This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

top 100 commentsshow all 164

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Ok, I guess I should say something more now that I've calmed down before the others mods comment here. First of all, thanks for the support!

So, I said what I said because I was angry for a lot of things. I'm quite angry about what is happening around these issues in general and how transactivists have accomplished many of their goals in a short time, mostly through everyone's back. I'm angry about how transactivists are forcing everyone to lie and say the most absurd things. And yet we're being asked to believe them when they claim to be a marginalized group that no one cares about. I'm quite frustated because my past discussions on this sub and I keep asking myself if is it worth it arguing with a bunch of people who time and time again show they are not interested in actually listening to anything I say because they had decided I'm a evil and ignorant bigot who belong to a dangerous "hate group", and yet they expect I give a dam about their struggles, all in the hopes that I may change some lurkers' minds. Supposing we have any lurker, which may be just whishfull thinking on my part. I'm frustrated with the moderation. From the begginnig I tried hard to be fair because I value fairness. Of course, nothing was ever good enough for the QT side. I'm frustrated with QT users acting like they were making us a huge favour just by showing up here, regardless of how they behave, and how they expect we be all-accommodating under the threath they will leave if not. u/circlingmyownvoid2 saying the choices of word to talk about women made by The Lancet was acceptable, right after ignoring the points I made in our discussion and accusing me of adhominen attacks for ponting out circling's lack of concern for women, was just the catalyst that made me say what I've been bottling up.

I say all of this as an explanation, not as an excuse. I recognized I broked the rules while being aware of the fact and under the knowledge circling wasn't going to like it a bit. I did it to prove a point and because I regard the idea of "misgendering" being an unforgiveable offense to be absurd. I won't apologize, though. I hate fake apologies and the truth is I stand by every single word I said. I do not think referencing someone's sex is an insult, it's trans identified people who decide to project their own ideas about the sexes onto everyone else. Also, circling has never apologized for their own behaviour in this sub as far as I've seen.

I expected my comments would be eventually deleted and I'd be warned not to do it again. I certainly wasn't expecting circling would immediately make a thread demanding I were removed from the mod team. I find this response to be disproportionate and hypocritical. I don't believe for a second circling's sudden interest in enforcing rules. As a side note, by doing this circling has only proved my point spectacularly. Circling has yet to answer me how if "medical transition" is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, how can circling get so upset by a stranger on the internet, who lives far far away, mentions circling's sex? I think this is an example of how "medical transition" doesn't really resolve the underlying issues and the "treatment" depends on everyone else playing along with their "identities". And given that society has refused to tell transactivists no, it's not wonder they keep asking for more and more. That is how now we have medical journals talking about "bodies with vaginas". Nothing will ever be good enough form them because they will always have the doubt other people don't believe all this stuff. Just like they themselves don't believe it, either.

Anyway, if I stay as mod, I'll have to accept not to "misgendering" here, regardless of my feelings on the issue. However, given circling's interest in me being a good rule-enforcer, I can promise I'd be more severe from now on... And I'll make sure a rule about not calling fellow users "cis" is written in the sidebar this time around. GC should not be the only ones forced to adjust their language in this sub.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

It depends on how you understand "misgendering". If someone is a man via biology, socialisation, privilege, behavioural patterns etc. then calling such a man a woman for whatever reason would be misgendering. Cross-gender self-assignment is misgendering.

'Man' is a word to describe adult human males. It's innocuous, not hate speech. If you regard gender so taboo & regard it as criminally vulgar, why should that be anyone else's problem? You can create your own stipulative definition of 'man' if you want, but what gives anyone the right to erase the definition of man that refers to adult members of the male sex?

Your demands are less reasonable than the content of her reply. According to the rules BiR just needs to edit her comment, which can only be enforced by another mod.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Mods openly and admittedly breaking the rules is a problem no matter what you think of me.

