Meta: What can we do to stimulate more activity here?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

I feel like our debate sub is slowly but surely dying.

Is there anything we can do to draw new participants, particularly QT ones? Our old Reddit sub was so vibrant and active. It really depresses me to see this one so quiet.

all 47 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Nothing. QT has had nothing left to debate for a while and there isn’t a tra theory that hasn’t been debunked.

You can’t make debate with a group that says debate is an attack.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

But that never stopped them on Reddit. They always wanted to debate when we were over there. Granted, many did not stick around long, but at least they made the attempt. And we did have QT regulars who were in it for the long haul.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They didn’t debate over there..they posted the same braindead arguments about clownfish and feelings and hard boiled misogyny. They just got more positive attention for it there because the sub was a good karma farm for their own ones like gendercynical.

There is no good debate from tra because it’s an inherently broken and sexist way of thinking.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean, they did debate. I'm not saying they had convincing arguments, but there was plenty of debate and discussion.

And hey, the sub did have positive outcomes. It ended up peaking people. It helped peaked me. I was way more QT when I started posting there. I think it also helped at least one person detransition.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just think the discourse has simply ran itself out. How many times can we explain that tra/gender ideology are harmful? At what point is it a lost cause?

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Eh, maybe, but I don't think so. It's never a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. If we can get QT posters to question what they're being told, we might at least prevent negative things happening to some people in those circles.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hi Worried, it definitely seems like it is dying. I miss having more activity too. I felt like we were doing well for awhile keeping it going, but there just aren’t really any active QT now. If anyone is on Reddit who can post in a trans space to let people know about this sub, that could help. It will get deleted, but maybe a few people would see it.

I feel like maybe this space has just become so GC dominated that it would be hard for someone who is QT to last. It might be overwhelming or intimidating to have so many people criticize you and your ideas without having anyone support you. Genderbender has been defending her ideas in some threads, but it must be hard to be so outnumbered.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I appreciate u/Genderbender continuing to try, but if there's only one active QT person, it does put a damper on things.

Maybe someone with a Reddit throwaway account can try to entice people over.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

The Discord server seems pretty busy, idk if it's as busy as the Reddit sub was. I try to mention this sub and link it as often (albeit organically) as I can, but I get the impression that people who would otherwise participate are wary of Saidit because they don't know anything about it or they associate it with neo Nazis and Alt Right.

Moving to another platform/website, being able to compromise on language-usage in some way and possibly re-branding the concept of the sub overall would be my suggestions for keeping the sub alive and revitalizing it with more diverse points of view and opinions.

It seems like there needs to maybe be a firm compromise of language for both 'sides'. Also the idea of 'sides' has been bothering me personally more & more, because to me that seems to make it more like a competition, when I feel this really should be a discussion because these topics affect most, if not all of us who participate in them. Spending more time on Twitter has led me to believe that increasing extremism on either 'side' is turning more people off from TRA & GC. It's definitely made me reach 'peak GC', even if I still hold more GC beliefs.

But the language compromise might be the biggest help to attract more diverse views, I think. I realize that language is a significant (if not maybe the most significant) part of the overall debate, and controlling the way others speak and express themselves is a major turn-off. I know the only reason I could even get into having thoughtful dialog here was by censoring myself and trying to use the language of the people I'm speaking with. It's a sensitive subject that seems near-and-dear to most GC & QT peoples' hearts, but being unwilling to make concessions seems to lead to a dead-end.

I apologize if I'm overstepping my bounds, maybe I am misunderstanding the original intent and spirit of this sub--maybe it is more intended to be a place to argue or take out frustration on the other 'side'. But if it isn't, then these would be my suggestions based on my observations in and out of the sub.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Moving to another platform/website

Where? We're here because everywhere else we'd be banned for "transphobia".

It seems like there needs to maybe be a firm compromise of language for both 'sides'

Yeah, right. We know exactly which side would be one who had to compromise. QT has proven time and time again they are going to compromise in anything.

Spending more time on Twitter has led me to believe that increasing extremism on either 'side' is turning more people off from TRA & GC. It's definitely made me reach 'peak GC', even if I still hold more GC beliefs.

