Is the "RudeFem" Stereotype Desirable to GC or Is It An Unfortunate Association?

submitted by LemurLemur from self.GCdebatesQT

I'm not suggesting anyone has to do anything differently, but the culture in GC circles seems to focus a lot on "not having to be nice", which tends to result in most people associating GC with "people who aren't nice".

Is this an intentional thing that GC deliberately embraces or just incidental? Is there a purpose to it, or is it just frustrated people taking their anger out on people who "don't deserve" politeness?

all 67 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I think it’s a deliberate association, but not one that comes from GC women, it comes from tras. Every single thing that makes GC women “mean” could be (should be) said about libfems, tras, and their ilk.

Really what are GC women doing that is mean? Are we compelling speech? Forcing ourselves into others safe spaces ans sports etc? Denying the lived reality of slightly over half the world’s population? Perpetuating rape culture and homophobia(and sometimes racism)? Are we appropriating the struggles of other groups of people? No. GC does none of this. All we do is say that men are male and women are female, that females deserve rights and equality that aren’t undermined by any males, and have the audacity to expect a man who tells us that he’s a woman be able to actually explain how in a way that’s not misogynistic and circular.

Women are always “mean” when we stand up for ourselves and our needs.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’d also say, “not having to be nice” does not equal mean. It equals “not having to set aside my needs, beliefs, and comfort for males”. It’s not automatically mean to speak honestly or to refuse to accept transwomen as women or as men who deserve access to female spaces and rights.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I see. So you do not perceive anything rude in the GC community at all. I accept that.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

There can be people who say rude things- that’s not gender critical. That’s a rude person. There’s a difference. There have been plenty of rude and even violent transwomen. Would you then say that transwomen are rude and violent?

[–]grixitperson 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

watching this to see LL's reply.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There can be people who say rude things- that’s not gender critical. That’s a rude person.

There have been plenty of rude and even violent transwomen

Are you saying "neither GC nor trans people are rude inherently, but some people in either demographic can and do behave rudely", or are you saying "GC people aren't inherently rude, but transwomen are"?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Are you dense? Sorry that was rude. But that was me being rude. Nothing to do with me being gender critical.

What I’m saying is that there are people on both sides of this issue that have the capacity to be rude. I didn’t say that TW are inherently rude or that gc women are never rude. What I said, very clearly, is that there are some gc people who can say rude things. There are also TW who have said rude and violent things. I then asked you if you would consider TW to be rude and violent the way that you insinuate that gc women are rude, simply because there are some TW who have said rude and violent things. I notice that you don’t actually respond to what people are asking you, that could be interpreted as rude. Does that mean you’re GC?

It’s worth noting that I only got rude towards you once I realized that you were going to skew what I said and avoid addressing anything any of us say. So I’d also like to point out that most examples I see of gender critical people being rude seem to be born out of the irritation that stems from tras/qt ignoring what we’re saying or deliberately avoiding responding to our points. I worded my response very clearly. I have no doubt that you knew what I was asking and are now deflecting.

Tldr- literally anyone can be rude. And rudeness is open to interpretation. I think you engaging with us but not actually responding to our questions is incredibly rude, for example.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Are you dense? Sorry that was rude. But that was me being rude. Nothing to do with me being gender critical.

...I genuinely didn't expect a GC person to start insulting my intelligence in the middle of a conversation about how whether GC should be associated with rudeness. Though the mentality that one's behavior should not reflect on the demographic they speak for does help in understand why GC people don't understand why rudeness is associated with them.

I notice that you don’t actually respond to what people are asking you, that could be interpreted as rude. Does that mean you’re GC?

Is this intended to be facetious? Because 1.) I never said "all GC are rude" and 2.) I never said "all rude things are thereby GC". I didn't even say that I firmly believe GC should be considered rude. I asked if the association people make between rudeness and GC was something GC wanted, or did not want. That's all. You are asking me to account for things I either didn't say, or that aren't related to the topic. But I can comb over it and give it a shot, I guess...

Really what are GC women doing that is mean?

I have not accused GC women of doing anything mean. I asked if the association of meanness is something GC finds desirable or not.

Are we compelling speech?

Some GC people take issue with the way some people use words, but I do not think I've seen any significant consensus about how speech should be used in the wider GC convos I've seen. There seems to even be some rousing debate among GC about how they want gendered language used, moving forward. I personally see this as a good thing.

Forcing ourselves into others safe spaces ans sports etc? Denying the lived reality of slightly over half the world’s population? Perpetuating rape culture and homophobia(and sometimes racism)? Are we appropriating the struggles of other groups of people?

While all valid conversations to have, none of these topics are about what I asked, which is whether GC wants to be associated with rudeness, or if they find it to be an undesirable association. This is what is the kids these days call "whataboutism", I think.

