I am against any for mof censorship. But I cannot help but smile to see them get a taste of their own medicine. Labelling everything hate speech finaly backfired to them.
The worst thing you can do to a radical leftist is give them what they want.
The grand irony of them is that they never think the tactics they use would in turn be used against them, and they'd hate living in the world their ideology would create more than any other group; all you have to do is look at CHAZ to see the truth of this.
You can deplore the censorship, yet enjoy seeing the karma in action. The first employs the intellect, the second is simply an understandable emotional response.
gender critical feminists aren't the ones labelling everything hate speech... they're opposed to left wing though police and censorship because the "woke" crowd wants men in women's sports and male rapists sent to women's prisons, and GC feminists have a real problem with that
gender critical feminists aren't the ones labelling everything hate speech
Absolutely not true. The concept of "hate speech" comes from feminism and TERFs are feminists at heart. Where they differ from other feminists is that their hatred of men is so strong that they think trans rights is stepping on their privileged "terf". That men are getting women's benefits by pretending to be women.
TERFs are ok with censorship as long as they are they ones doing the censorship and are not subject to it.
I agree with the underlying sentiment that Radical Feminism is hate. I don't agree with silencing people who express hateful opinions, as long as they are not directly trying to incite violence/other forms of crime. A cynical part of me thinks that Reddit is only banning a lot of Radical-Left Wing subs in order to appease us. Thus, they can get away with implementing limitations on free speech in general, which I think is the real issue.
We should not try to silence Radical Feminists and Misandrists. Doing that would be to stoop to their level. We should instead strive to defeat their arguments in the arena of debate.
OP is very confused. /r/radical_feminism is an anti-feminist subreddit. The subreddit was voluntarily set to private and that splash message was written by the moderators as a form of protest of the new policies. It's a parody of this:
The main reason why they consider radfem as "hate speech" because a part of radfem is hating transgender men who become women and, as a result, get female privileges. Their mistake was to attack minorities.
GenderCritical were certainly hateful to trans people, but so are a great number of other subs. Trans hate is pretty much a standard of entry to far right wing and conservative subs.
GC as one of the few radical feminist subs on Reddit attracted a much higher concentration of misandrists. Not what people often call misandry on the more mainstream feminist subs, but pure hatred against males. That is how they end up being so hateful against trans women. It is their male origin and any retained male characteristics they can't stand.
More specifically, GC (and other TERF groups) hate trans women because they see them as imposters - men trying to pass themselves off as women. Essentially, it is an extension of their hatred of men, but even stronger since TERFs see trans women as men who are trying to speak in the name of women, and "co-opt" the female gender and feminism. As such, they see trans women entering "women's spaces" - such as women's bathrooms, all-women sports teams, and women-only "safe spaces" - as men trying to gain access to a space intended for women. They see this as an existential threat to cis women's way of life, and believe it constitutes erasure of women. This also applies to trans women who enter into a relationship with another woman, trans or otherwise. TERFs feel that describing this as a lesbian relationship is an act of erasure towards "real" (cis) women and cis lesbians. Because they consider trans women identifying as female and accessing women's spaces to be offensive towards women, they often attack trans rights activists as sexist or (in the context of trans lesbians) homophobic. In fact, they often make up baseless conspiracy theories that the trans rights movement is a deliberate attempt by the patriarchy to erase or replace women, and to erode the female gender.
Notice that I referred to trans women throughout this post and did not mention trans men. TERFs generally do not harbor as much resentment towards trans men as they do towards trans women, because they do not feel like their lives as women are threatened by trans men's gender identity. In fact, TERFs often barely acknowledge that trans men exist at all. Incidentally, the existence of trans men and the parallels between their struggles and those of trans women is one of the strongest arguments against TERF talking points. If the trans rights movement is a deliberate, coordinated attempt by men to weaken women's power in society, wouldn't attempts by trans men to enter "male spaces" be counterproductive (since by TERFs' logic, this would weaken men's power in society and amount to erasure of men)? On the contrary, it suggests that the trans rights movement is founded in a legitimate desire by trans people to feel comfortable in their gender identity, without any ulterior motives behind the movement.
EDIT: added more detail on why the existence of trans men suggests that the trans rights movement has honest motives, and about TERFs' transphobia being an extension of their hatred towards men
I'm sure trans men have their problems but at least they don't have big groups attacking their existence on principle and using them as a political battleground.
Yes that was a big part of it. GenderCritical were very much feminists, a branch of the relatively small radical feminist community. Outsiders call them TERFs, Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists. They hated that label.
Mainstream feminists often claimed TERFs were not feminist at all, a ridiculous piece of gatekeeping.
As long as it's not the government, Reddit can censor whoever they want, can't they? Free speech doesn't apply to non governmental entities... I'm not sure why everyone is getting bent out of shape?
The problem tho is that I dont think you can win an argument over the internet. No one ever really listen and they just keep hammering their talking points over and over.
I agree with not silencing them. Allow their arguments and assertions to be heard by all. Unfortunately debate is difficult when several of the subs ban a person from wanting to debate ideas by dismissing it as misogyny or hate speech. Some subs automatically ban a person if they comment on another sub that they don't like. This means that the forums turn into echo chambers.
we should instead strive to defeat their arguments in the arena of debate
lol ok good friggen luck, it’s circular reasoning, denial of truth, and screaming all the way down; shit subreddits are what keeps it alive because they can always go back to their crowd to get more affirmation
yeh but theirs a ton of hate subs that go untouched, i honestly think their nuking small rando subs just to cover conservative sub bans, they banned the donald for breaking rules claiming hate posts that are anti woman, but... the donald has been locked for months only 1 politician and mods who post news articles were allowed to post anything... the sub was entirely dead. but at the same time r.conspiracy wich is an anti jew circle jerk or r.politics wich just had a post trending calling for a purge of republicans irl has 0 admin moderation. its also against site rules for mods to NOT enforce site rules and yet r.political humor doesnt enforce site rules allowing harrasment and misinformation.
I disagree. They're drawing a strong line between what they choose to allow and not. Reddit is not the United States of America. This is not the place for free speech. Radical feminism has done similar things to other subs that have been banned, but people defend it? Typical hypocritical behavior of redditors.
Most of these subreddits want men to have no rights and constantly talk about how men are disposable. Good riddance imo.
If you like a zero censorship policy, that's fine with me. But I won't stand for partial censorship where one side is censored and the other is allowed to speak whatever they want.
If you like a zero censorship policy, that's fine with me. But I won't stand for partial censorship where one side is censored and the other is allowed to speak whatever they want.
That's what censorship is. No speech is called silence.
They are banning a lot of feminist subs because they are TERFs. This means these feminists are against trans.
I say serves them right. TERFs are man haters. Feminism is the progenitor for all of these ridiculous censorship, racist and sexist movements. They deserve to burn in the hell they created.
If everyone is a woman then no one is. Ironically this would actually result in real equality instead of feminist equality (which is to say no equality at all).
The issue with TERFs isn't so much that biological sex is something important to maintain, outside of a basis for their victimhood, so much as they hate men so much that whereas they would otherwise be fully accepting of trans-women, they hate men so much that a trans-woman is seen as an invading man. There's not science or scientific thinking they care about, it's all based in irrational hatred of men.