Please, provide the receipts of GC sending rape and death threaths, doxing, getting people fired, and physically assaulting QT. Or is that you have different criteria about what is extremism for QT and GC?

I realize that language is a significant (if not maybe the most significant) part of the overall debate, and controlling the way others speak and express themselves is a major turn-off.

Exactly, how are we supposed to argue effectively if we compromise on language?

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

Where? We're here because everywhere else we'd be banned for "transphobia".

I'm not sure exactly, and that's a good point. I think to stay active here and attract more people, Saidit as a website needs to be made more well-known, and more disassociated from the far right viewpoints that the website attracts and appeals to the most. There is the GCdebatesQT Discord server that seems to be pretty active, though I'm remembering I think they just recently changed rules specifically addressing language that could be interpreted as transphobic. I'm not internet-savvy enough that I can really think of anything off the top of my head.

Yeah, right. We know exactly which side would be one who had to compromise. QT has proven time and time again they are going to compromise in anything.

Maybe! I have no idea at this point, honestly. There are so many people with so many diverse opinions, I believe there are QT people who would compromise--but maybe those sorts of people don't even think of themselves as QT.

Please, provide the receipts of GC sending rape and death threaths, doxing, getting people fired, and physically assaulting QT. Or is that you have different criteria about what is extremism for QT and GC?

No, not different criteria, because extremism can be expressed in more ways than the ones you mentioned. I'm thinking in particular lately about a group of GC feminists and allies targeting and harassing people with DSDs and including them in this overall debate/discussion. This is just a small bit on that: https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/65608/ootl-eli5-genspect-gender-dysphoria-alliance-exulansic-and-karen-davis

Exactly, how are we supposed to argue effectively if we compromise on language?

I would think that would depend on what one is arguing about, and for what purpose--if it's just to argue for argument's sake, or to just 'win' an argument, already holding a firm view of things that one does not allow room for their mind to be changed, then compromising on language wouldn't be a good idea. The argument can continue indefinitely that way. But if the intent is to come to understanding and try to change others' minds, I think compromises and adaptation are requisite. Good arguments are fun challenges to see how one can change another's mind or persuade or convince them of something--like if I'm trying to do that, then to me the ends justify the means, and it's often a fun challenge to figure out how to get my point across and persuade others with limits on what language I can use and how I can use it. The most brilliant, surprising thing GC could do to persuade or 'convert' QT to GC views would be to adopt QT language and rather than use that language disparagingly or making fun of it, making a sincere effort to apply it to GC logic, which is where QT logic breaks down. And the same would be true of QT adopting GC language.

Again, though, it's probably clear I've always been more interested in discussion than arguments. Or I argue in a weird way because I'm averse to conflict with which I associate arguing, so I have to make it not feel or seem like I'm arguing. I'm a newbie compared to most people in this sub, so I might just be completely missing the point lol 😅

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

It's not possible to compromise over language because the discussions are in great part over language. What is a woman is at the heart of of our discussions. Using QT terminology would only ofuscate what we are trying to say.

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

That's fair. I'm not really sure what more to say on that 🤔🤷‍♀️ just my two cents! 😁

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

Are you on facebook? There is a group there gender discourse fight club - https://www.facebook.com/groups/834310140404720

It's nearly 2kppl - but it is hard to keep trains from rolling away, esp mtfs, ftms seem to stick around more - though happy to generally talk about rules and what not if interested - but at the end of the day yeah without access to more moderate groups like honesttransgender, truscum, etc. or otherwise a larger user base- it'll be hard to draw new folks in.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't realize there was a group there. I'm not on Facebook, though. I value my privacy too much for that. Do people there participate under their real names? Seems like it might be dangerous for GC people.

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

It's pretty safe - we're generally all respectful. But yeah it's not related to GCDQT.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good to hear that. If I ever join Facebook, I will check you guys out.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think the main problem is that QT people aren't even lurking. If you look at our demographics poll, they're not here:

http://www.polljunkie.com/poll/pfipfo/gcdebatesqt/view

I appreciate you trying to drum up interest! But I just don't know if anything will entice more QT people over. I agree that we do need strict rules about language. Misgendering is something that is obviously going to turn off QT people from even attempting to participate. That rule needs to be strictly enforced.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Imo it’s a massive problem that we are expected to use the language of an oppressive group who threatens us with rape and death and runs on misogyny.