Are there any other questions I'm not answering? Because most of them are presented more for rhetorical purposes (ie "why do women owe men consideration"), which I admit, I didn't answer because the implication is that I have an opinion about what women should do. I don't. I just want to know what GC thinks about its own image.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

  1. Lmao that was my point. I was being rude. That doesn’t mean that gc women are rude. It would mean that I was rude. Just me. An individual. By your logic, transwomen, tras, and libfems are also rude so there’s no point in anyone calling gc rude since both sides are. I’m not saying you are calling us rude, I’m saying nobody should since it would be applicable to both sides.

  2. I was pointing out that “rude” can mean many things. So again- both sides of this debate have rude people. The only people who say gc is rude are tras and trans people. They also say they want to kill and rape us, so I’ll take being “rude” over violent any day.

  3. I didn’t say you accused us of being rude. I asked you what we do that’s rude. You have yet to explain. I also pointed out that they way that tras say we are rude is nonsensical. It is not rude to stand by your beliefs. It is rude to force your beliefs on others and compel their speech. Which is what tras do.

  4. GC takes issue with how words are misused, yes. We don’t force men to stop calling themselves women, we simply say that calling yourself a woman doesn’t make it factual.

  5. Regardless of what you wanted me to respond to, what I’m saying is that there’s a difference between being called rude, and actually being rude. The things that I listed are rude things to do. And gc doesn’t do those things. My point is I’d rather be called rude as a deflection than actually be rude. Sometimes conversations branch out. What I said wasn’t irrelevant to the topic. It’s me expanding on the topic.

  6. You asked us if we are okay with being called rude, and somehow didn’t expect any of us to examine and discuss the actual reasons that we are called rude? So you just wanted yes or no answers? What then, is the point? There’d be no room for discussion. You can keep saying that we are not responding to your actual question- yet each and every response you’ve gotten is related to what you asked. And yes, there’s still several questions that I asked as well as other users asked that you ignored. Everyone here gave you relevant answers, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid addressing them.

“Though the mentality that one's behavior should not reflect on the demographic they speak for does help in understand why GC people don't understand why rudeness is associated with them.”

  1. I actually addressed this with my first sentence. I said it is associated with us because tras associated it with us. This is their narrative. And it is undeserved. Everything else I said was pointing out why. I literally said it’s not rude to speak honestly and not compromise your beliefs. That is why some people call gc rude: refusal to capitulate to their ideology.

  2. By your logic, since I was rude, all gc people are rude. And since some tras and transwomen threaten to rape and murder “t*rfs”, ALL tras and transwomen are violent people who advocate the rape and murder of people who disagree with their world view. You said it, not me.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I see. Well, thanks for responding, even if it was annoying for you.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The only thing that’s annoying is when the non gc users open the door for a worthwhile discussion, only to slam the door immediately after. We come here to debate, but the non gc users seem to not want to debate, ever.

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

I can't say I'm shocked that few non-GC people are motivated to stay long. Unstructured debate where people degrade to insults tends to just feel like fighting.

[–]DistantGlimmer 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Honesty and refusal to back down gets read as "rudeness" and "transphobia". "Just be kind" actually means "don't say those things that hurt male feelings!" I certainly can't speak for women on this but I feel like it is an unfair stereotype. Maybe some will be more actually "rude" talking among themselves in GC spaces but I haven't seen a lot of interaction where GC go out of their way to be rude, insulting or mean with trans people. Usually, it is the other way around.

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

I see. So for you, there is no truth to "rudeness" being associated with GC at all, and it's entirely one-sided antagonism. That makes sense.

[–]DistantGlimmer 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean I'm sure the odd GC person has lost their temper and said something they probably regretted later but I have yet to see a TRA equivalent to: https://terfisaslur.com/

Which really goes quite far beyond "rudeness".

[–]adungitit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are people who don't believe in God rude? Is it rude to speak of evolution? Is it rude to deny God's existence? The answer is both yes and no. But the real important answer is that this is irrelevant because, at least in theory, we shouldn't base our discussion on kindergarten logic of "you're right/wrong based on how nicely you can say something".

[–]jackrusselterror1 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Women are expected to be overly accommodating. When we refuse to be quiet, to soften our language, to put other’s feelings above our own, to center men’s feelings over women’s reality, and to back down, men call us rude rather than address our points. Tone policing is a distraction tactic- suddenly we aren’t arguing about the points themselves, but the way we say things.

The issue isn’t that we aren’t being nice enough when we speak about sex mattering and women’s rights, the issue is that we don’t consider transwomen to be actual women, and just the thought is considered hateful to the trans movement.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I see. So for you, the terse way GC people speak to one another is ideal, and you believe no one should have to accommodate anyone?

[–]jackrusselterror1 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can you address my points? That isn’t what I said at all.

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

I'm not sure how to address your points other than to say "thank you for responding"? - you answered a question with your perspective, which is all I was curious about. I don't see a reason to argue with opinion - I accept that you "refuse to be quiet". I don't have any desire to tell you you can't.

you believe no one should have to accommodate anyone?