"as long as they are not directly trying to incite violence/other forms of crime."
My understanding is that the term "radical feminism" is used to refer to the branch of the feminism movement that has engaged in criminal behavior / violent activities. S.C.U.M. etc.
I'm not sure if that is what they discuss on the reddit thread, but the term is used that way by mainstream feminists.
Technically the term radical feminism refers to the branch of feminism obsessed with patriarchy theory and "tearing down the patriarchy".
Ie most mainstream feminism is "radical feminism".
It is contrasted against left feminism which is the belief that women are oppressed by capitalism, and that by overthrowing capitalism, women will be liberated.
Many socialists disagree with left feminism and instead contend that men are the true victims of capitalism, and that capitalistic competition among men ultimately benefits women. Almost as if women were a second bourgeois class in society.
I imagine a lot of people who use the term radical feminism are really just referring to radicalism inside of the "radical" / patriarchal branch of feminism but technically speaking this is the true definition of the term.
This makes no sense. Without the concept of patriarchy feminism cannot exist. Saying capitalism is oppressing women is as stupid as saying the speed of light is sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light over other essential speeds. Then again this is feminism we're talking about.
Radical feminism are those feminists that think #killallmen should be a thing. All feminism believe in patriarchy theory. It's the only way they can extort victim bucks from men.
You're telling me some people think the idea of a free and unregulated market oppresses women? Isn't that a bit sexist against women as their inherent value as humans would have to be lower than men in order for the majority to be oppressed in a free market?
Those people don't understand what capitalism means, in Spain we have very extended that left feminism branch (basically all feminism in Spain is left feminism) and when you ask one of the feminist about what does capitalism means they respond with "capitalism is the patriarchy blah blah" left feminism is perfect for a country like Spain where basic economy isn't teached at school
I agree with you in principle, but I'm glad this is happening. The demonization of men has been accepted and promoted long enough. Feminism and its hate permeate through the media as well as the educational system. Enough is enough.
You have been shadowbanned by reddit admins (not by mensrights moderators). See /r/ShadowBan for information about shadowbans.
I have approved this comment so I can reply to you.
It seems reddit has a bot that looks for certain types of user behaviour that indicate spamming or brigading. Sometimes innocent users get shadowbanned along with the bad guys. Usually they can fix this if they contact the admins.
Not banned--just set to private and then they (r/radical_feminism) put up this apparently faked Reddit warning about hate speech. The other two subs are not trolling, though--they're actual, sincere radfem subs and are neither banned nor private.
I think people should be able to voice their radical views, be they feminine, masculine, gender-based, political, religious.....etc.. I DO NOT WANT to live in a vacuum, protected from extreme deviations of the artificial, monotone dialogue framework either set by some company or the government!!!!! No way! I want to know, exactly, what people think, who and what they hate, and how intense are their feelings.
GenderCritical is gone aswell.
I really am not a fan of the changes, yeah a few of the subs deserved this, but overall I think this is the worse outcome. Now the people from those banned subs will just reinforce their mindset that people are out to get them for their ideas, instead of disproving them.
Next should be r/femaledatingstrategy because that place is just female incel cove. I believe they were trying to get buzzfeed to say that reddit is pandered to men or something
You're saying that Reddit, a private company, shouldn't have a say in who and how they're own databases and their own website is used? You're saying that the government should step in and stop this private organization from curating as they please? No?
Then for the love of God, don't throw around terms like censorship without having the faintest idea of what it means.
When a company has a monopoly (e.g. as Reddit does due to network effects), their power approaches that of the government. Then, the word censorship applies.
Imagine if your internet service provider cancelled your internet plan due to something you said online, and that there was no other service provider in your area to switch to. How does that differ from the government preventing you from speaking? The ISP would have nearly as much power as the government. Therefore it qualifies as censorship, in essence if not by definition.
I looked up the definition of censorship; the first definition I found that stated whether private institutions can be guilty of censorship or not was Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
Alright, I think there are some major points of confusion here.
Firstly, how exactly is Reddit a monopoly? Which industry would that be?
Secondly, seems like you're quoting from the wrong Wikipedia article. You'll want the one called "Censorship in the United States" if your concern is legal censorship in relation to Free Speech, which I assume is your case given your ISP example.
But even if you're just saying that this is a type of corporate censorship (which of does not count as legal censorship, nor does it constitute an infringement of your First Amendment rights, and I'll argue that it shouldn't), you'd have to be able to actually define the censorship bit.
Removing a subreddit because moderators on that subreddit, after repeated warnings, fails to moderate in accordance to the ToS and user policy they've already promised to adhere to - is not censorship. If anything, it's termination following BoC. You're not removed from Reddit for expressing a particular view, you're removed from not honoring the contract. You don't get to claim that you're being censored for not getting to express opinion X if you've already agreed, contractually, not to express opinion X.
If you're gonna make a point about corporate censorship, you should instead focus on the fact that Reddit will force you to agree to their terms of service before they let you use their databases and their servers to host your posts to begin with.
On top of that, you'd have to tell me what exactly the definition of speech is here - because there is no one particular definition of protected speech -, just take a look at the mountains of case law on this.
Here's an interesting example.
You're a software engineer. You start sharing memes or opinions on your company's Slack channel about how transgendered women aren't really women, and that forcing people to use preferred pronouns are wrong. Your HR department threatens to fire you unless you stop it since those views aren't compatible with the company's diversity policy.
This is corporate censorship. It's not illegal in any way shape or form, it's not an infringement of your Free Speech rights, but it is corporate censorship.
Now, let's say that instead of that, you were joking about how you'd like to see trans women killed, or sharing creepy snuff films. You're immediately terminated as result.
Now is this censorship? What speech specifically is being censored? Which political opinion is this are you fired for expressing that you couldn't have expressed without also inciting violence against a particular group, or sharing objectively offensive material?
Keep in mind that these subreddits were fire with just that - people not expressing opinions but sharing posts that clearly go against Reddit's content policy, making jokes about violence against specific groups, or even specific people, or actually planning such violence.
There were plenty of posts on the radical feminists subreddit about how not only men in general but specific men in media, ought to be killed. The moderators were warned several types but yet did not delete these posts.
Thus, Reddit removed the subreddit because it was becoming unmanageable.
However, nobody was banned. Users on that rad fem subreddit can go on and express their radical feminists opinions elsewhere on Reddit, on whichever channel they want, as long as they don't make death threats or incite violence.
So is this really censorship? When no specific speech is being censored?
Nobody said anything about the legality of censorship, free speech, or the First Amendment. Nobody said anything about the government stepping in.
OP said "censorship is wrong," which is an opinion and therefore not really refutable. You jumped in, seemingly trying to argue that it wasn't technically censorship, but then I showed that censorship is indeed an applicable term here.
Yes, but I found nearly all of it to be irrelevant. The bans meet the colloquial definition of "censorship", and any language lawyering over it is just masturbatory.
Yeah, absolutely nobody cares whether it meets the colloquial definition or not, or at the very least they shouldn't. Virtually anything can be called censorship if we ignore all judicial or practical context. What's interesting is the implications on free speech, hate speech and Reddit role in the interchange of ideas.
Don't try to muddy the water with some vague "words mean whatever people generally want them to mean".