How are we supposed to speak if we must fit the censors of those who want us silent?

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because this is a debate sub. It's not a GC-only space like Ovarit. And we don't have to use their language. All that's ever been required is to avoid biological sex pronouns for posters who don't identify as their sex.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We are using their language already when we use gendered, not sexed, pronouns derived from their sexist ideology.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

GC was never required to use their preferred pronouns, though. Just to avoid the ones our trans posters didn't like.

It makes sentences awkward, but it is doable.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And using preferred pronouns means we are not allowed to use the ones formed from our perceptions. We are not allowed to recognise a male user as male. The reasons why hardly matter. We are still expected to pretend our perceptions are untrustworthy and wrong, something to be corrected by others.

You’re free to tell yourself this is not a problem if it’s okay with you but I’m not gonna lie and act like it’s not happening.

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We don't have to use their preferred pronouns, though. We can just avoid pronouns at all. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but if we want to meet TRAs in the middle, it seems reasonable to give them that at least. I'm not talking in society at large, just on our debate sub.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We’ve been over this one before. Not doing it again.

[–]LemurLemur 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I poked my head in to lurk, and this post inspired me to go dig up my old sign-in info.

I think this sub and the GC people behind it probably should figure out what they want the purpose of this sub to be - civil communication, or "bravely standing up to evil trans people and finally getting to tell them what you REALLY think". I made exactly one post here, asking if the "rudefem" behavior was intentional on GC's part or if it was just an unfortunate byproduct, and I think you, worried, were literally the only person who didn't refuse to even admit that rudeness happens at all. I got a lot of the same answers: 1.) GC aren't rude, you're just stupid 2.) They're rude because this is the only place they can be, so they're allowed to be (but also they aren't rude, you're just stupid.)

I should point out I'm not even trans. My sibling is. Out of curiosity as to what sort of shit they're likely to get for it, I looked at what GC people say, and... yeah, mostly it's "they're disgusting narcissistic degenerate criminals who live to rape and masturbate to violent porn". Hell, the top bullet to most "guide to peaking people" usually starts with "make sure to tell people the transes are doing it for sexual pleasure and they'll rape you as soon as they can get you alone".

So... I'm a little surprised this even needs to be said but... stuff like this isn't fun to interact with. Not for a trans person, and not for anyone that has trans people they care about. It's literally just prejudice, coming from people who claim to want to fight prejudice.

I hang out on other debate subs, and what makes them fun is getting to learn more about people different from you; I've gotten to like people I never thought I would, just by being open minded. I don't get the feeling that is possible here. I don't know if feelings are just too raw for most GC to be neutral about it, but diverse, mixed communities have to rely extra hard on giving each other the benefit of the doubt, and proactively trying to find ways around insults, name-calling, prejudice, stereotyping ect. This sub does not offer that. It's not required to, and I'm not saying it has to. But it doesn't want to. And that makes it hard for anyone non-GC to feel motivated to contribute.

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

So... I'm a little surprised this even needs to be said but... stuff like this isn't fun to interact with.

Does it need to be said though? I’m sure all GCers have heard at this point that the lack of participation from the QT side is actually GC’s (read: women’s) fault for not being nice enough. As much as everyone who has come swooping in with this hot take over the years seems to think GC just isn’t aware that QT thinks they’re ‘rude’, I can assure you that that is not the case. We know. But it’s never been a convincing argument to me, considering how transwomen speak to and about women on this sub and the former reddit sub (and in general).

It’s no wonder women get defensive every time this is brought up; there’s a ridiculous double standard at work here. QT has been complaining about this since the old sub, so there’s been plenty of discussion about it with QT always inevitably failing to provide examples of GC ‘rudeness’ worse than their own.

Do you have an example of GC rudeness on this sub that’s worse than being called dense? Because even on this sub where we have, at best, four non-GC participants, there have been incidents like ‘rape fantasies are innate in women’ or the masks debacle which I’m not sure I’m allowed to rehash.