That isn’t what I said at all.

Hmm. I got that from when you said this:

Women are expected to be overly accommodating. When we refuse to be quiet, to soften our language, to put other’s feelings above our own

I guess I was just assuming you thought "refusing to be quiet" was a more desirable behavior. I guess I should ask - Are there demographics that should "speak softly", or do you feel "being accommodating" and considering other people's feelings is generally negative for discourse?

[–]jackrusselterror1 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Let me try to clarify: when I said “women are expected to be overly accommodating” I am referring to a particular toxic sexed expectation women are expected to fulfill at their own expense for the benefit of others. I am referring to a level of niceness and accommodation that is beyond what is expected of men, and at a cost to themselves. What I consider to be a toxic expectation of niceness in debate is expecting women to not address certain topics that might cause offense, expecting them to use hedging words and sacrifice clarity, expecting them to emphasize when the transwoman they are debating isn’t, and in general holding them to a higher standard than the transwoman they’re debating. One of the effects is silencing women.

More specific to this subreddit: In a debate situation that is about two very different, sincerely held beliefs, there is bound to be hurt feelings. Unfortunately that’s unable to be avoided. There are things TQ people on the original subreddit have said that have genuinely offended and horrified me, I’m sure TQ posters can say the same about GC posters. Being rude and not considering how others feel, or refusing to accommodate others, isn’t exclusively something GC feminists perpetrate and TQ posters suffer. Ultimately I don’t think I have the right to demand that certain posters shouldn’t be able to voice their opinions on this subreddit because I find some of what they say to be misogynistic, hateful, or homophobic.

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

What I consider to be a toxic expectation of niceness in debate is expecting women to not address certain topics that might cause offense, expecting them to use hedging words and sacrifice clarity, expecting them to emphasize when the transwoman they are debating isn’t, and in general holding them to a higher standard than the transwoman they’re debating. One of the effects is silencing women.

I would agree that expecting women to remain silent where men are not would be silencing to women.

Do you think there is a baseline of consideration that men and women should equally be expected to maintain for decorum, or would it be ideal if no one had any expectation for consideration in social situations?

[–]jackrusselterror1 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, there’s a basic level of decency and civility that should be present in social situations. We don’t always achieve it.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why do women owe niceness and politeness and patience to the same people who post photos of themselves with weapons captioned with quips about hurting “terfs”, preach lesbians ‘correct’ themselves by sleeping with males, and say woman is a feeling, not a person?

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I didn't say you owed anyone anything. Am I interpreting your answer correctly in that you prefer the association of "rudeness" as a counter culture to what is normally expected of women?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I’m saying that the rudeness has been earned.
Personally I don’t care one whit if men or liberal feminists think I am rude because my points are still standing. Being able to only address the tone in which it is delivered is a sign of having no responses.

What is often called rude is frustration, bluntness, or simply not couching our ideas in soft language. More often it is simply people disliking being told “no”.

What value is there in gently asking for rights?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Irrelevant comment: I just adore you. That’s all.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mutual fan clubs strike again!

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

I’m saying that the rudeness has been earned.

So it's more "no one should have to be polite"? Or are there people/circumstances you feel people should be considerate of?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nah, nuance doesn’t exist. People can only behave one way.🙄

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

Sorry, was that an inappropriate question to ask here?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. I’m saying that your line of questioning, which is really just rephrasing people’s statements as the worst possible interpretation, without answering what’s asked of you, is the exact sort of thing that is so frustrating to so many of us.

Obviously politeness and niceness have their place. It’s weird and tangential to say someone being abrasive or blunt in one scenario must believe that being that way is the only way to be in all scenarios. You are ignoring nuance to rephrase something in a way that totally skews the meaning.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

“Mean” “hateful” “rude” “transphobic”... all code for “I can’t counter a GC argument nor can I distract them with emotional manipulation”

[–]worried19 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Some gender critical women embrace the stereotype. Some of us don't.

I think the bottom line is that it doesn't matter how nice we are. J.K. Rowling bent over backwards to be nice and compassionate and caring, and look what it got her. Endless rape and death threats. Certain people hate us for what we say, not how we say it.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I'm struggling to understand this, so definitely correct me if I'm understand wrong. When I used to lurk on the old debate sub, I saw many trans people and GC people get along, be courteous and even agree on some topics. It was really nice to see.

Does GC do anything to distinguish trans people who don't send death and rape threats as perhaps not warranting the same treatment as those who do? Because it might "not matter" to a GC individual who assumes all trans people are rapist no matter how you treat them, but I think to a trans person who hasn't harassed female celebrities (which is most of them), it would probably matter a lot to not be treated like one.