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

I don't take issue with you bringing this to everyone's attention the way you have, except for the part where you make the judgement that BiR isn't fit to be a mod.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Cross-gender self-assignment is misgendering


[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Snow uses gender to mean sex.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Would you prefer if the term was mis-sexing?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think everyone errs when we push aside the word sex for gender. No one ever misgenders someone because they are not speaking of "gender", they are correctly sexing them or at least attempting to do that. Similarly a person who thinks their gender does not match their obvious and observable sex, that is sex dysphoria because the problem in their head is over their sex. Gender has no firm meaning, it means very different things both colloquially and when used among theorists or researchers. It is about as accurate a term as "the perfect world", what I see as a perfect world is not what anyone else means, and do I mean the geography/geology/atmosphere, or the social conditions? Or the flora and fauna? Gender has done no good to people or their ability to communicate. Please use "sex" when that is the accurate term and leave fuzzy meaningless language to those who need it to live fuzzy meaningless lives.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

"Similarly a person who thinks their gender does not match their obvious and observable sex" – talk about fuzzy language, that's beyond fuzzy, it's so sloppy it's meaningless. You can't say gender has no meaning, but continue using it as if it has one. How can someone feel that a meaningless word "doesn't match their sex"? Obviously the word has a meaning, their actions reveal as much, even if their words don't.

If every time we are referring to the male & females sexes we are to say 'sex' for accuracy's sake, then even "transgender people with a gender identity that doesn't match their sex" needs to be changed to "transsexuals with a sex identity that doesn't match their sex". Please use '"sex" yourself first, consistently, before urging others to do so.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I think any fuzziness in what I wrote is because Gender is bullshit and using it makes everything fuzzy. I'm OK with not using it at all.

Obviously the word has a meaning, their actions reveal as much, even if their words don't.

That's how it might appear to be, but it's not necessarily true. If the word had a clear meaning, that would stand on its own regardless of their actions. Their actions reveal something about themselves, not the language they use.

then even "transgender people with a gender identity that doesn't match their sex" needs to be changed to "transsexuals with a sex identity that doesn't match their sex". Please use '"sex" yourself first, consistently, before urging others to do so.

Well, at the end there you're just being disingenuous (edited in hopes of better reflecting the mod's sense of proper decorum). How can I be talking about what bullshit gender is as word if I do not use it? Should I have typed "that which we will not say" each time I typed "gender"? But you are making a straw man: My use of the term in talking about your use of the term does not mean I'm conferring any meaning, fuzzy or otherwise, to it. We could replace South Park's "Marklar" with gender, it would not mean Marklar has a clear meaning. Gender is not used, by anyone it seems, in such a way that it has a clear meaning, other than when they use it to mean some attribute they claim to have.

They are not transexuals unless they had surgery, so we are not talking about transexuals most of the time. They do call themselves transgender, most of "them" have not had surgery. What term would you use, or are you saying we should conflate transexuals who had surgery with those who LARP as the other sex?

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

How can I be talking about what bullshit gender is as word if I do not use it?

"How do I prove that a flute isn't a hammer without constantly using a flute to hammer nails into the wall, thereby convincing everyone but myself that I think it's a hammer?"

Just follow your own standards & stop using gender, & yes, that includes "transgender". The trans cult don't hold a patent on the word & you haven't been employed to enforce it. I can use gender the way everyone else does: to mean biological sex.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Then you are ignoring the meaning of the word and what "GC" is critical of. In the GCdebatesQT sub, you are on team "uses fuzzy language that obfuscates the crux of the debate". The name of the sub should be changed to include your side in that debate.

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

Gender has two meanings (predominantly: male/female, or to a lesser extent: masculinity/femininity), which can be found in everyday language, in academia, in the dictionary, everywhere, since at least the 1880s, apparently. So you're asking me to ignore the meanings of the word & allow the gender-swap cult to appropriate it. As for the name of the sub, QT & GC don't agree on the definition of gender, that's a major part of the contention. According to QT gender = gender identity = the desire to be the opposite sex proves you are the opposite sex. So I assume "GC" either refers to being critical of this definition, since GC is a reaction to QT, alternatively "GC" could refer to being critical of masculinity/femininity.