I also remember when QT made their own subreddit, installed their own mods, and then still immediately complained about GC bias and GC cruelty and left the subreddit (I hope a particularly wounded QTer has recovered from being called ‘cupcake’ by this time). At some point you can’t blame GC anymore (you still will though).

And if you’re going to bring Ovarit (I’m assuming) and therefore spaces outside our debate space into it—even if I were to grant your obviously exaggerated characterisation of the discussion there—then the evidence against QT is even more damning. QT regularly uses misogynistic hate speech to terrorise women. Remember when that male professor suggested JK Rowling be ‘punished’ with a ‘vaginal injury’? This is one example out of literally thousands. How can you, without a trace of shame, chastise radfems for not being nice enough when there are QTers running wild on the internet calling for the 'corrective rape' of 'T*RFs'? Is it ‘fun’ for women to interact with QT in that context? What makes GC women ‘motivated to contribute’ under those circumstances? I’ve curiously never heard an explanation as to why women are able to dialogue with people who talk to and about them like that when it’s absolutely impossible for trans people and their allies to talk to ‘rude’ women. Perhaps it’s time to consider that there might be another factor at play here in QT’s lack of participation.

The bad behaviour of male people towards female people is so ubiquitous that it’s considered normal and inevitable and is therefore barely even noticed—to give the most charitable explanation for your insane double standard that I can give. And while GC women sometimes police each other, I have literally never in my eight years in these spaces seen a QTer call out another QTer for misogyny (or homophobia, for that matter). To my knowledge, no one has ever made a post or comment telling QT they need to ‘work extra hard’ to not insult or stereotype female people. But QT is largely male, and housekeeping is female work, right?

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

As I've had to say to another person... I'm not trans or QT, tho. I've never done any of that. Is there room for discussion with people who don't threaten rapes and call people "cupcake" but just... aren't GC?

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, given that you want to talk about self-criticism, maybe you should have a look at how QT posters behave. Seriously, I'd say they are way more rude in average than GC poster despite being only a handfull of them. The rules banning rules nazi comparisons and banning baseless acussations (like suggesting saying x thing will lead to suicide/genocide) have to be added because of QT.

And giving your talk about fun, let me tell you that I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who act like if they were making a big favour by showing up here. I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who believe I'm akin to nazis. I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who cannot answer basic questions about their own beliefs (I 'm still waiting for QT tell me what is a woman, you know?) I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who keep denying all the evidence about how pro-QT policies hurt women and children. I don't find fun arguing with a bunch of people who ask me to care above and beyond about the feeling of males who identify as trans (aka "transwomen") while they show no emphaty for women.

Also, let's not forget it was QT who got the old sub banned and that is why we're here right now. Let's not forget that QT posters here aren't shy about admitting how much they love the fact GC discourse is shut down in a lot of mainstream plataforms. So, maybe we can stop pretending there are few QT users here because of all the mean GC users when QT have made clear they are NOT interested in debate.

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

But I'm not trans or QT and haven't called anyone a nazi. I've never threatened anyone or banned anyone. I've never hurt women or children (that I know of??) I don't think it's a "huge favor" to show up (tho I do think it's silly to expect people to stay if there's nothing enjoyable about it, but that applies to anything.) I wasn't the one that got the old sub banned. I've never said I was happy that GC was shut down.

What can GC do to distinguish the "evil transes who threaten to rape everyone" from the normal people who just aren't GC?

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

I never said you personally did any of those things. I just pointed out the typical QT behaviour. You came here saying you were worried about your trans identified sibling, and saying GC was too rude to QT while ignoring QT bad behaviour. I just assumed you were QT because that seemed the most likely explanation.

Anyway, I insist, QT have made quite clear they don't want to debate and they want to shut down GC voices. There is no point in pretending QT just don't come here because we are too rude or that both sides are equally bad.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It was even more of a problem on the old sub, but I agree, a lot of GC women are very "facts don't care about your feelings." Which is true, of course, but even if you don't care about making friends or having true discourse, it's still easier to catch flies with honey. If you want someone to talk to you and consider your perspective, you can't be going 100 miles an hour in the opposite direction. I was often told this is "tone policing" women, but honestly, the same holds true for men. I know a lot of women feel pressure to be nice, but you can not act like a dick and still be strong in your position. Not wavering in your morals and ethics or belief system does not mean bowing down. It just means being genuine and interacting in a respectful manner even with those you adamantly disagree with.

