LGB ErasureEye of the TRA: r/NewPride has been Banned

submitted by MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line from self.LGBDropTheT

I guess too many people there had put on the ring. You dare to use it, and you'll lose it.

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]censorshipment 14 insightful - 7 fun14 insightful - 6 fun15 insightful - 7 fun -  (6 children)

Well, it took them over a year to get that one banned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/QueersAgainstHate/comments/e44pr2/lets_get_rnewpride_banned/

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

THE FUCKING AUDICITY OF THAT TOP COMMENT!

We've fucking tried to do exactly what they say but every time the TRAs force our hand to explicity tell them to leave! And then every time, they cancel, deplatform, or otherwise attack us. It is times like these I wish I could break peoples noses through a computer screen.

[–]nevergonnagiveyouup 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

r/biologicallesbians even followed that strictly, and was even being open about supporting trans. but nope! banned.

[–]censorshipment 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah but we were allowed to say trans women aren't women without being censored. Steve, the CEO known as spez, said upvoting "bigotry" is against the content policy... and a Reddit Admin (redtaboo, iirc) said "trans women are women. full stop", so allowing anyone to say that they aren't is against the policy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/hk0w7x/request_for_clarification_on_selfreferential/

I'm not playing around with semantics, so let's be clear here: All women are protected by our rules and trans women are women. Full stop.

[–]8bitgay 14 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Do they realize they’re allowed to have LGB groups without being cunts about it?

No, we can't, otherwise they wouldn't try to get all LGB groups banned lol

Like, ok yeah you want a space where the only topic is sexuality, that’s great, make one, but don’t try erase trans people from the community.

"You're allowed to have LGB-only spaces, just remember you have to include T"

[–]censorshipment 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Shit was fine until 8 months when AHS wrote that open letter to Reddit. It was initially about BLM/racism, but of course they attached "transphobia" to it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/gyyqem/open_letter_to_steve_huffman_and_the_board_of/

Also, I see that TrueGayMen was banned yesterday.

https://www.reddit.com/r/reclassified/comments/lbryrw/rtruegaymen_banned_for_promoting_hate_18_hours_ago/

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

Their name is hate speech.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I wonder if a sub called /r/assignedfemaleatbirthlesbians would get banned? or /r/cisgenderedgaymen. What is the cut off? Can Reddit put it in writing that they absolutely prohibit same-sex only spaces? The legal ramifications of that would be enormous, I would think.

[–]Taln_Reich 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Those won't be allowed either. I've seen what the people behind the ban of r/biologicallesbians wrote. They pretty much stated, that even the mere idea of a cis-only-space is transphobic. maybe make it anatomy dependent? Like r/vaginaonlylesbians with the sub's purpose essentially being "For women with vaginas who only love other women with vaginas". If someone considers that transphobic, point them to all the TRA's who claim that no one say that you aren't allowed genital preferences, and that this of course includes post-op trans women. If an actual post-op transbian turns up, make sure to not do anything that they can latch on to claim any inherent hostility to said trans women (yes, that means post-op's have to be included, but like 90% of TW's aren't post-op, and for transbians that number is probably more like 99%, so it should be easy for the actual lesbians to keep control of the sub). Also, make sure that the rule against transphobia is in a list of "no racism, sexism, homophobia, biphobia or transphobia" the banners found that suspiciously specific about r/biologicallesbians (and make sure that rule is enforced). This idea might not be perfect, but at lkeast it keeps the girl-dick brigade out (there is not much of a inverted-penis brigade)

That was an idea that came to me about how a sub that centers actual lesbians could be created in the toxic wokeness that is reddit.

[–]8bitgay 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Frankly, I think we should create less explicit subs. Subs that don't mention TQ+ whatsoever. Neither to include them nor to criticize them. No mention to words like cis or trans. Avoid acronyms like LGB. Make sure all the mods are on the same page, and all of them are against anti-LGB rhetorics.

Maybe at the start the sub will get lots of posts about TQ+ issues. Just delete them. LGB people will gradually start using the sub more while TQ+ posts just keep getting deleted.

I like subs like this one here where we can discuss all these ideas openly. But on platforms like Reddit we have to be smart. We already know subs that are explicitly same-sex only get banned. The two solutions I see is either get more vocal about Reddit's attitude towards semi-sex spaces, or create a same-sex space that is less obvious about it. Or both.