I wrote a elaborate, good faith response to your objection about my use of the term which you didn't bother to respond to for the simple reason that you didn't understand it. Which is fine. But If you weren't interested in having a conversation about this you shouldn't have replied to me to begin with.
You cite a definition from a wiki article when you know that Wikipedia is hardly a source on anything - or maybe you didn't know that which if anything would be worse.
No, the truth of the matter is that a subreddit getting removed for a series of TOS violations is not censorship in any sense of the word, or at least any sense that matters.
Many of these TERFs are also SWERFs, so they attack the civil liberties of sex workers and clients as a matter of course, so while morally I'm outraged at the attack on their civil liberties, emotionally I'm laughing at the karmic smack down. But also leery, because is a very unexpected state of affairs and I don't know what happens next.
The fact that any platform would encourage a nation to prosecute people for speech is appalling. Hate speech is free speech no matter how sensitive people get.
Honestly I preferred Reddit back in the day when you could say anything you wanted no matter how bad it was. This sub getting banned is not a good sign, it just shows Reddit is getting more balsey with who its banning, it hadn't really banned leftist subs before, who knows what they'll go for next.
They will just push people to the next platform that doesn't care about anything except making money - already happening with conservatives/republicans moving towards whatever that new twitter alternative is called.
if so then I have no sympathy as they would be treated by the same rules they applied to everyone else.
​
... However, I think banning is not the best idea( unless it could be proven that they broke a very specific law)
​
Quarantining would be a better process ?
or sign in with warning of very strong content.
​
when you ban things , you drive it underground and that makes it more ..dangerous(?)
I would rather have counterarguments as suggested here, even if they got ignored.
​
I'm actually more concerned about the abuse of the tool that does not allow posting in one sub reddit if you are a member of another..
I should be surprised that reddit couldn't have anticipated that the possibility of doing being able to do that because its counterintuitive to its original purpose. But then again a lot of recent behaviour by Reddit( and some of their users, like hijacking reddits for political purposes) gives me the impression "we don't give a damm".
Its election year in the US, and we are going to see a lot more shenanigans on social media by people who don't seem to be able to understand the whole process/purpose of an election
No, I think you're thinking of arr/gendercritical, which did indeed get banned. arr/radical_feminism isn't banned; it's set to private and Reddit has put that cute li'l Surgeon General's warning label ("hate speech") on it.
Now, what is true is that most radfems tend also to be TERFs, but I don't think anything in the /rad_fem sub explicitly endorsed TE.
I would rather have counterarguments as suggested here,
As would I. Unfortunately, that isn't possible: the subs that got banned also had a habit of banning anyone who expressed an opinion that wasn't identical to their own.
You cannot have argument/counterargument if the people with the counterarguments are silenced specifically because they have a counterargument.
Continuing the purgative trend, arr/banfemalehatesubs was banned yesterday and just half an hour ago arr/banmalehatesubs got banned. They are swingin' that axe like they mean it.
I have never been worried about MensRights being banned. It has hateful stuff but the mods are in control, they delete the worst of it and can tighten up if the admins demand. Brigading other subs is a common cause of getting banned, and that is strongly discouraged here.
18hrs ago - This is terrible. You'd never find a REAL feminist molesting their younger sibling. I mean there's Lena Dunham, but she's not a REAL feminist really.
16hrs - Infact it just looks like you were damseling your arse off and somewhat changed course when the desired sympathy did not arrive as you were expecting it to.
These are from just the last 24hrs, not that hateful but you can feel the undercurrent. This is why we need to appreciate the mods because they keep the worst out, most members here are nothing like that and you never know if some of these posters are bad actors.
​
Now have you got any proof otherwise or you gonna shut up?
​
EDIT also you:
Okay so then never interact with a woman. Problem solved.
Now have you got any proof otherwise or you gonna shut up?
Excuse me? Why would i shut up for asking for proof? How about you shut the fuck up and talk like a fucking adult. Who the fuck would listen to someone who communicates like you?
18hrs ago - This is terrible. You'd never find a REAL feminist molesting their younger sibling. I mean there's Lena Dunham, but she's not a REAL feminist really.
So no source? And whats the problem with this? Lena Dunham molested her sister and she's a celebrated feminist. Are you excusing child molestation? Thanks for demonstrating the double standard that exists in society.
16hrs - Infact it just looks like you were damseling your arse off and somewhat changed course when the desired sympathy did not arrive as you were expecting it to.
No source and no context. What does this statement even mean?
Inceldom is on the rise. The statistical and anecdotal proof is in that post. What exactly is the problem? The problem is clearly the rising increase in incels. Is that what you were highlighting? I agree that's a real problem.
These are from just the last 24hrs, not that hateful but you can feel the undercurrent. This is why we need to appreciate the mods because they keep the worst out, most members here are nothing like that and you never know if some of these posters are bad actors.
So you admittedly have no proof? I'd ask you if you were aware how admittedly stupid this seems but i think i'd be wasting my time...
empatheticapathetic -1 points · 6 hours ago "Yes"
You are quite dense. This 'yes' is a sarcastic response to the previous commenters overreaction to his non-solution on how to deal with false rape accusations. If he's going to make a stupid unrealistic suggestion then i'm going to agree with him to call out his uselessness.
But as we've already realised by this point, you are too dumb to understand the nuance of communication. The best you can seem to manage is make false statements, provide zero proof, admit you have not provided proof and then start swearing. I guess you're probably on your period.
Hilarious. You're speechless. Not surprising since you had no argument or proof. Try to conduct yourself with more credibility in the future, I promise it'll change your life.
So, how much longer until /r/TwoXChromosomes can finally be banned? Just one giant circle jerk of "Z man did X action to me for absolutely no reason and I did absolutely nothing to instigate or retaliate. Equality. Now I can't Y because of it. Please send hate karma"
Yeah this is definitely a description from their own moderators and it’s an anti rad-fem sub. Mods just set it to private themselves. Makes much more sense than Reddit calling out radical feminism or calling for its prosecution.
So happy to find fhat GendeeCrital was banned and removed. That site brought me and my girlfriend alot of upset and depression. Im so happy hateful feminism is being brought down.
The reason it is hate speech, is because they are TERFs, and think trans-women are not women. That is the only reason. so the man-hating is perfectly fine. Reddit's new policies state that a 'majority group' is not protected under their hate speech rules.
Looked it up. It indirectly implies that attraction has no basis in biology or physical attributes, because people 'discriminate' against trans people and should not. If that were actually true, then there would be not such thing as heterosexual people and homosexual people.
And on that I agree with them.
Never hurt anyone, and if a dude wants to play dress up in public thats fine,
But... dont let them compete against actual women.
Hormones, bone structure, muscle development etc are different, and your average top 1000 Male athlete would wipe out the real female opposition.
As a father of 2 girls, I want them competing on a level playing field, not a skewed one.
BUT, let them set up own events etc no problem. I am waiting for some tennis dude to realise he's top 100 in the world, not good enough to be #1.
Say I am woman, take hormone suppressants for 6 months or so. No operation.
Compete in women's tennis for 3 to 5 years, win all the tournaments then go back to being Bob.
I sort of "disagree" because I can't wait for "trans" "females" taking over women sports.