2.) They're rude because this is the only place they can be, so they're allowed to be (but also they aren't rude, you're just stupid.)

Honestly, I get the need to vent. There are certain topics that make me very upset and depressed. But you can't just be venting angrily all the time. It's not a productive use of energy.

I looked at what GC people say, and... yeah, mostly it's "they're disgusting narcissistic degenerate criminals who live to rape and masturbate to violent porn". Hell, the top bullet to most "guide to peaking people" usually starts with "make sure to tell people the transes are doing it for sexual pleasure and they'll rape you as soon as they can get you alone".

Honestly, I think this is overstating it a bit, but there is a certain segment of the GC population who just go on and on about sex offenders and AGP and stuff like that. Of course it exists and is an important issue, but I think they forget that over half the trans population these days is actually natal females and that doesn't even apply. And then they completely forget about the natal male HSTS transsexuals and the transitioned male children. Sometimes on Ovarit, I'm like, can we chill about the trans women just a bit? Frankly, unless it's involving prisons or sports or safeguarding in general, I rarely even think about them. My concern is really for minor children of both sexes and GNC women and girls.

So I agree with you for the most part, but many QT people refuse to argue in good faith. That can also be maddening. The old sub was particularly prone to fights. Safety and employment concerns are also very real for many GC women. On the old sub, there was occasional doxxing. One QT member reported a GC member in New Zealand for child abuse and tried to get her kids taken away from her. There are unhinged people out there. Several women have lost their jobs for being gender critical. So it's not like all the QT people are nice and innocent. There are bad people out there, although I continue to believe that most pro-trans and trans people are decent. The professional activists and Twitter warriors may not be, but ordinary people often still are.

I'm totally all in for respectful discourse. I don't think of this sub as a place to "own" anyone. I would love for us to be able to have conversations and friendships.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's policing women because QT are NOT hold to the same standards. Why is always on us to behave better? Why act as if both sides are rude when one side is objectively far worse in how they behave.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

QT should be held to the same standards. If we want this place to be for genuine debate and discussion, then both sides should be civil. We shouldn't tolerate rudeness from either one.

And, yes, obviously QT on places like Twitter are objectively far worse. How does that give us license to act like that right back on the debate sub? How random assholes are acting on Twitter has nothing to do with what conduct we should expect from each other here.

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

If you think GC users in this sub are as bad as TRA on Twitter, then you're not applying the same standards. Where are all the death and rape threaths, the doxxing, etcetera? I already intervene when arguments get more heated up than usual. If you think we need to get more severe with the moderation, then I assure you there are going to be even less QT posters here.

Worried19, you may not want to hear this, but QT have made quite clear they are NOT interested in debate. It was QT who got the old sub banned. They were the ones who celebrated the ban and chose not to come over here. The posters who came here are not shy about how much they like GC dicourse being shut down in mainstream plataphorms. And the only reason they aren't calling us nazis or acussing us of causing mass suicides every five comments is because we added rules against it to make them stop.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TRAs on Twitter are far, far worse. I don't think that's in question. But I do believe the rules of our sub should be upheld. It's not okay for GC posters go around calling QT posters their biological sex pronouns or referring to them as "a man" or "a woman." If we can't even refrain from doing that, you can't blame QT for not wanting to stick around. I'm not saying anyone has to lie. That's why "natal male," "natal female," and "they" were considered acceptable compromises.

Worried19, you may not want to hear this, but QT have made quite clear they are NOT interested in debate. It was QT who got the old sub banned. They were the ones who celebrated the ban and chose not to come over here.

I only recall one former QT regular who was happy about the ban. Several of our trans posters were upset by it. We had trans moderators, too. I'm not saying all QT people are happy to debate. Most probably won't engage with us. But some will. And not everyone who arrived on the old sub QT or QT-leaning stayed that way.

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

My concern is really for minor children of both sexes and GNC women and girls.

I'm interested in why you single out women and girls you deem "GNC" for concern, and how exactly you would define someone as "GNC" versus "not GNC." What are the specific criteria that make a girl or woman "GNC" in your view?