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

Enough with the name calling, FlippyKing.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I edited what I think is the offending word. I have a serious question, if a member broke a rule or series of rules, is there a time limit on seeking action against them? I asked this a few days ago, but it more like directed up towards the ether and rhetorical. Is it too late to ask months after the event for:

banning of the only person in the sub that I'm aware of who told a rape victim they should have felt sympathy for their rapist because that seems to break the no harassment rule, the no personal attack rule, the no misogyny rule, the no sexism rule, the no victim blaming rule, the rape apologia rule, and the trolling rule. That's a lot but is particularly heinous. Is there a statute of limitations on behavior that heinous? I'm asking for a non-friend who maybe should be banned.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is nothing so formal. I just don't mod past incidents. Circling's heinous comments on rape happenned before I joined the sub, I think. If I'd been a mod by then I'd have been much harsher. I'd ban circling if u/Houseplant wants it, though.

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

I'm not in the mood for another discussion about the word gender. I just pointed that out because some may find you comment confusing given that is not how either GC or QT usually interpret misgendering.

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

I find your qualifying remark to be most confusing of all. "Cross-gender self-reassignment is misgendering" is pretty self-explanatory. Changing it to "cross-sex self-reassignment is mis-sexing" would diminish the impact. The whole point was co-opting QT's terms, for once.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

BIR actually bothers to mod here, much like peaking. I’d rather keep them, thanks.

Besides, loads of actions are given second chances here, like when you told me I’m morally wrong and barely human for not helping a rapist I injured as he raped me.

Man is not a dehumanising term except to you. Why do you think the community should have its languages policed according to your idiosyncratic definitions of words?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

It’s literally in the rules. Mods should enforce and not flaunt the rules. It’s pretty simple.

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

Mods should enforce and not flaunt the rules. It’s pretty simple.

The word you mean is flout, not flaunt.

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

And she broke the rule once. She doesn’t need to be removed. I’m sure by now she’s well aware of the issue You have.

She’s not getting removed, so how else can this be rectified for you?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

So we should get rid of one of two active mods and have less moderation overall, because you’re the grand arbiter of what is and is not dehumanising?

Why is what is or isn’t dehumanising up to you?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

This has nothing to do with dehumanization and everything to do with rules.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Clearly the issue of language exists for users here and ignoring our questions isn’t helping this call for removing BIR look any less petulant.

Like, the rape apologia rule had to be made specifically in response to you and yet you’re doing this over the word man and BIR (and everyone else’s) refusal to think man means ‘big smelly ugly violent cave monster’

The rules explicitly state no sexism or misogyny but you regularly post yours.

Should we also instate a rule saying users are not allowed to use the community members as a tool to emotionally self harm? You’ve done a lot of shitty things here to be riding a high horse masks.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I’m not a moderator.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So you’re above the rules? You can say whatever sexist, dehumanising, offensive shit you like without consequence but BIR has to go for using a sexed term you choose to define as an insult?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

If I violate the rules, you can go to the the mods. When a mod does that process doesn’t work.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The mods who have been extremely lenient to you? The mods who let you back after dehumanising me because I won’t help a rapist I’ve injured?

Really stop and think about your own shitty actions in this sub

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The mods can do what they want to me. But they haven’t acted on the actions of BIR as evidenced by the fact that the admittedly rule breaking posts by her haven’t been deleted. But no one cares so what’s the point?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If the consensus is that everybody can break the rules what exactly is it that you want?

She broke a rule. Once. What do want to happen? because it’s clear nobody else wants her gone, so what will appease you?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not calling me a man anymore for one. But apparently the rules don’t matter who so I’m probably just gonna dip.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Will you stop saying shit like men are monsters, men are hideous, men are disgusting, etc etc?

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

And what I’m saying is she did it once. You act like she does it all the time. My point is not that she didn’t break a rule- she did. My point is she’s human, and otherwise she’s done a good job and if all you need is for her to not do it again then there’s no point in leaving unless overall that’s what you need for personal reasons.

The rules have never mattered and we all know that. Almost all the rules get broken if you look over like any random two or three posts with a decent number of comments. We’ve all called each other things that upset each other, we’ve all been rude from time to time, like- if you need to go then we all get it, but I think it’s a reach to act like the 1,035,644th time a rule was broken this year it needs to be turned into a witch-hunt.