Why? Surely not because I support the "cause":-)
But to massively trigger the PC females who are the silent enablers of this LGBTQ+- agenda. An agenda pushed to destroy the social fabric of society by femnazis/bolsheviks in MSM/social forums for the global elite's goals.
What a delicious conundrum. Either Stop this agenda or no "safe spaces". Funny how that happened. TERFs are already the first sign that female defence instincts are waking up.
P.S. This post is NOT about LGBTQ+- people. It's about a weaponised agenda instrumentalising whatever identity they can find or create to break the social fabric.
Reddit has gone far-left politically, and adheres to 'gender is a social construct'. Therefore, when you speak about women and men, they only definition allowed is gender as a social construct. If I have a penis and say "my brain tells me I'm a woman, therfore I am", this mode of thinking is the only type allowed with respect to the definition of gender. Gender as reflect by biological and reproductive function is 'not allowed' as far as the definition of gender.
Reddit mods are controlling the definition of gender. If you refuse to acknowledge that Kaitlyn Jenner is a woman in every way equal to the woman Hillary Clinton, you have committed hate speech against trans-women because you erase acknowledgement of trans-woman as real women. By controlling the definition, they are trying to control how you think about gender.
Feminists will recognize that TERFs exist. TERFs hate trans women because they think they are actually men, who are reprehensible to them. But feminists will not recognize that TERFs hate men because they would lend credit to the fact that feminism has an enormous man hating problem.
Normal feminists [Edit: i.e. non-radical, e.g. liberal, progressive, 3rd wave, mainstream] have always quietly noticed that radical feminists contain a far higher proportion of outright man-haters, but they don't explicitly call them out on it. They acknowledge it indirectly, in calling them "extreme" or "wild", but seldom name what it is that they are extreme about nor acknowledging the implication there is a milder version of it in their own ranks.
If challenged directly on their mainstream haters they excuse it as traumatised women needing a space to vent, as if a huge public sub was a small group of close friends who know her history and context. Well, public venting is a thing too.
But when the same thing is vilified when traumatised men do it, and this is excused by a load of hateful victim-blaming and special pleading and claims about the background effects of patriarchy being overwhelmingly relevant in individual cases where it obviously isn't... that's why I don't spend much time on feminist subs.
Funny how these regulations and parameters become awfully flimsy when you actually apply pressure to them with simple figures. It reminds me of when I was a kid, and the rules for any given game would change if a specific kid farted. It shows their rules are myopic, at best.
That is because of their refusal to accept gender as a social construct:
Reddit has gone far-left politically, and adheres to 'gender is a social construct'. Therefore, when you speak about women and men, they only definition allowed is gender as a social construct. If I have a penis and say "my brain tells me I'm a woman, therfore I am", this mode of thinking is the only type allowed with respect to the definition of gender. Gender as reflect by biological and reproductive function is 'not allowed' as far as the definition of gender.
Reddit mods are controlling the definition of gender. If you refuse to acknowledge that Kaitlyn Jenner is a woman in every way equal to the woman Hillary Clinton, you have committed hate speech against trans-women because you erase acknowledgement of trans-woman as real women. By controlling the definition, they are trying to control how you think about gender.
All these radical subs are being banned, Its not a coincidence, there's a small group who's causing this chaos by reporting apparently. I'm on their discord. They're a bit more extreme than r/mensrights(by no means incels, they're anti incel, only against man hating radical feminists), but tbh what they're doing is pretty awesome, they tried to advertise their sub/disc on here but the post was removed apparently. It's r/pink_pill_watch
Thanks, I'll check them out. I have done a little bit of reporting myself on man-hating subs.
FDS could be OK if they reined in their crazies, there is no reason radical feminists should not be allowed to swap dating advice. I'd think they do far less damage in the real world than RedPill.
[Edit: If they just used /s where appropriate it would avoid a huge amount of shock and horror from MRAs.]
Nice to see that PPF has set themselves to private.
FDS is a meh, I won't mind if they're gone either. Idk if I've gotten worse or better but last I remember they were saying about how men have no inherent worth, and also how to game men. It's not as much a hate subreddit, so I won't mind it if it undergoes heavy reform.
FDS could be OK if they reigned in their crazies. I think they do far less damage in the world than RedPill
This is pure misandrist agenda. FDS do literally nothing but complain men are worthless and there isn’t a single solution for anything on there. 100% shit posting. They’re all fucking insane. Whereas TRP is about actual practical solutions to improve your life
A so called "terf" is anyone who thinks that male and female are biological terms, instead of something you can become by dressing and acting according to outdated stereotypes.
Trans people should be free to dress and act however they want to, pursue whatever hobbies they want, and call themselves whatever they want. I wish them nothing but the best in life. But a man does not become a woman if he adheres to stereotypes, and I do not want men in women's sports or women's prisons. I don't want girls in school gym class to be told they have to change clothes in front of biological males or else they're transphobic.
All stereotypes are trash and we should completely do away with them entirely. The insane woke crowd instead loves stereotypes so much that they believe dresses and heels and makeup = female instead of biology.
To me that's just as absurd as insisting that a white person can transition to black by changing their appearance/clothes/personality to fit into black stereotypes. Everyone would laugh at the absurdity and foolishness of a white kid pretending to be black and insisting on being called black, but switch it to sex instead of race and suddenly self identity MUST be believed and supported?
I don't agree with everything that gender critical feminists have to say, but it's completely absurd that they can be banned from Reddit for wanting to protect women's rights to sex-segregated spaces. And it's especially absurd that the subreddit for male supporters of gender critical feminism was allowed to stay up!
Dude, don't run cover for man-haters, sure the reason that they catch shit is for attacking trans-women, but they attack trans-women because they have a deep underlying hatred of men that makes them driven to attack trans-women especially. This isn't an issue of defending scientific terms, they only use it as an excuse for what they already want to believe, which is that men are evil and trans-women especially so for invading their sex. Trans-women also use gender as a way to anchor themselves psychologically in the sex they feel they are, which blows up the radical feminist arguments about gender. I see that as good since the radical feminist desire to erase gender is itself deeply anti-science and anti-human by denying the vital interplay of sex and gender.
Both sides of these feminist arguments are bad imo but defending radical feminists because of their position on trans-women is myopic.
I am not claiming there is no man-hating at all among gender critical feminists. But the core reason they exist as a group is not for the purpose of hating men, it's for protecting women's rights.
They care because women are being directly affected by unfair situations that arise when males are allowed to be counted as female.
I am certainly not defending everything they say. But I support the idea that "gender" is ridiculous and should not allow people of the opposite sex to enter spaces that were separated by biological sex for a reason.
All stereotypes are trash and we should completely do away with them entirely. The insane woke crowd instead loves stereotypes so much that they believe dresses and heels and makeup = female instead of biology.
I mean the trans community generally accepts the existence of masculine transwomen and feminine transmen along with accepting that being a feminine man or a masculine woman does not necessarily mean you're trans so it's not a case of people thinking that everything comes down to stereotypes. You're right that it would be utterly absurd if that's what people thought so please give us the credit of understanding that that's not actually what most trans people actually believe.
To me that's just as absurd as insisting that a white person can transition to black by changing their appearance/clothes/personality to fit into black stereotypes. Everyone would laugh at the absurdity and foolishness of a white kid pretending to be black and insisting on being called black, but switch it to sex instead of race and suddenly self identity MUST be believed and supported?