Am I making sense?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you serious? Did you make a post about gc women being rude and then have the nerve comment asking if we (gc) distinguish between the trans people who send death threats ans the ones who don’t? Are you able to distinguish between rude and polite gc people? We don’t interact with the trans people sending death threats on this sub, they don’t come here. When they do, they troll and get removed. But just because not all trans people are sending us death threats, that doesn’t mean we feel inclined to sacrifice our rights and spaces to the ones who don’t. You just said that on the old sub you saw many of us getting along and being courteous- so why are you even asking this question? You already saw the answer.

We don’t treat TW who don’t harass us the same ways we treat the ones who do. But- what you don’t realize is that the ones not sending us death threats are often still invading our spaces, policing our language, and doing all or most of the things that gc women are upset about- that’s still harassment. That’s still invasive. That’s still infringing on our rights. And they get treated as such by us. If I meet a TW who can leave women, our language, our spaces, our sports, etc alone- he’d have all of my respect and there’d be no resentment or rudeness towards him. You seem to think that sending threats and verbally harassing women who don’t agree with TW is the only way that they are upsetting or harassing women- it’s not. There are myriad ways that even the nicest, most self aware even gender critical transwomen are still offending and oppressing females.

Am i making sense?

ETA- not to speak for others, but I think the reason other users are saying your line of questioning is annoying is because you refuse to answer our questions or address our points. Maybe that’s not why you made this post, but it’s almost impossible to respond and have a clear dialogue if you don’t address what we are asking and saying, because those responses are how a conversation like this moves forward. We ask them so we can see where your thoughts are, in order to more effectively engage with you. When you skirt our questions and respond the way you do, it feels like you’re not remotely interested in discussing, rather that your intent is to just call gc rude and twist our responses to affirm that statement for yourself.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ETA- not to speak for others, but I think the reason other users are saying your line of questioning is annoying is because you refuse to answer our questions or address our points.

And that behaviour is actually called as acting rude.

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

Did you make a post about gc women being rude and then have the nerve comment asking if we (gc) distinguish between the trans people who send death threats ans the ones who don’t?

I made a post asking about gc/rudeness. And in follow up to a response that suggested "it doesn't matter if we're nice, they will send death threats anyway", I asked for clarification as to whether they distinguished which trans people did what. I am glad I did, too, as I appreciate the clarification it received.

But just because not all trans people are sending us death threats, that doesn’t mean we feel inclined to sacrifice our rights and spaces to the ones who don’t.

I never said you should.

Are you able to distinguish between rude and polite gc people?

Yes. You have been rude and insulted me. worried19 did neither, and was still able to communicate her answer well. I would say she was very polite, articulate and answered in good faith. It very much helped the discourse run smoothly.

You just said that on the old sub you saw many of us getting along and being courteous- so why are you even asking this question?

Because everyone seems to be getting meaner and I am curious if it's intentional or not.

If I meet a TW who can leave women, our language, our spaces, our sports, etc alone- he’d have all of my respect and there’d be no resentment or rudeness towards him.

I mean, you are even being overtly rude towards me, and I'm not even a TW, nor have I said women should have to give up any of those things.

You seem to think that sending threats and verbally harassing women who don’t agree with TW is the only way that they are upsetting or harassing women- it’s not. There are myriad ways that even the nicest, most self aware even gender critical transwomen are still offending and oppressing females.

That’s still invasive. That’s still infringing on our rights. And they get treated as such by us

Am i making sense?

Yes.

EDIT:

the reason other users are saying your line of questioning is annoying is because you refuse to answer our questions or address our points.

Also, you keep saying this, and I keep re-reading and I'm trying to answer everything in good faith. I'm sorry you're getting annoyed by this. What question did you want me to answer, that I might have missed? Though I don't think my opinions are really relevant when I'm trying to learn about you, I really do want to answer as best I can.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I didn’t accuse you of anything nor did I mistake you for a transwoman. You made a post, and commented on it, I replied to your comment. Clearly, other people understand where I’m coming from and you are the one who doesn’t get what I’m saying. That’s okay, and it’s okay if you don’t want any clarification. My point is- it’s not so simple as saying “gc women are called rude, are you okay with that”. If you only wanted yes/no responses, you should have said that. It sounds like you’re saying we aren’t answering your question because we are expanding on it. And I find that a bit odd. Also, you calling me rude and saying another gc user isn’t rude is exactly my point- we as a whole are being called rude when not all of us are. The other point many of us are making is that we are being called rude solely for viewing sex/gender differently, no matter how we phrase it. Even if we are open to sharing spaces and using preferred pronouns, if we don’t think TWAW- we are rude and hateful. We are being called rude for not sharing the ideology of tras and some trans people. That’s worth noting and discussing. If that wasn’t a discussion you wanted to have them I understand that, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t going to discuss it anyway though.

I also don’t think that people are getting meaner, I think we are just done with dancing around what we are trying to articulate, and are speaking more bluntly.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I mean, of course. I personally judge people based on their character and their actions, not on their gender identity. I will always defend a well-meaning trans person. I believe most transgender people just want to live their lives in peace. The extreme trans activists online are a loud minority.