To me, separating out and judging girls and women according to whether you perceive us to be "GNC" or not is just another form of genderism. Prioritizing girls and women who in your eyes appear "GNC" over those you perceive as "not GNC" seems like it's just setting up a new oppressive hierarchy based on extremely regressive and often superficial sexist sex stereotypes. Only in this new hierarchy, the girls and women you regard as "GNC" are more worthy of concern than girls and women you perceive as "not GNC." In this view, girls and women you regard as "not GNC" are the "other" and lesser. Censorshipment has expressed similar ideas on this sub recently in the thread about sexual violence prevention.

Today in the USA, Lia Thomas is racing in the NCAA women's swimming finals. Thomas's actions already have had myriad negative effects on thousands of female swimmers, and have lowered the morale of millions and girls and women in the US and elsewhere. Do you really think the harm Thomas and the NCAA are doing to girls and women really has more of an effect on those who meet your criteria for being "GNC" than those you perceive as "not GNC"? All the female college and uni swimmers in the USA whom Thomas has pushed off the podium, out of competition, or down a peg in the rankings - does the impact of the injustice being done to all of them really differ in degree and quality based on how those women individually dress, style their hair, groom; what kinds of personality traits they possess and display; which sex they feel erotic attraction to, date, sleep with, seek to partner with; and what kinds of interests, hobbies, dreams, work aspirations and life goals each of one of those women has?

The line of thinking that sets up a hierarchy where "GNC" girls and women are favored and seen as better and meriting more concern than women deemed "not GNC" inevitably leads to a place where some (not you necessarily, but others who follow your logic) will claim that it's not really a big deal when some girls and women are treated with injustice or abuse, because due to the way they dress, groom, "present" and what kinds of personality traits they have, some women and girls can't feel or be harmed by injustice and abuse the way other girls and women can - or, worse, that they deserve injustice and abuse. Indeed, it leads directly to saying that through by being "not GNC" some girls and women are asking for injustice and abuse. This genderist view smacks to me of "Animal Farm" - where all the animals are supposedly equal, but some are more equal than others.

As for your claim that "GC women" should heed the admonition that

it's still easier to catch flies with honey

I wonder if you would say that to men who've proven themselves to be pretty good at debate and effective at swaying public opinion like Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Murray, Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, Trey Gowdy, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Seems to me quite a lots of men over the course of history have been most effective using means of persuasion that are far more vinegar that honey.

Also, if it really is "easier to catch flies with honey" [than with vinegar], I wonder how you'd explain the enormous gains the QT side and gender lobby have made by hurling abuse at women, issuing death and rape threats, trying to cancel everyone who disagrees with them and issuing the edict: "No Debate!" To me, your recommendation that "GC women" use honey to make our points in a manner meant to seem sweetly inoffensive to the group intent on dehumanizing us and removing our hard-won rights is playing on a lot of extremely sexist old tropes about girls and women being made of "sugar and spice, everything nice" and our genitals being "honeypots." Sounds to me like just another way of telling women to "be kind."

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because I'm GNC, and I'm concerned in particular for girls who are like I was and the GNC women who have all but disappeared from society. Everyone is at risk, but GNC women are at special risk. I'm talking about women who are masculine. Picture butch lesbians. It feels like we masculine women specifically have been targeted for extermination. There are almost no female GNC public figures under 40 left. Even butch lesbians as old as k.d. lang have been lost. Feminine girls and women are also at risk, but at least they still exist. They haven't had their entire historical record wiped and posthumously transitioned. They haven't seen all their peers and current cultural figures disappear. It is quite a different problem if you yourself are a young GNC woman and you have seen literally every GNC friend or ex-girlfriend transition, as some have. One woman on Reddit or Ovarit (can't remember which) posted that all 11 of her exes had transitioned. To me, that feels like a cultural genocide is taking place. It's not literal murder, but those women's minds and bodies are altered beyond recognition, and the rest of society pretends they were never women or girls to begin with. If you are not personally GNC, you may never understand how this feels.