I get you hold her to a different standard because she’s a Mod. Mods deserve second chances as well.

Again, if the sub is too much for you in general please do what you need to do for yourself

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

SO, you said something to Biology is Real that was dehumanizing, Biology is Real called you out on it and responded in kind, and you're throw a fit over it?

How about just not say things that are dehumanizing?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Masks wasn’t even dehumanized. It’s not dehumanizing to call a person a man.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I had a set of comment exchanges with Circling My Own Void where CMOV consistently stated that men were monsters. I would not be surprised if the issues much of team TRA has with "gender" and with what a man or a woman is, and how they want to force the world to accept their dysfunctions around what a man or a woman is, makes their sense of what is "dehumanizing" more reasonable-- and that is a failure of epic proportions by our mental health professionals.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah. They are monsters unless we harm them when we defend ourselves from them. Then we have to help them because they’re human. It’s… typical.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

(I just want to point out that I'm a dude. You may know that already. I don't know why I feel like I should point that out, but I figure I should get out of the way.) Well, I think we're supposed to be in this mess together and getting out of it together. Monsters might be made and not born, but they can be equally made in their own misdeeds and by being an especially poorly-formed person, or in the imaginations of differently poorly-formed persons.

This part of my comment is now off topic: in war the opposing sides need to see each other as animals or monsters and not as human, but if peace is ever to be worked out they have to then see each other as fully human and worthy of mutual dignity. Men have been objectifying women longer than I can really grasp in my head, and that already is a dehumanizing act unfortunately. TRAs, perhaps not just "TW", may be doing the same-- just a guess on my part.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree with what you’re saying, my point is that to Masks/Void, all men are monsters unless they are trans, but masks/void thinks we should save the very worst of them right when they are causing harm.

It’s absurd to refer to an entire sex as monsters but want us to save the lives of the monsters who are committing monstrous acts, not the ones who aren’t doing anything but being monsters just because they are men.

So you’re a monster, just for being a man. But if you actually acted in a violent way and someone defended themselves against you, the person you attacked would be morally obligated to save a double monster’s life instead of fleeing to safety.

It’s just an odd sense of morality and logic imo

I do think that in this war, qt/tras goal is to dehumanize everyone who isn’t trans, I don’t think anyone is actually dehumanizing trans people. We just believe in fact and biology. I see transwomen and transmen and non binary and all the TQ+ as human. I just don’t see them as the genders/sexes they want me to.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

to Masks/Void, all men are monsters unless they are trans

Yes, but that's where their pretzel logic begins: "I'm not a monster, am I? No. I must be a women."

I think you are right about the need to dehumanize everyone else in this war, but I think this war is much bigger than TRA and gender issues. Battle lines are being drawn across half of the population everywhere, and when the hammer falls, half will cheer what will be done to the other half. I'm not looking forward to it. I have no solution either, other than try to speak reason and pray Hail Marys over and over.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I honestly don’t think half the population is pro trans (when I say pro trans I mean supports the current situation. I do think most people dgaf about trans people either way or lean uninformed GC just naturally). I think there’s a lot of proof that most people are more on "our" side. Social media forums and entertainment are dominated by qt ideology, but even if I just listen to the things trans people complain about and look at polls and stuff like that, I don’t think the general population is leaning anywhere near the other side. I actually see more and more people speaking up against tra rhetoric or even just saying that it’s going too far/is ridiculous. People supported them because we thought they were in danger and just wanted to be left alone. We thought they were suicidal and just wanting to be themselves in peace. They show us more every day that that’s not the case.

They are pushing too far and backlash is more prevalent even in the spaces they dominate. Their movement is unsustainable already and now they are offending pretty much all demographics. It may temporarily get a bit worse (especially for women’s and girls), but I think in the long run sanity, logic and fact will prevail.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Oh! I didn't mean to imply that I thought half the population was protrans (in any situtation other than just human rights of any person). I mean I see divisions being created and being deepened in ways I find frightening, and that it seems that those divisions are closer to 60/60 than say 33/66.