The main GC sub (both here and on Ovarit) has some people who paint the entire trans community with too broad of a brush. I don't support that. I even got in trouble a few times on the old debate sub for "tone policing" because I felt like some posters were too aggressive. It's also true that women are socialized not to be aggressive and not to stand up for themselves. I get that, but I'm against men acting like total dicks, too. However, even the most insensitive GC woman has never made a rape or death threat or wished bodily harm or violence on anyone, at least not that I've seen.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

The main GC sub (both here and on Ovarit) has some people who paint the entire trans community with too broad of a brush. I don't support that.

You are the only poster that has even acknowledged this. Thank you. I think I remember seeing your posts on the reddit sub, and I always appreciated your perspectives. I wish there were more people I could talk to about this, because I have a lot of problems with the way trans people act, too. There's plenty of things GC talk about that i think should be explored. But man, the GC hostility is hard to wade through. Thanks for answering in good faith, I also do try to remember when I have good interactions with GC people. Even if they don't happen as often as I wish they did.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No problem, and welcome to the sub. Please feel free to stick around. We could definitely use more QT people.

I've always had some issues with the main GC sub. It's why I avoided it while I was on Reddit, but after the banwave, I said screw it, moderate gender critical women need to have our voices heard, too. So I started participating, but I don't always agree with everything that's said. There was one commenter on Ovarit the other day who basically painted all trans people as perverts who shouldn't be allowed near children. I was like, dude, way to make us all look like a bunch of bigots. Our valid criticisms are overshadowed when people get hyperbolic and start making extreme statements like that.

My main concern has always been for fellow gender nonconforming people, especially natal females, and children of both sexes. It bothers me when people only see the the lack of "niceness" of some of our community without listening to what the rest of us are actually saying. It's a problem for both sides, to be honest. I'm sure there are tons of trans men and women who don't support whatever some random trans person says on Twitter. It's the same everywhere. It's like if someone has a different political opinion these days, they're automatically evil. American politics is plagued with an "us vs. them" mentality.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Our valid criticisms are overshadowed when people get hyperbolic and start making extreme statements like that.

I agree with this. There's a lot of things I've seen GC people discuss that I agree with in concept, but they way they talk about it is what drives me away from ever wanting to be part of GC culture (I'm not trans, but my sister is and we have discussions about this a lot). The problem is, every time either of us try to talk to GC people, it feels like they genuinely want to drive us away.

It bothers me when people only see the the lack of "niceness" of some of our community without listening to what the rest of us are actually saying.

It's honestly just not healthy to, dude. The responses to even this post, where I'm only asking if GC wants to be associated with this sort of behavior, I'm being called annoying and stupid. I don't think it's annoying and stupid to ask, and I don't think GC shouldn't be "allowed" to call me annoying and stupid, but I do think it's counter to my mental health to listen or internalize the opinions of people who consider me annoying and stupid, especially when part of telling me their perspective also includes elaborating on how annoying and stupid I am in the same time.

It's a problem for both sides, to be honest.

I agree with this. I've debated with people in trans communities as well, and I've seen plenty of rudeness there as well. But maybe because there's less unified opinions than there is in GC circles (it seems no two people have the same relationship with their own transition, or with the people they interact with post transition), but when someone is rude to me on most trans subs, there's at least other trans people who have also stood up for me, who tried to empathize where I was coming from. I've had multiple trans people message me and try to encourage me not to take my bad experiences as a sign that all trans people are equally negative...

I don't see this happen in GC circles. While trans people can be rude, there is at least a pretty wide swath of the community that will acknowledge that it happens and try to openly fight back against their own community to reclaim a less hostile narrative. I don't see this happen in GC circles. I rarely see any GC person even able admit GC has ever done anything to exacerbate the hostility at all. It's all just "TRA's hate us so everything we do and say is in self defense and thus completely excuseable". As it sounds like you've experienced, any GC people who do try to counter the narrative tend to get shouted down and accused of not being "real" GC.

So like... I agree with more GC positions than I do greater trans positions (like transwomen in sports ect), but the trans community at least has large pockets of people who don't hurt anybody and can just talk about movies and hiking and share art ect without needing to embrace the narrative that anyone "non-trans" is worthless trash. So I have more actually enjoyable conversations with trans people than GC people.

I really miss the old reddit sub, when it didn't just feel like GC people were sitting on a spiderweb, waiting for non-GC people to post here so they can jump down their throats and chase them away.

Please feel free to stick around. We could definitely use more QT people.

I wanted to stick around. I was really excited to find this sub, after it vanished from reddit and made a saidit account specifically to be able to chat here. But after slogging through and trying to respond to everyone here, only to be told over and over that I'm just annoying, stupid, rude, incapable of answering questions (tho no one will tell me what I'm failing to answer), incapable of forming arguments (even when I'm not trying to argue at all), and that if GC is rude to me, it's because I deserve it... I don't really know why anyone would want to stick around. I feel like I've just gone 10 rounds with my abusive gaslighting mother who used all the same lines on me ("I'm not abusive, you just deserve it for being stupid; if you can't answer for things you didn't even do it means I'm right; I'm actually the victim and you're attacking me" ect.) That's not even mentioning how bad the circle-jerking of GC people high-fiving one another for each comment, making it seem like the whole sub likes watching a dogpile...