I think you are reading too much into the "honey" thing. It's a common saying I reached for, and it's not gendered. Basically, my position is "don't be a dick." Don't hurl insults or threats or abuse at people. I don't think any of the male people you mentioned have done that except Trump, and I'm not familiar with some others you listed. The QT side gets away with such abuse online because they somehow have convinced people that their bad behavior does not exist. They've successfully hidden it or convinced all the good liberals that mean conservatives are making it up.

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

it's still easier to catch flies with honey

I have tested this hypothesis and it did not turn out to be true. Vinegar attracts more flies than honey does. Whiskey attracts more than either.

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

"facts don't care about your feelings."

Honestly, I get the need to vent. There are certain topics that make me very upset and depressed.

This is... sort of what makes conversations here hard. You claiming "GC are just too rational, we don't worry about feelings" and but also claiming "we're so repressed that we need to be able to vent our feelings." You can't "vent your feelings" and also "put facts over feelings" at the same time, you know?

Which is why I say this sub first probably needs to figure out what it wants this sub to be - a place to "vent" or a place to communicate objectively with people who don't necessarily all agree. It can't really be both.

I should clarify, I see plenty of trans people that are rude as well and I'm not a part of their culture any more than I'm part of GC. I argue with trans people plenty as well, over similar topics (ie burning bridges instead of setting good examples, prioritizing venting over objectivity, us vs. them mentalities ect). I'm not saying any of this with the intention of implying GC are the only people who do anything wrong. If this were a trans-heavy sub trying to increase GC contributions, I'd be just as forthcoming with issues I've observed from the trans community. This is just a GC sub, with a primarily GC demographic, so I'm just talking about things GC do.

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

Facts don't stop being facts just because they aren't told in the nicest way possible.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not that GC people are "too rational," but that some women are very blunt and don't try to cushion their words to spare the feelings of QT.

I was thinking more of Ovarit. A lot of women see it as a place to vent, for better or worse. However, I believe this sub should be focused on discourse and debate.

This is just a GC sub, with a primarily GC demographic, so I'm just talking about things GC do.

And that's fair. We are almost completely GC, so it makes sense to address things that might be holding back the QT demographic from participating. Honestly, I think what really killed us was getting banned from Reddit. There are thousands of QT people there, and dozens or maybe even hundreds who were willing to debate with us. Very few here on Saidit. I don't think most QT people know we still exist. I don't believe it's so much the behavior of GC that stymies participation as the change in venue. But good debate does require GC to think about how we can most effectively impart our message.

If you are mostly on the QT side, please feel free to stick around! We could use more of you guys for sure.

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

Hey worried ♥

Truthfully, I think this not being part of a site that I already use daily really killed whatever urges I might've once had. It was never that motivating in the first place, so to go out of my way for it is a bit much, you know?

There just doesn't seem to be that much to gain or to give out of it.

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hi Barbie, it's good to see you! Yeah, it's kind of disappointing. There's no activity I'm interested in on Saidit except for this one sub. Often days will go by without me clicking to check what's happening here. It was so much easier on Reddit because there were many subreddits I followed.

Oh well, maybe Elon Musk will purchase Reddit and restore all our old subs. Wouldn't that be great? A person can dream.

[–]OffAndSpherehere from roblox lol 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yo, it's me from the discord server! sup "worried19"! here are some non-ideological reasons for the lack of activity

Saidit/post-comment systems are NOT good for debate. Not only are response times massive (which means it's not good for reaching a consensus fast), what usually ends up happening is that people end up hyper-focusing on a single insult in a post and ignoring the actual argument (although this subsaidit has gotten better with that last time I checked). People also tend to not remember each user from separate debates (although this is probably bias on my part), leading to them to be more likely to diss them in the first place instead of remembering that there is a human behind the screen, and jokes are harder to throw in to break up tension, as the expected comment length is much longer than Discord, making punchy, "chill out a little there" lines trickier to pull off.

Also, the lack of downvotes does not mitigate the existence of upvotes, and as such result in the top posts being biased towards brief, "the answer is quite simple" responses. This is because people usually don't want to read the entire comment section of a post, so they upvote the top posts (which are usually well-written, to give credit to them), creating a large gap between the top posts and the bottom ones. This is a debate space: even if the answer is simple and correct, I think we need to explore WHY it is simple and correct.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not be mean for one.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you think people here are generally mean?