There's no agreed upon theories regarding what actually causes people to be trans or what it means so it's hard to definitively say anything about it. However, the theory I personally subscribe to is that it's probably some kind of brain thing that's caused by hormonal and genetic factors. If you examine the research you can see for example that identical twins are 12x more likely to both be trans than non-identical twins, brain scans have showed that transpeople have identifiablt different brains in various ways and there's some correlations between malfunctioning androgen receptors and gender dysphoria. We're not 100% sure what it is or how it works, but from what I can see it's hard to conduce that there isn't something happening somewhere. If it was just "this guy wants to wear skirts oh I guess he's a woman" then I severely doubt we'd have any of this stuff. And relevant to your point, as far as I know this kind of does not exist in the same way for skin colour.
Even if you don't personally agree with it you can probably see the train of thought behind "hormone levels change the body and mind, hormones are supposed to be released based on sex, transgender women disproportionately have genes that make testosterone less effective or hinder the production of testosterone, now their brains are identifiably different from cismen whenever we scan them, hmm". Whereas the primary thing involved with skin colour is melanin and as far as I can tell that doesn't affect the brain at all? Maybe it pigments some parts of the brain based on a quick Google but that's just colour. There doesn't seem to be anything even remotely close to the kinds of differences that hormone levels or other things cause. So if you're approaching the issue from the perspective that being transgender is most likely a neurological phenomenon like I am then the comparison doesn't hold up. The mechanism just isn't there. Same goes for all the dolphin or attack helicopter stuff. Kids are born with messed up chromosomes and genitals all the time, so there's room to wonder what other weird things with gender and sex might be happening, but there's no cases of a kid being born in such a state that you can't tell whether or not they're human or an AGM-114 Hellfire missile and no one is holding up brain scans of humans and a T-34 and trying to note down the similarities and differences.
But a man does not become a woman if he adheres to stereotypes, and I do not want men in women's sports or women's prisons.
You definitely wouldn't want transmen in women's prisons or transwomen in men's prisons either. I admit it can be a hard issue to solve and sometimes people can be a bit too naive when it comes to it.
You're right that it would be utterly absurd if that's what people thought so please give us the credit of understanding that that's not actually what most trans people actually believe.
It actually is what a lot of people think. Of course, not all trans people see it that way, and not all people who think that way are trans themselves.
I have seen so many stories of trans people discussing how they came to know they were trans, where it's all completely about stereotypes. They always liked pink, they always wanted to wear dresses and be cute, they wanted to be friends with girls instead of the loud boisterous boys, they always wanted long hair and things like sparkly fun clothing and accessories like earrings and bracelets, and so on.
I reject the idea that any of these things belong to one sex or the other, just as I reject the idea that any clothes/hobbies/interests/careers/etc. should be exclusive to one race or another. And the entire concept of "gender" as something separate from sex is based entirely on the idea that stereotypes matter, that certain personality types or appearances count as female.
Male and female are nothing but part of people's biology, and should be completely irrelevant almost all of the time (with the exception of things separated by sex for a valid reason, like sports leagues).
I don't claim to know what causes people to believe they are meant to be the opposite sex. I understand that it's very difficult for them, and that they face a lot of unfair discrimination and abuse because of it. I want them to be able to seek any treatment they want, including transitioning if they feel it is the best option for them. People should have the freedom to live their lives however they feel is best for them.
But they aren't entitled to have other people participate in it, or to infringe upon other people's rights. People should not be forced to say that men can become women, just as they should not be forced to say that Rachel Dolezal is black. Female athletes should not have to lose their hard earned victories because males were let into the women's league.
You definitely wouldn't want transmen in women's prisons or transwomen in men's prisons either. I admit it can be a hard issue to solve and sometimes people can be a bit too naive when it comes to it.
That's true. It's a complicated situation with no easy and obvious answers.
You can accept that they have gender dysphoria, while still recognising that physiologically they still have the chromosomes and in most cases physical stature of their biological sex. Indeed the very definition of gender dysphoria and trans to begin with relies on an originating sex that one does not feel they belong to, therefore any admission of a trans person is an admission of their originating sex. It seems the main distinction is that liberals want to give them 'their truth' while conservatives prefer the originating definitions. Either way both acknowledge the reality that humanity and most species for that matter have a dichotomy of male and female for 99.9% of people.
As a trans man myself, I'd like to explain what exactly being transgender is, and how it's very much different to racial 'transitions'.
Being trans is not in any way a want. We don't want to come off as male or female or neutral to get into any 'restricted' areas or 'take over' women's sports and spaces just because. Most (if not, all) trans folk have varying levels of dysphoria, thus making it a necessity to transition if we want to be happy. The only decision or want that exists there is whether or not we want to express who we are and try to be comfortable in our own skins.
As a personal example of dysphoria, I hate my breasts. There's a part of me, really, really deep down that knows I'm not supposed to have them, and that I was supposed to be born physically male. I wear chest binders to cover them up, for two reasons. 1, the appearance of a flat chest on myself makes me feel happy and comfortable, and takes much of the dysphoria and discomfort away, and 2, it makes other people see me as male, meaning they treat me and refer to me as such, which also quells the dysphoria and makes me feel happy. Most trans people only follow gender stereotypes because it helps them pass as their identified gender, and thus, quells dysphoria.
The dysphoria itself is caused by a sort of birth defect in which a person develops the brain and neural pathways of one sex, but the physical form of the other, which causes a massive feeling of disconnect and uncomfortability.
It's very much possible to get sexes muddled up, since there's a 50/50 chance of someone being born as either a male or a female. Intersex people are a very clear example of that.
It's not possible to get racial cultures muddled up. That's all environmental. To compare the two is like comparing apples and peanuts. Completely unrelated.
As for the debate on whether trans people should be allowed in gendered prisons and sports... I can't say anything. It'd definitely be best for us to stay in neutral areas in many cases, but many trans people want to be in gendered places to feel more comfortable and accepted within their gender identity, and very, very few mean any harm to anyone. Remember, a male sexual predator is very unlikely to adorn a dress to sneak into the women's bathrooms to assault somebody, and more likely to just walk in there as is, in order to draw less attention.
Apologies for the extra long post. Just wanted to try to make the whole thing clear, since it kinda seems like you have the wrong idea.
I know that most trans people just want to live their lives in a way that is not typical of what people expect of someone of their biological sex. Most don't want to infringe on other people and treat anyone unfairly. But... a small percentage do want this, and are being allowed to do it.
We don't want to come off as male or female or neutral to get into any 'restricted' areas or 'take over' women's sports and spaces just because.
There are biological males who had no athletic accomplishments in the men's division who are now winning championships in the women's division, and getting plenty of attention for it. It feels good to be a winner and get positive attention. In school competitions no medical transition is even required, any male will be allowed into the women's division if they ask.
There are also men who have committed sexual assault against women, and then identify as women so they can be sent to a women's prison. In one case where this was allowed, he predictably assaulted female inmates until he was sent to a men's prison.
Obviously most trans people would never want to do any of these unfair and terrible things. But it's a problem when the few who want to do this are being given the opportunity.
Most trans people only follow gender stereotypes because it helps them pass as their identified gender, and thus, quells dysphoria.