If you ever find a sub where people can talk about GC stuff while also acknowledging the problems in GC, please feel free to message me. I'd love to participate. But this sub is not fun to participate on, and I am not surprised non-GC people do not stay long.

[–]adungitit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

every time either of us try to talk to GC people, it feels like they genuinely want to drive us away.

It's hard to empathise with this when you're the side that regularly gets told you deserve to die and choke on dicks and also gets banned on sight for not agreeing with "transwomen are women".

I do think it's counter to my mental health to listen or internalize the opinions of people who consider me annoying and stupid, especially when part of telling me their perspective also includes elaborating on how annoying and stupid I am in the same time.

So why not stop acting like that? You had it explained to you why your behaviour is bad-faith and unproductive, and you seem to understand that. If it bothers you that your behaviour is "annoying and stupid", then stop doing it, and if you don't think it is, well I'm legitimately curious to hear how you might interpret your own behaviour differently (but you never answered anyone regarding that). Why do you think bad behaviour deserves to be tolerated if it was explained to you why it's bad? Because it makes a person feel bad? Sometimes people need to feel bad for doing bad things so they can stop doing them.

tho no one will tell me what I'm failing to answer

Serious question: do you not notice that your own responses never address anything said by anyone, instead only repeating the same points? Every response of yours is like a completely new question that can be written literally anywhere else. I don't know if that behaviour has a name, but it's pretty common to have a person ask a question, get an answer and then ask the same question again while completely ignoring the contents of the answers they got. This tends to be done specifically to fake a willingness to discuss while sabotaging any attempts to move forward by basically being on loop and entirely unreceptive to anything said by others. I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally and with a hostile purpose, I'm saying that, to an outside observer, it's indistinguishable from it. I am legitimately curious how you perceive your own responses here.

It's all just "TRA's hate us so everything we do and say is in self defense and thus completely excuseable".

GC have not made "Kill all TRAs and make them choke on dicks" our catch phrase. Being rude and disagreeing with each other is one thing and par for the course honestly, telling people they deserve to get killed for disagreeing is another.

the trans community at least has large pockets of people who don't hurt anybody and can just talk about movies and hiking and share art ect without needing to embrace the narrative that anyone "non-trans" is worthless trash.

The trans community that regularly tells radical feminists they should get killed and choke on their dicks? The trans community advocating for the removal of women's hard earned protections? It's easy to act casual when your goal is to fit into the patriarchal status quo and when things are going your way, instead of when you're aware of just how deeply messed up our patriarchal society is.

I really miss the old reddit sub, when it didn't just feel like GC people were sitting on a spiderweb, waiting for non-GC people to post here so they can jump down their throats and chase them away.

Wasn't the old sub like that, too? It always skewed a lot more GC.

That's not even mentioning how bad the circle-jerking of GC people high-fiving one another for each comment, making it seem like the whole sub likes watching a dogpile

The problem is that there is no place that will allow GC to operate without having to automatically agree with the trans side and give up their rights. People agreeing with each other is completely normal and expected, from both sides, but by nature of GC being automatically excluded from normal communities and the trans ideology being notoriously unable to handle discussions, the result is that these subs end up skewing heavily on GC side and with the trans side not seeking out any spaces where they might be challenged beyond the altright level of "men in dresses are yucky". Sadly I don't see a way to fix this. Telling people to agree with each other less seems kinda silly. GC is always going to be hated both by conservatives for being against the patriarchy, and by liberals for not wanting to play nice with the patriarchy and being too radical, so it's hard to integrate into any space without giving up our ideals and basically turning into the "nice" liberal feminism.

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, you and your sister are both welcome here if you want to participate. Not everyone is super combative. I feel like GC has got its pitbulls, but we've also got our golden retrievers. I prefer discussion to debate. I can debate about stuff, sure, and I do feel very strongly about things like child transition and BDSM, but I try to avoid making it personal. I know a lot of other GC people may just be out of patience, especially after hearing the same arguments repeatedly, but that's kind of what debate is. Two sides with opposite positions duking it out. It's like Christians vs. atheists. They don't have to hate each other, but sometimes the atheists are frustrated with the Christians because they keep getting the same excuses and what are (to them) non-answers.

The problem is, every time either of us try to talk to GC people, it feels like they genuinely want to drive us away.

We do have our QT regulars, but yeah, I get what you're saying. It was hard to attract long-term QT posters on the old sub, too. I think maybe some GC posters expect people to argue in bad faith, and so they adopt an adversarial tone right off the bat. To be honest, I don't know what it is. I don't think it's productive. But this is why I got in trouble for "tone policing" before. It's like, we already have an unpopular message. Why make it more unpopular with your style of delivery? It's bad strategy if nothing else.