I wish sanity, logic and facts will prevail, but (and my car keeps drifting into the off-topic lane) I think money prevails and empires collapse. I think progress is a dangerous myth. I just do not trust any institution with any power to not be fully corrupt. I think corruption and greed among the powerful is so out of control now that it is a real detriment of our species.

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

Oh trans people make the right (or wrong I guess) people tons of money. They aren’t going anywhere, and I don’t think that’s a good or bad thing. I just think they will eventually be out of mainstream media and all the bullshit will die down. I think eventually they won’t be allowed to take sports and stuff from females. But we’ll have to share spaces with the ones who actually transition and I think they’ll still be allowed to falsify documents- but not as easily as they can now.

I think people will eventually just stop accommodating the language stuff and ignore them when they complain about dating and sex and all of that.

I can’t word it well, but i think they’ll get the "treatment" still, but eventually they won’t be able to do the stuff they’re doing to kids, and the expectations on society and about language will end. Not pronouns, but the rest of it. People are tired of it. I see more and more people literally and figuratively rolling their eyes every time there’s a new issue about trans people. People don’t care about being tRanSpHobIc. So I think they’ll get the medical and even some legal- but not the societal demands. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but it’s also wishful thinking on their part that 1% can hold 99% hostage, even with the help of some of the 99%

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I didn’t say anything dehumanizing. We were discussing language in some article. Then she decided to spend a few paragraphs calling me a man.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why is it that when you feel dehumanised we must all see it but anything we feel you say that is dehumanising somehow magically just isn’t. It’s such bullshit masks, what do you think makes you the authority in what is and isn’t dehumanising? Why are your feelings the only correct guide to language?

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

Asked the same question lol

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s the same issue with masks over and over again. This same bonkers insistence that because masks has weird fucked up beliefs about what man and women mean, the rest of us have to speak like those ideas are valid.

I’m so over it tbh. Incapable of addressing their own transgressions or any point that challenges their beliefs, but the first to kick up a stink if anyone in the community doesn’t obey masks laws of language.

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

Why is it that when you decide something is dehumanizing it is, but when we say it we are wrong?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

How am I supposed to respond? Do you realize how childish you sound? You OBVIOUSLY offended, then instead of doing the decent thing or just letting it go, you created a new "meta" topic. If you kids can't play nice, should an adult separate you?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (59 children)

Since this is a post not a message to the mods, I assume anyone can comment and I personally think BiR is a great mod.

She hasn’t said anything that isn’t factually accurate and I think even if this were actually wrong, it’s not enough to remove her.

People break rules here all the time. They get second and third and hundredth chances.

Sometimes people don’t break rules but say incredibly offensive things and we let it go and move on (example- idk… telling rape victims they should tend to any wounds they give their rapists if they have to defend themselves comes to mind…).

We have two actually consistently active mods. It’s odd you’d jump to remove one of them instead of attempting to have the issue addressed and resolved in a more reasonable way first.

This could have and should have been a private conversation with the mod team.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If she weren’t a mod I would have simply reported it and moved on but a “private conversation with the mod team” a) isn’t facilitated because there isn’t a group chat function here and I sure as hell am not giving anyone here my personal info and b) largely made impractical by the fact she is on the mod team. Watever insults you want to throw at me doesn’t change that mods should follow and enforce the rules. Otherwise moderation and rules are meaningless.

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

We had a racist on this sub who made really fucked up comments and I very easily privately messaged the mods and it was dealt with within a few hours.

You got suspended after someone privately messaged the mods.

Like I said, even if she were wrong, it doesn’t make sense to get rid of one of the two active mods we have because she lost her patience once.

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

We have mod mail, you know? Or if you didn't want me to participate in the conversation, you could have sent an individual message to the other mods. I still don't know how making a meta topic for removing me gives you more advantage. I can see the whole conversation here and the other mods are the ones who have the power to remove me or not.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (55 children)

telling rape victims they should tend to any wounds they give their rapists if they have to defend themselves comes to mind

What? When did it happen?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

Months and months ago now. Essentially, masks told me that I am barely human/cruel/morally a failure/a bad person because I did not assist a rapist whose nose I broke and because if in the situation again, I would still maim the rapist and not help. Escaping an attacker you manage to injure is a moral failing of women and they are barely human if they don’t stop to offer aid after kicking a man who forced his penis into her body, in the nuts. He never apologised or admitted this is a disgusting display of hatred for women and resounding support for rapists to be protected from consequences of their choice to be a rapist. He has made zero effort to apologise for deliberately dehumanising me and victim blaming me. In fact he doubled down. And will likely throw a tantrum over my use of the term ‘he’.