There's nothing at all wrong with this. I want people to be able to live however they want, and take any actions they want to be happy and healthy. Everyone should be able to change their appearance however they want, dress however they want, and undergo medical procedures to change their body if that is what they feel is best for them.
But someone who has lived for 30 years with a biologically male body, with male height and bone structure and muscle mass, should not be able to start adhering to female stereotypes and take female hormones for a little while, and have this qualify them to fight against women in the UFC.
Yes, the issues of race and gender are not exactly the same in every way. But when it comes to legally qualifying as the opposite biological sex in order to personally benefit from it, I don't see any difference between Rachel McKinnon claiming to be female in order to win world championships in cycling, and a white person claiming to be black in order to qualify for scholarships or affect their chance of being accepted into college.
As for the debate on whether trans people should be allowed in gendered prisons and sports... I can't say anything.
Biological male bodies have an undeniable advantage over biological female bodies when it comes to athletic competitions. It's no surprise that biological males are winning championships and setting world records in women's sports, and biological females are not too competitive in men's sports. it just isn't fair, even after hormone treatments.
Prisons are a more complicated issue with no easy solution. A trans woman would not be safe in a men's prison. Some kind of alternate solution is needed. As for bathrooms, I don't really care about that because no one polices bathrooms anyway, and no one should be seeing anyone else's genitals in the bathroom. And it's pretty sad that some women are being chased out of the women's bathroom because they have short hair and are mistaken for a man.
I agree that it's unfair to put a trans woman (or someone claiming to be a trans woman) against cisgender women in physical sports or activities. Physically male people have much more pronounced muscle growth, and someone who's AMAB (assigned male at birth) don't have to work nearly as hard to get as many or more muscles than someone who's AFAB.
It's tough to say we should completely ban trans people from competing in gendered sports, because not all have malicious intent, but things are likely to end up unfair, no matter what they do.
The best solution would just be to ensure there's gender neutral sports teams in all public schools and organizations.
As for prisons, definitely. Someone else suggested prisons specifically for trans people. I feel like that wouldn't go over well at all, and there'd likely be very few people who'd have to go to it, though there should perhaps be prisons for anybody and everybody, and maybe just have some extra guards to make sure nobody assaults anyone else.
I empathize with your pain and I'm happy you've found a way to be comfortable with yourself, but I can't get behind one single thing: why changing the meaning of man and woman?
It would be meaningless, until some folk start to change other concepts too in order to unfairly fit, such as fe/male spaces and sexual orientation. The cognitive dissonance some of us feel when talking about a lesbian couple when one (or even both) has a male body is too strong to ignore.
Nobody's changing the meaning of man and woman. That's why most trans people say their gender identity is male or female, or refer to themselves as trans men or trans women, rather than say their sex is male or female.
As for your second paragraph with the hypothetical of a lesbian couple with a cisgender woman and a trans woman (or two trans women), they'd refer to themselves as a lesbian couple because both of their gender identities are female. They both identify and present as female, therefore it would be inaccurate to consider them a straight couple (or a gay male couple). Plus, many (if not most) trans people seek to medically transition, so the trans woman/women would likely eventually be physically female as well.
Words still carry their meaning. No rational trans person is dissuading the concept of physical biology. If they were, then they couldn't rationally say dysphoria and gender dissonance exists, both of which are caused by the disconnect between the brain's gender identity and the person's external physical form.
By the way, about your last paragraph, I've sometimes read comments written by (presumably) trans women that were pretty biological inaccurate, such as "I think I can feel my period right now", or "I just have a big clit", or "I've had my first vaginal orgasm". What does the trans community think about those people? I guess the community isn't a hivemind and there are different groups of opinions.
No rational trans person is dissuading the concept of physical biology. If they were, then they couldn't rationally say dysphoria and gender dissonance exists
That's what I don't get it, it looks like some people genuinely believe that. Take ContraPoints: she said that vaginas can be manly and penises can be feminine, all because they are attached to someone whose gender doesn't match their sex. To me the whole argument doesn't make too much sense, in fact it clashes with all the dysphoria issue.
Unless, of course, not all the community agrees with Contra.
I'd think many trans people would feel kinda conflicted on those types of people. Nobody would outright say anything or dissuade that person's feelings, but I'd imagine many would be thinking it, especially for a pre-everything trans person.
I will say, when trans men start hormonal treatment, they start growing some extra tissue down there. It gets hard and acts, more or less, like a normal penis does. I know many trans men consider it their penis, even if it isn't technically so. I'd think most of the trans men and women relating their sexual organs/features to their gender identities are doing so in an effort to see the good in it and be as comfortable as they can for the time being. So a trans woman relating her penis to a larger-than-normal clitoris is likely doing so to feel more feminine and comfortable, rather than completely dissuading biology and being ignorant to the actuality of her physical features.
The trans women who say they can "feel their period" sound like they're ignorant either way, since no trans woman, pre or post op, can get a period.
With the Contra thing, again, they're likely saying it because many trans people who don't yet have the money or permissions to get HRT or gender reassignment surgeries need some way to feel more or less content with their current form, and to think of their sexual organs as feminine or masculine, even if they aren't so, can help tremendously.
This is crazy, I cannot imagine myself hating some part of my body. I.E. I'm short, kinda hate being short, everything is hard, girls dont pay attention to you, you are kinda weak etc. but I don't really hate being short, I hate that other people hate shorts. I'm perfectly fine with my height and in fact, there are several advantages to it.
So it must really suck hating parts of your body, just so you know, genetic men also can develop breast because of hormonal problems or simply being fat, and even then, its not normal to hate a part of your body, even if that part doesn't look like its from your gender.
Remember, a male sexual predator is very unlikely to adorn a dress to sneak into the women's bathrooms to assault somebody,
This is unfortunately not true and there are many cases of this happening.
It's usually much more not necessarily hating sexual parts of your body, than it is feeling disconnected from them, and knowing they're not supposed to be there. But many trans people (myself included) do hate our sexual features because they inhibit us from fitting in with our gender identities.
There are many cisgender people who hate features of themselves. Many people are dysmorphic, tons of people have bad genetics in some regard or another and hate whatever that causes, and many people just think they're ugly in general. It seems to be kinda rare to find someone who's completely accepting and comfortable of every part of their body and who they are, especially in middle school, high school, and college. Many people are very insecure.
I'm certainly glad you're comfortable with yourself, and I hope you continue to be. It's a blessing to not have physical insecurities like many others do.
And yes, there are definitely men that develop breasts as a result of hormonal or weight issues. I'd assume some of them do hate it, because it's not their perception of masculine, and they may very likely feel the same disconnect that trans people feel towards them.
I suppose there are a lot of fucked up people in this world, and some that would see pretending to be a trans woman as a good way to sneak into the women's bathrooms. Most trans people don't mean any harm, though.
I feel like there wouldn't be nearly enough trans people in any of them for it to work. I myself only know a few trans and nonbinary folk in my school, who I doubt (if interested at all) would be able to constitute an entire sports team. I feel like it'd be much better to just have gender-neutral prisons and leagues, and just have extra guards in the prisons to make sure there's nobody being assaulted.
And what about men's rights to sex-segregated spaces?