But it's also true that we could bend over backwards to be nice, and it wouldn't matter. There are certain factions that want to shut down all discussion. Not just with threats of violence, but also suppression of our views. The Abigail Shrier book is a good example. She's respectful to trans people. She fully supports adult transition. She's not even against all forms of child transition. But the mere fact that she wrote a book about what's happening to natal female teenagers is enough to warrant active suppression and people calling for her book to be burned (an English professor) and withdrawn from circulation (an ACLU lawyer).

It's fucking scary out there. Which is why maybe GC women can be forgiven for sometimes feeling like we're under siege. It doesn't make personal attacks okay, but you can see why some of us may be out of patience. I'm more a "reach across the aisle" sort of person, but sometimes it feels like the people on the other side of the aisle are positioned to strike us. Women have lost their jobs for saying what we're saying. They've been subjected to rape and death threats. The other side is notably not on the receiving end of violence for their views, certainly not from us.

But back to this sub, I do hope you stick around. You can also not respond to certain people if you feel they're too aggressive. That's what I do. Our current sub is a lot smaller, but I feel like we actually lost some of our pitbulls in the transition. It seems overall more mild, although it does still skew GC. One major advantage here, though, no downvoting. That always pissed me off on the old sub. Like, why have a debate sub if you're going to downvote the other side to oblivion? Either we want debate or we don't. I would hate for this community just to become a big circlejerk.

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

Haha, yeah, we're out there. Even though I'm not GC. I'm not here to bash transpeople. I think much of QT is not based on science and research. I'm concerned that transitioning is pushed too hard and some TRA points cross the line (for example, threatening to take away people's licenses for suggesting to questioning people that they may have dysphoria for other reasons.)

I go harder on NB because that's even less based on science and research. I think rose of dawn said it very well (waiting for her specific video on it eagerly) that NB is a social phenomenon, not a neurological one.

But don't worry. There's room for us to get along. There's some crap to get through for sure, but hopefully, the more we show that we're here in good faith, the more people will have a discussion and think critically about their beliefs. People are really heated up about all this, and that's fair. A lot of lesbians are sick of being shoved out of the conversation. I totally understand that. But personal issues need to be put aside when trying to advocate your side.

Oh, and I want to personally invite you to look through any of my comments and counter the arguments set forth. I'm always happy to be challenged on my ideas.

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

Are they all rude-- or just being labelled that way?

[–]penelopekitty 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It was 'being nice' that got us here. Gave an inch and they took a mile.

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Should all people approach the advancement of their demographic with this sort of mentality?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Do you see any difference between advancement of a groups demographic and response to the deliberate elimination of another groups rights?

[–]LemurLemur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sure. Are you trying to say that, for you, being considerate of others is akin to having your rights eliminated?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Being considerate does not include giving up female spaces, or accepting the term woman being dehumanised, or accepting males policing my behaviour.

This obtuse line of questioning exact sort of thing many of us are exasperated with and get ‘rude’ about.

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

Doesn't this line

Being considerate does not include giving up female spaces, or accepting the term woman being dehumanised, or accepting males policing my behaviour.

contradict this line?

This obtuse line of questioning exact sort of thing many of us are exasperated with and get ‘rude’ about.

in the first one, you are saying GC is not rude, they're just called that because they don't accept male policing... but in the second line, you're saying "GC is (or can be) rude if they find questions annoying...? Or are you just saying you consider questions like this a part of "tone policing", and thus feel I will consider you rude for how you're responding?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Gc is not a hive mind. It is a group of individuals. Sometimes people are rude. That’s it.

GC is considered rude because the ideology does not adhere to the socially acceptable view of woman being an identity and our culture is socialised to see women demanding their needs be met as rudeness and men doing it as assertiveness.

How does one contradict the other?

Some women are ‘rude’ out of frustration. Some are naturally ‘rude’. Some do it because women’s rights are more important than being perceived as nice. Because gc is a group of individuals who do not accept gender, not a group who share the same ideals in manner.

I am saying your line of questioning is personally annoying, AND that your particular methods are one of the things frequently done by TRAs and men who do not listen to women, which frustrates a lot of gc people.

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

I am saying your line of questioning is personally annoying,

Rats, I was trying not to annoy anyone. It was just something I wondered about. Sorry to bother you.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s fine, I’m easily annoyed. It’s perfectly fine to wonder, I just can’t see what’s confusing about the topic. Blind spots, hey?

[–]divingrightintowork 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A lot of 'rudeness' is just not... being nice. Not being mean, just not being overly nice.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Women not batting eyes and cooing pretty please is super rude apparently.

Disagree with a man? Extremely terrible manners and you have no basic decency.

Disagree with a transwoman? So rude and an act of hatred and spite because you are mean spirited and cruel.