The audacity and misogyny it takes to make this thread after he has done that is fucking infinite.

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

Jesus Christ, I thought this thread was ridicoulous because I know how big of a theatrics-enthusiast performer mask is. But this comment you just wrote puts a completely different level of disgusting hypochrisy on the situation.

I really have no word to describe just how violently disgusted I am by the idea that there are people who think that rape victims have any obligation towards their rapists. Or that they need to put themselves even in potential more danger because the poor souls need help.

And here I thought that forcing female rape victims to call their trans rapist "she" was bad: this is even worse. Ugh.

But yeah, of course, dehumanization is only something important when it' s done to the "right" people and for the "right" reasons. Calling out a rape victim for trying to save herself from her rapist, on the other hand, is perfectly fine.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

That’s not what I said.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

Really masks? Go pull up the quotes.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

Go ahead. Show everyone how I very much didn’t say that.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

Fine I’ll end with this. It’s not about rape it’s about people. If you could let someone bleed out without calling 911, I fundamentally can’t understand your lack of respect for life.

You fundamentally cannot understand my lack of respect for someone who’s lack of respect led them to R A P I N G me. You put my morals on trial out of everyone’s in that situations and you think that’s normal or okay?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I still don’t understand it but that doesn’t mean I am saying you are wrong or blameworthy.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It means that you are so incapable of empathising with a woman that you questioned her morals when there was a rapist. The morals you found objectionable enough to argue about were the morals of the raped woman.

It implies that I am precisely wrong and blameworthy, and reprehensible for not performing what you perceive as a moral duty.

You are so incapable of empathising with a woman that you enforced your moral framework onto how she escaped a rape to say she did not perform her duty. And you’re still doing it.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So if a "cis" man raped you, and he ended up hurt in your attempt to get away from him, you would stay there even if he could hurt you more because helping an injured rapist out is more ethical than saving yourself?

How about those "cis" men you keep saying that assaulted you in restrooms: would you feel any duty to help them if, in an attempt to save yourself, you had managed to hurt them?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Me personally? Yes. But I realize that’s an unreasonable standard and wouldn’t demand anyone else do the same.

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

This was a while back, I can’t remember exactly what post but I’ll see if I can find it

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That’s a gross mischaracterization of what I said. But I am afraid if I clarify that will ban me again.

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

That was what you said. Now drop the subject.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No. That was not what I said. I’m not rehashing the conversation but I’m not going to just ignore such an outright lie.

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

What thread was it, then? So that I can read it by myself, hoping the comment wasn' t deleted or changed in the meantime.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Here is where it begins.

The deleted account is circling and Catbug is Houseplant.

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

Then yes, that' s exactly what mask said. That it' s a rape victim' s duty to help her rapist if she manage to hurt him while trying to escape.

I can' t even begin to try to understand that logic.

Thanks for the link. And wow for that entire convo, really.

The only feeling I would have if I managed to stab my rapist in an attempt to run away would be satisfaction. I wouldn' t give a lesser fuck about "ameliorating" his pain. Let the asshole suffer as much as possible.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I haven't read the whole exchange, but not cool. We have these rules in place so that our trans members feel welcome to participate. I don't think it's too much to ask to refrain from calling specific members "a man" or " a woman" if they are trans.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Whatever, grixit didn like that rule either. So, I doubt he would kick me out for "misgendering" you, especially when I was the only GC user willing to take the post.