[–]Taln_Reich 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Problem with your idea would be to keep finding not-too-obvious excuses to delete the TQ+ posts. Because if the deletion-reason given is open about this being anti-TQ+ the TRA behind the post will run to AHS and cry about it being transphobic, and if you give no reason or a reason that would apply the posts left standing the TRA would also run crying about the mods being transphobic.

[–]8bitgay 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If a transman comes saying that gay men should date him, we don't need to ban him saying "gay men don't date transmen". We can ban him mentioning the issue of consent, without needing to mention the words trans or gay. And it's a honest justification too, after all, the whole situation of trans people pressuring LGB to date them is (among other things) about them not respecting consent.

And I dunno, I think there's space for improvement in what I said. Maybe be a bit explicit. Make a subtle reference in the description of the sub, something like "a space for people who are attracted to the same sex".

What we need to avoid is terms like cis, natural, biological, etc. Don't deny that transwomen/men are real women/men. You guys can't still be surprised when someone says this and gets banned. This doesn't mean agreeing with them, but maybe being indifferent.

And maybe this hypothetical sub gets banned too, but I think that "this sub got banned because there were only LGB people posting" looks worse for Reddit than "this sub got banned because it said in the rules only cis people could post".

Maybe my idea isn't good either, I dunno. But what I keep seeing is people trying to create subs that are very obviously LGB-only, and they keep getting banned. This isn't working. So like I said, I think we have two options here. Either we try to make our own space that actually avoids using language that would give them reason to banning... Or we get more vocal about it and try to get a bigger audience to realize Reddit is homophobic and routinely bans safe spaces for sexual minorities while allowing other groups to harass LGB people.

[–]Taln_Reich 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That definitely wouldn't work. You have to consider, how these people operate. They are very motte-and-bailey types. They wouldn't say "Gay men should date trans men", they would instead ask "would you date a trans person?", constructing a case of some super well passing, super far transitioned trans person, and then keep pushing the line with anyone who doesn't answer straight up "yes" (if you say you'd refuse because of even if that trans person had SRS, they outright say's that refusing because of that is clearly transphobia. If you chime in and state you would only if that trans person had the right genitals, they they will keep badgering you about how you are reducing people to their genitals and that you need to reaximine your genital preferences). And trying to hang them up on the consent issue will not work, because they will always go "I'm not saying you have to date a trans person, BUT..." (the same "BUT" as in when a racist says "I'm not racist, BUT..."). To your idea with the "subtle reference": they will just claim that "same sex" is a transphobic dogwhistle, since they have already redefined LGB as being gender based (e.g. they act as if they don't understand why lesbians aren't running over themself to make out with a bearded, balding, flat-chested, be-penised person just beause said person states to internally "feel like a woman") and will use that as an excuse to ban the sub.

[–]8bitgay 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with a lot of what you say.

Like I said though, we can't pretend we don't know what they do either. I've seen another comment on this sub today saying something like "we just said transwomen aren't women and got banned"... Is anyone really surprised by that? We might not agree with them, but this is one of their most offensive things in their handbook, one of the quickest ways to get banned from almost any community or social platform nowadays.

This is the kind of the thing that makes them shut us down in seconds. Sorry, but no one that agrees with them even slightly is gonna bother reading your argument after you say "transwomen aren't women". And as long as we can't bring people to our side the situation will never change.

So frankly we need to do things different, to be smarter with how we present our views, how we try to argument. Maybe we'll also get banned for making sensible comments about how we're being harassed by people who can't accept the individual right to consent. Maybe we'll get banned for showing people the countless instances of TQ+ activists threatening and harassing LGB people. But I'm sure to outside viewers this type of argument will create much more good will than people who get banned for saying trans men aren't real men.

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

yes, of course this will have to be approached smart. The TRA are the new religious right in telling people who they can love or not. And if you outright tell them that their dogma is false, of course they will come after you. Sure, you can attempt to actually show people the TRA's poor behaviour, but that won't be let standing. Also, it probably would be a good idea to suggest to people, who's sub is under TRA-attack to consider switching over to equivalents on saidit. Reddit is a commercial enterprise, if they start loosing customers because of their unquestioned support for the TRA, they will reconsider. Money beats ideology every time.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah- Dammit. I was about to mention r/TrueGayMen, which I had forgotten to check. But it looks like that has been banned at around the same time at this sub. F*** Reddit.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Seems like they got r/truegaymen, too. They disappeared off my subscribed list

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yep; For "promoting hate".

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Because acknowledging reality or the existence of homosexuality is a hate crime in the modern world

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

Went from love is love to same-sex love is hate.