Disagree with a libfem? Wow that’s rude. Is it really necessary for you women to speak if what you say is not a lovely ‘yes!’?

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

Women not batting eyes and cooing pretty please is super rude apparently.

I didn't suggest this.

Disagree with a man? Extremely terrible manners and you have no basic decency.

Nor this.

Disagree with a transwoman? So rude and an act of hatred and spite because you are mean spirited and cruel.

Nor this.

Disagree with a libfem? Wow that’s rude. Is it really necessary for you women to speak if what you say is not a lovely ‘yes!’?

Nor this.

Is it possible you're extrapolating more from my post than I have said?

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nobody accused you of saying it. I’m discussing the phenomena, not you.

[–]divingrightintowork 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Women staying focused on their own issues - super rude.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Worse than hitler probably.

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

Women have always been characterised as mean, hysterical and crazy for demanding equal rights and not being content with the status quo that screws them over. This is literally nothing new. People keep pretending like calling women crazy bitches is some daring new statement when it's the same thing as always! It's been the norm for as long as feminism has existed and it's still being used to silence women, but now it's for real? Ever heard of the boy who cried "wolf"?

I don't give a crap if a trans activist is "rude", I care that they can actually rationalise their position beyond "Let's hold hands and chant that I am a real boy/girl". We are not in kindergarten. We do not all need to hold hands and pretend like we're getting along. What I DO expect is that the person can give reasons for their position beyond "women are inferior, and that is fine because I find that validating". If your position cannot be defended without trampling on women's rights because it relies on the same patriarchal misogyny that has been the source of so much pain and suffering for women, then yeah, I'm gonna think you're a piece of garbage. Hating and being rude to people who believe in male supremacy and the innate inferiority of women is a completely valid reaction.

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

I do think radfems get a bad rep because many of them are rude. I'm not GC but I happen to agree with them on 75% of things, especially on QT issues. Meanwhile, I have basically no overlap with QT. From my research, I believe that ideas such as a nefarious patriarchy controlling women (and that being the case for all of history) are not only inaccurate but harmful to women. I also believe Critical Race Theory is a parasite on liberal societies. I don't think it's something TRA have put on Radical Feminists, I think that was associated with them before the gender-critical specific movement emerged.

CRT and patriarchy are generally agreed upon by QT/GC last I checked, so I disagree with both groups and find the loudest people from both groups unpleasant to be around. But one of those groups I can have an earnest conversation with and one of those I can't, and you asked about GC specifically.

Obviously I will judge individuals as they are. But I do think the patriarchy theory that dominates radical feminism contributes to a poor disposition. If you believe that half the population is jumping to oppress you it creates a lot of negativity in your life that I just don't have in mine.

I am a straight woman, so I'll speak on straight sexual dynamics. My long term boyfriend and I have a happy relationship because I don't think that he has it easier than me. If there are things he doesn't understand about my experience and vice versa, we talk about it and have a respectful conversation and often gain insights from the others' experience. I don't try to tell him what I think masculinity should be like and what behaviors are and aren't "toxic masculinity."

Here's a story that encapsulates what I mean. I'm in a field with a lot of socially awkward males of all kinds. Back in school two of my female friends were ragging on this one guy John, for being "that kind of white man." They said he was incompetent but believed too much in himself, he was a mansplainer, a kiss-ass, but would definitely unfairly get promoted over them. They hated him, and they hated what he represented, to them: men getting ahead in their boy's club because they're men. Men too privileged to see pass their own nose.

Well, later I had a class with this guy. When I first met him, I could see why he was annoying, because he was. He talked a lot about himself, and he did present himself in a way that seemed more grandiose than his actual abilities. He didn't seem to take advice very well. But I didn't interpret that as he hated me or women. Then he wrote an essay about how his parents abused drugs, how he lived with his grandma because they were in and out of jail, how he did terribly in school due to learning disabilities and then had violently beat someone up in highschool and gone to juvenille hall, gotten out and lived under an overpass for a while, and now later in life was trying to make something of himself to be in a better world than the one that he grew up in. Knowing that, I now believe that he was incredibly socially awkward because he was trying to ascend into a class of people he didn't natively belong to. He was trying to follow the rules on paper but maybe had a hard time interpreting authority not dictated by violence. Knowing that, it was much easier to be kind to him. And I didn't end up being his friend, just found him tolerable enough to be around. Not having that negativity in my heart made me less stressed too. So it's mutually beneficial.

I knew for a fact that my two female friends had never experienced adversity like this. And they weren't Radfems, probably closer to QT actually. But it's a more interesting story than my handful of "these people were rude online" kind of ones. Really, I think why GC gets a lot of hate for this specifically is that both groups will act the same toward straight white men, but when GC turns it on trans/NB people, suddenly it's a grave offense. Same way that JK rowling is cancelled now.

TL;DR: QT and GC have the same kind of negative energy but GC also aims that toward QT which makes people very mad.