But I suppose, I should provide some context on my comment at least. Here is the whole conversation where this exchange took place:

And here is the part about The Lancet recent controversy that made me give up on this bullshit of trying to not offend QT (an impossible mision, really):

Bodies with vaginas isn’t dehumanizing. Its a specific group which isn’t accurately described by “women”. That’s like saying “bodies over 5’7” is dehumanizing.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (34 children)

If you say woman when you mean people with vaginas you exclude girls and trans men and include women who don’t have vaginas due to developmental variance or injury. Woman in fact isn’t an adequate term when you mean people with vaginas. That’s without even bringing trans women into it at all.

Regardless the expectation is that a moderator actually follow the rules or the entire thing becomes a farce.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Please, circling, tell us how calling a man a man is worse than calling women bodies with vagina? Only women, regardless of how they identify, have vaginas. Males who identify as trans don't have one. A "neovagina" is not a vagina.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

I literally said expressly that I wasn’t even discussing trans women. Trans men are (usually) men with vaginas. Not women. Also by your definition most female children and have vaginas but aren’t women. And some adult women don’t have vaginas. Hence “women” and “people with vaginas” are not fully synonymous. This was exactly my point.

Whether or not I object to the personal insult of calling me a man, it’s against the rules of the space.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

I don't have a problem saying girls and women. It's "bodies with vaginas" (the actual term used in The Lancet, not "people with vaginas", although I've a problem with it too) I objected to. Men don't have vagina. "Trans men" aren't men. Why do women have to accept all QT stupid "inclusive" terms, but you won't accept being called by your sex? And why aren't men being subjected to this ridiculous bussines of "inclusive language"? Why aren't we seeing stuff like bodies with penises, prostata-havers or impregnators?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

Trans men aren’t women. Or at least not so unambiguaouly so to enough of the population that whether someone intended to include them with “women” or not would be an open question. And that language is for the benefit of trans men, it doesn’t have anything to do with trans women. And it’s happening to men as well. Adults over 40 with prostates should get them checked etc. especially in medical contexts that kind of specificity is important.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Trans men aren’t women

They are women because they are female.

And it’s happening to men as well. Adults over 40 with prostates should get them checked etc.

Provide proof or it doesn't happen.

especially in medical contexts that kind of specificity is important.

Health campaings should use simple language that the general population can understand. Stuff like "people with cervix" and "adults with prostates" (which is not a thing) is not inclusive of people with lower levels of education or who are not native speakers.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

There is guidance that includes reference to prostate screenings for people with prostates as well as neutral language for testicles.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

The guidance you linked is written for and specifically aimed at the "LGBTQ+ community" - not the general public.

The prostate screening info that health authorities in Canada have written for the general public says very clearly:

  • Prostate cancer is the 4th most common cancer in Canada
  • 1 in 9 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime
  • About 23,300 men will have been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2020
  • In men, prostate cancer is the #1 cancer
  • 99% of cases occur in men aged 50+

No one has an issue when the language you like is used in materials meant specifically for trans people and others who place primacy on gender identities and see human beings as an assemblage of disconnected body parts. You do you.

What women and many men have an issue with is the fact that the language you like is now being used when referring to female-specific matters of biology and health in materials meant for the general public. And this is being done only to matters affecting female people, not in the case of any matters affecting male people.

For example, just days before the Lancet called women & girls "bodies with vaginas" on its cover, it ran an article about "men with prostate cancer" and how prostate affects men in which men were never referred to as "bodies with prostates" or in any other dehumanizing way.

You take great offense when others mention your sex. Yet at the same time, you think it's perfectly fine to call girls & women demeaning terms that reduce us to one of our sex organs like "bodies with vaginas" and "people with a cervix." And when say that we find this insulting and dehumanizing, you say we are wrong. Pray tell, how is calling your mum a "body with a vagina" or "a birthing body" not the same as calling her a "cxnt," "hole," vessel, or "baby maker" ? How is it less insulting than calling her "a piece of ass" or "tits & ass"?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

Because it’s anatomical. It’s being used in the same sense as “people with breasts over 40 should get mammograms”. It’s not on a sexual sense.

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

"adults over 40 with prostates" is very clearly being phrased that way for the of the males this applies to who don’t want to be referred to as "males/men over 40"

It may be an example of a shitty language change actually being done to men, it’s being done to men for TW. Not TM