I constantly hear people parrot the inane argument that they don't want their daughter exposed to some "man" who has decided to transition and then mysteriously go silent or overtly supportive of women demanding access to previously "male" spaces. How can it be "equality" in one direction, and offensive in the other?
And what about men's rights to sex-segregated spaces?
Those matter too. But you shouldn't be surprised the feminists are more concerned about men invading women's spaces, just as a MRA is more concerned about men's spaces not being private.
Physical threat is not the only reason to not want the opposite sex in the same sports leagues, locker rooms, prisons, etc.
Some men would not be comfortable changing clothes in front of a member of the opposite sex, or might have concerns of being accused of inappropriate behavior if they're undressed around a member of the opposite sex.
Ah I see. I agree with you, I am aware of those potential issues. But I was focusing on the physical threat part.
I don't like feeling uncomfortable but this is just that, a feeling. Whereas physical threat is something else. I would prefer to be uncomfortable than scared.
False accusations are a true problem but physics threat is on another path.
Censorship on Reddit isn't technically a violation of free speech- you have the right to say or write whatever you want, you don't have the right to free hosting on the platform.
That being said, given the way this site is organized, banning content for being controversial just seems silly and counterproductive. If I go to r/radicalfeminism I know what I expect to see there. That's why I generally don't go there.
If you are going to ban, go with one of the following reasons;
Content that is irrelevant to the community.
Post it where it belongs.
2) A community with misleading advertising:
If the sub is called radical feminism and 3/4 of the posts there are bizarre anti-semitic rants with no logical connection to feminism, I've got some problems with that. Again, post it where it belongs.
3) Communities that refuse to engage productively with people who have differences of opinion, even if it is directly relevant to the topic.
If you post an argument, expect a counter-argument. That is the point.
4) Content that is not a genuine reflection of the poster's beliefs.
I don't need to agree with you. But if you don't agree with you that's fraud.
5) Excessively low quality content with no apparent point
If you are writing, you want something. You have an agenda. If we can't tell what it is you are wasting your time and ours.
--------
Notice how I never said anything about inciting violence. If someone is using words to express their genuine agenda, and not blocking dissent, I don't see how that can ever incite violence. Violence occurs when people with an agenda give up on words.
Censorship on Reddit isn't technically a violation of free speech- you have the right to say or write whatever you want, you don't have the right to free hosting on the platform.
Wouldn't that make it a publisher then? Because they are only allowing to be published content that they pick & choose and deem appropriate. I'm just trying to learn the difference between the two, I can never get it right.
Yes, I believe that Reddit is classified as a publishing company in some regards - Reddit is majority owned by a publishing conglomerate.
When I hear "publisher" I typically think of status as the copyright holder of a written work. Reddit's user agreement grants publication rights non-exclusively. The user retains their rights to submitted content but also Reddit is also granted unlimited, perpetual, unrestricted, worldwide reproduction rights. I suppose if this was not included in the user agreement Reddit would still be considered a publisher because they distribute copies of the work - it would just be illegal publication; copyright infringement.
So both Reddit and the poster can be considered the publisher of comments on Reddit, IMHO.
In the context of my original comment, however, Reddit's status as a publisher may be irrelevant - freedom of speech is not applicable to Reddit because they are a private enterprise, not a governmental entity. Freedom of speech per the bill of rights does not limit private enterprises.
That being said, title 2 of the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits enterprises that offer public accommodations from refusing service on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. This is applicable to private enterprises.
I am not advocating that anyone sue Reddit at this time, however if a user in the United States wished to challenge the policies in a court of law I believe they would most likely do so through a discrimination lawsuit*.
First amendment is unique to the United States. But some form of freedom of speech exists almost everywhere. It is called "freedom of opinion and expression" in the universal declaration of human rights.
But am not aware of ANY interpretation of freedom of expression/ speech that would grant somebody entitlement to publication. You can say whatever you want, you can type whatever you want, you aren't entitled to have someone else repeat it, post it, publish it or host it on their website. At that point you would be violating the other's parties freedom of opinion and expression.
Should they censor their userbase? The capitalist/ pragmatist in me says yes, absolutely. Anyone who has ever set up a website or blog with a comment section can tell you that a platform with no censorship at all will rapidly fill up with spam. Not politically controversial ideas, just utter bot-generated garbage. This will show up long before any thoughtful comment from an actual reader.
I'm not sure about Reddit's newest policies- it's not the route I would go. But they are (mostly) men and as such I will defend their right to moderate their own platform. They own it, we don't.
I’m not a big fan of classifying things as “hate speech” tbh, it reminds me a bit too much of thought crime and newspeak from 1984 and it creeps me out.
The left has been eating itself since the 19th century. It's a known problem and running joke within leftist circles about how every leftist party/movement splits and disowns the rest as impure over the slightest ideological disagreements on the most irrelevant issues. Every so often someone tries to "unite the left", but it fails miserably because if they were capable of uniting they'd have never gotten to this point in the first place and the "unite" secretly meant "admit I'm right" anyway.
Which is funny because that wasn't even their primary characteristic.
TERFs just really hate men, their hatred of trans people is merely an extension of that. They see MtF's as "invading women's spaces" and FtM's as "women giving in to the patriarchy".
Nobody gives a shit about man-hating feminists, but hating on trans people goes too far for the woke crowd.
They even prepared for being targeted. They made their own site in case of ban, their plan to flame reddit as "female hating" on every platform available.
They know they are guilty and act accordingly.
They'll certainly try to, as they have done for some time. A lot of VERY spicy subs are still up, though, so until I start seeing clearer confirmed patterns of what they're chasing after in the bans, I neither make nor endorse any predictions.
Think of it this way: arr/MGTOW and arr/FDS are both still up. At the same time, though, both The_Donald and Chapo are kaput. I've read many confident hypotheses today as to what the unifying thread behind all this is, but none of them gave me any confidence.
Has anyone seen any proof that this isn't just a stunt by the mods to gain some infamy? There is no way, if this was truly a pro-radical feminist sub, that reddit would put something like that on their page.
If this was an anti-rad feminist sub, as a couple ppl on here are saying, it might make more sense, but I can't see why the mods would want to draw undue attention to themselves.
I admit I'm finding it all pretty strange myself. One poster said it might actually be an ANTI-radfem sub that set itself to private before all this week's upheaval; I could believe that.
It just seems very, very strange for Reddit or any other major media platform publicly to admit that radical feminism is a hate group. I mean, it is, but I would never, ever expect to see any public admissions of that fact.
Yeah but like its private company they can censor what they want. Its all about making that money after all. Also they introduced that new rule about hating minorities not being okay but hating majorities is aight. Kind of funny
It’s because RadFems are raging transphobes. TERFs are what they’re called in the LGBT community i think, they don’t think that trans-women should be included in feminism.
If there's evidence of them actually doing that then fine, but only if there's evidence. I think this whole thing of getting uppity over somebody ranting about a group of people is just dumb. How many times for example have we seen accusations thrown at us all where idiot users who have no idea what they're talking about claim we hate women? Far too easy to abuse in my opinion. Rules should always be about very specific actions not just conveniently vague so staff can easily get rid of people they don't like.
If you've ever visited FDS you wouldn't be asking for evidence. It's really their entire substance. It's like asking for proof that McDonald's sells burgers and fries.
