. It hurts me not at all when someone believes in their own personal bearded sky fairy friend, so stop asking those type of questions. "Why should Karen White be put in a woman's prison?" and "Why should Danielle Moscato be in a women's refuge?" make better questions because first of all, they're less personal questions and secondly, they focus on concepts which we actually do object to. Why should penises be in spaces where women are disrobing? "Do you really mean that with a population of 8 billion people and thousands of men convicted of sexual crimes against women, do you really mean that NO man would ever lie in order to get access to women and girls?" "How do you reconcile the idea that some men do enjoy violating the sexual boundaries of women and girls with the idea that NO MAN EVER would lie about being trans to access women and girls?" Those kind of questions.

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

/r/gcdebatesqt had perhaps devolved into /r/askGC and/or /r/GCStrawmenTheyExpectTRAsToEngageWith.

I'm down for hoping that it'll be closer to a debate forum, but I'm also fully aware that I have neither the time nor the energy to moderate a debate. Plus, I'm a natal male. Ain't my hecking place to tell folks what they can and cannot say, I just want to make sure that folks have a chance to express their opinions and hopefully not get berated by it. Some amount of offense is to be expected, but if there's egregious offense please lmk. I'll try to check saidit, but honestly it's only an afterthought for those moments when /u/worried19 pings me on reddit. I'm still over there on r/asktg, giving advice. why? Fuck if I know.

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

I lean GC but this subreddit absolutely has to be far stricter than the Reddit version was for it to be more than a GC echo chamber.

a huge part of the problem is that there's no (almost?) no part of the transgenderism ideology which can withstand scrutiny. The last few times i peaked into reddit gcdebate, there wasn't that much disagreement because all the habitual transactivists (who used to frequent the sub) had given up. If someone is willing to debate or question or at least listen to the gender critical objections to transgenderism, they end up becoming gc themselves.

What part of "call yourself what you want, wear what you want, have sex with any adult who'll have you" sounds hateful? None, that's what. Nothing to disagree with there. The ONLY objection occurs when woman want a private space away from penis-havers when we're disrobing or otherwise vulnerable, or while competing in sports or other issues where male bodies have a distinct clear advantage. And who would object to that kind of request? misogynists who hate women, and male bodied perverts who want access to women.

In other words, to re-answer your question, this place will also become an echo chamber. Transgenderism needs darkness to survive, and will always die once exposed to sunlight.