I will correct it.

Thank you! I (and presumably other readers) appreciate it.

I would really love to have an open sub to discuss these issues! I'd like to explain a bit about the history, if you don't mind, maybe it will help inform what you want to do if you decide to create a sub.

So, some history, here goes:

Once upon a time there were some feminist thinkers. They were thinking about feminist things, and thought that most gendered expectations of women in society were harmful to them. Things like extra expectations about appearance, or expectations to be deferential, or how the fields considered "women's work" were not as high-paying. They conceptualized this as "gender". To them, "gender" was something that was imposed on women by men so that men could have more control over women's reproductive capacity. This group is, afaik, sometimes known as "radical feminists." They were critical of gender, in this sense of gender.

Moving forward in time, there were some places on the internet women discussed these ideas. There were other feminist ideas at this time too though. Some women thought that feminism should include problems that sex-based expectations caused male people. They did not see "gender" as a harmful thing, but just a different thing. Some women thought doing "sex work" was a good thing for some women. Some women thought makeup could be a good thing for women. Some women thought that sometimes, some men could become women, or already were women, as understood through transgender ideology. The radical feminist thinkers from the tradition described above though, disagreed with a lot of this. Eventually, due to the increasing influence of transgender ideology, women who did not consider any men to be women were kicked out of these spaces. And this is how /r/GenderCritical was born.

It's important to note here that the "gender" in "gender critical" doesn't refer to transgender ideology, "there are only two genders," etc. Rather it comes from the older strain of gender criticism that existed in feminist thinking. To be "gender critical" in this sense is to be a radical feminist in this line of thought. Perhaps similar to how a Christian is someone who follows a certain line of thought coming from a different origin.

To continue the history: /r/GenderCritical increasingly gained a following among women who felt betrayed by the other increasingly transgenderist-controlled feminism. The transgenderists of course did not like it, and finally, recently, after having gained much of a following, it was banned from reddit.

During this time at reddit, however, I had been banned from GenderCritical for things I believed were wrong (you may have read some of my other comments explaining why). I was angry about it, and I wanted other participants there to know that I (and others) had been silently censored there, in ways that were not transparent based on the sub's rules. And in ways that implied the things I would have wanted to say were hateful, when they weren't.

So I said something about it here, when they arrived after the ban. And someone (a guy) made and offered me the /s/Gender_Critical sub to do with whatever I liked. After thinking over what I wanted to do, I decided I wanted it to be a place like GenderCritical -- for women to focus on women's issues, and on gender. But I wanted it to be a place that offered any woman an opportunity to speak, whatever her background. The name "/s/Gender_Critical" really does not fit the ethos of the sub, since it's not a sub about gender criticism in the tradition of radical feminism. But it's the name of the sub that was given to me, so I did with it what I did. I felt wrong opening the sub to men, as if I was betraying the name of GenderCritical, as if I was tricking a man into letting me undermine what it was supposed to be, a man who, despite his kindness in offering me the sub, might not have understood what GC was about, and may not have cared that much about the movement.

Several of the posters on /s/Gender_Critical expressed disappointment that I didn't open the sub to men as well. So there may be interest in it.

I don't really feel hypocritical about my decision to keep it women-only. My complaints were primarily about feeling like GenderCritical was not being transparent about what content it censored, not that there existed a space that censored some opinions. (As reddit has not been transparent about what "hateful" stuff means, imo). My approach to /s/Gender_Critical rectifies this problem by trying to be transparent about the rules. And it rectifies another thing I didn't like, which was feeling like I had to believe a certain ideology to participate in discussion. It's fair to have that, just like it's fair to have a sub for Christians to discuss Christianity together, but to me it feels like it puts limits to thinking and exploration that I don't like. And it keeps something I really liked, which was that it's women-centered (this time by making it women-only, rather than expecting women participants to have any certain ideology that tried to be women-centered).

All of that is meant to explain what "Gender Critical" means, and to explain how /s/GenderCritical and /s/Gender_Critical came into existence, and why they are the way they are.

I would suggest if you do make an open sub, rather than naming it after a specific feminist ideology that you and most other participants probably don't follow (/s/GenderCriticalUncensored would be the equivalent of /s/ChristiansUncensored, which still sounds like it only includes people who are actually gender critical / christian), a good name might be "/s/GenderDiscussion". That would be on a similar topic and would not have any specific ideological bent, and it would be something that could be open to anyone. Anyone could participate and have their say, whether transgenderist, GC, alt-right, blanchardian, or some totally new unaffiliated innovative idea.

I also think that for now, /s/feminism would work well to discuss similar topics, since it's already open to everyone.