I love that they did this but at the same time ppl should be allowed to express any opinion as ling as it isnt trying to directly cause physical harm/violence towards a group or individual
AraceliCianna 3y ago
You misunderstand radical feminism. It’s for some reason instinctually associated with man-hate. It’s not, or shouldn’t be, in its intended form.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
No, I don't. They are what they do, not what they say about what they do.
OnlyNineteenLetters 3y ago
when does female dating strategy get deleted
SamaelET 3y ago
I am against any for mof censorship. But I cannot help but smile to see them get a taste of their own medicine. Labelling everything hate speech finaly backfired to them.
LabTech41 3y ago
The worst thing you can do to a radical leftist is give them what they want.
The grand irony of them is that they never think the tactics they use would in turn be used against them, and they'd hate living in the world their ideology would create more than any other group; all you have to do is look at CHAZ to see the truth of this.
omegaphallic 3y ago
You can deplore the censorship, yet enjoy seeing the karma in action. The first employs the intellect, the second is simply an understandable emotional response.
AveenoFresh 3y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hiubzs/reddit_has_just_classified_radical_feminism_as/fwj25a8
chocoboat 3y ago
gender critical feminists aren't the ones labelling everything hate speech... they're opposed to left wing though police and censorship because the "woke" crowd wants men in women's sports and male rapists sent to women's prisons, and GC feminists have a real problem with that
Dnile1000BC 3y ago
Absolutely not true. The concept of "hate speech" comes from feminism and TERFs are feminists at heart. Where they differ from other feminists is that their hatred of men is so strong that they think trans rights is stepping on their privileged "terf". That men are getting women's benefits by pretending to be women.
TERFs are ok with censorship as long as they are they ones doing the censorship and are not subject to it.
z770i1 3y ago
That's hilarious. Sucks though
Hannubal 3y ago
I agree with the underlying sentiment that Radical Feminism is hate. I don't agree with silencing people who express hateful opinions, as long as they are not directly trying to incite violence/other forms of crime. A cynical part of me thinks that Reddit is only banning a lot of Radical-Left Wing subs in order to appease us. Thus, they can get away with implementing limitations on free speech in general, which I think is the real issue.
We should not try to silence Radical Feminists and Misandrists. Doing that would be to stoop to their level. We should instead strive to defeat their arguments in the arena of debate.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
I completely agree. Reddit does not, but I do.
lasciate 3y ago
OP is very confused. /r/radical_feminism is an anti-feminist subreddit. The subreddit was voluntarily set to private and that splash message was written by the moderators as a form of protest of the new policies. It's a parody of this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-subreddits-protest-racism-hate-speech-policies-black-lives-matter-2020-6
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.
kellykebab 3y ago
Painfully obvious at a quick glance.
OP really thinks Reddit is weighing in about what laws "countries" should prosecute?
accidental_me 3y ago
More than a bit embarrassing.
Terraneaux 3y ago
And this is why posting screenshots to this sub lowers the quality of the discourse immensely...
lasciate 3y ago
Agreed.
TheGreatConst 3y ago
The main reason why they consider radfem as "hate speech" because a part of radfem is hating transgender men who become women and, as a result, get female privileges. Their mistake was to attack minorities.
antilopes 3y ago
GenderCritical were certainly hateful to trans people, but so are a great number of other subs. Trans hate is pretty much a standard of entry to far right wing and conservative subs.
GC as one of the few radical feminist subs on Reddit attracted a much higher concentration of misandrists. Not what people often call misandry on the more mainstream feminist subs, but pure hatred against males. That is how they end up being so hateful against trans women. It is their male origin and any retained male characteristics they can't stand.
cantfindthistune 3y ago
More specifically, GC (and other TERF groups) hate trans women because they see them as imposters - men trying to pass themselves off as women. Essentially, it is an extension of their hatred of men, but even stronger since TERFs see trans women as men who are trying to speak in the name of women, and "co-opt" the female gender and feminism. As such, they see trans women entering "women's spaces" - such as women's bathrooms, all-women sports teams, and women-only "safe spaces" - as men trying to gain access to a space intended for women. They see this as an existential threat to cis women's way of life, and believe it constitutes erasure of women. This also applies to trans women who enter into a relationship with another woman, trans or otherwise. TERFs feel that describing this as a lesbian relationship is an act of erasure towards "real" (cis) women and cis lesbians. Because they consider trans women identifying as female and accessing women's spaces to be offensive towards women, they often attack trans rights activists as sexist or (in the context of trans lesbians) homophobic. In fact, they often make up baseless conspiracy theories that the trans rights movement is a deliberate attempt by the patriarchy to erase or replace women, and to erode the female gender.
Notice that I referred to trans women throughout this post and did not mention trans men. TERFs generally do not harbor as much resentment towards trans men as they do towards trans women, because they do not feel like their lives as women are threatened by trans men's gender identity. In fact, TERFs often barely acknowledge that trans men exist at all. Incidentally, the existence of trans men and the parallels between their struggles and those of trans women is one of the strongest arguments against TERF talking points. If the trans rights movement is a deliberate, coordinated attempt by men to weaken women's power in society, wouldn't attempts by trans men to enter "male spaces" be counterproductive (since by TERFs' logic, this would weaken men's power in society and amount to erasure of men)? On the contrary, it suggests that the trans rights movement is founded in a legitimate desire by trans people to feel comfortable in their gender identity, without any ulterior motives behind the movement.
EDIT: added more detail on why the existence of trans men suggests that the trans rights movement has honest motives, and about TERFs' transphobia being an extension of their hatred towards men
antilopes 3y ago
I'm sure trans men have their problems but at least they don't have big groups attacking their existence on principle and using them as a political battleground.
Dean_Clean 3y ago
Forgive me for being out of touch, but what was r/GenderCritical? Was this females against trans-females because they were men?
antilopes 3y ago
Yes that was a big part of it. GenderCritical were very much feminists, a branch of the relatively small radical feminist community. Outsiders call them TERFs, Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists. They hated that label.
Mainstream feminists often claimed TERFs were not feminist at all, a ridiculous piece of gatekeeping.
Not__dumb 3y ago
not only left wing but right wing too, arguably more right wing subs than left wing it banned r/thedonald too.
twingirlsdaddy 3y ago
As long as it's not the government, Reddit can censor whoever they want, can't they? Free speech doesn't apply to non governmental entities... I'm not sure why everyone is getting bent out of shape?
morerokk 3y ago
You're confusing free speech and the first amendment.
Reddit isn't legally obligated to provide a free and open platform, but we can still criticize them for censoring something.
feelin-supersonic 3y ago
There a quite a lot of feminist subreddits, I suppose the best is to get rid of the most toxic one.
Plisken999 3y ago
I do agree totally.
And id rather have the bigots expose themselves.
The problem tho is that I dont think you can win an argument over the internet. No one ever really listen and they just keep hammering their talking points over and over.
the_new_longneck 3y ago
As the coveted Dr. Shaym once said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I agree with your right to say it."
smurfmeme22 3y ago
Comments like these warm my heart :)
whathidude 3y ago
I don't know why reddit has done this, this site is kinda going in a terrible path.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
You can’t do that with people unwilling to play the game. Stand there and peacefully protest all you like while they come and chop your head off.
MadPhysicist01 3y ago
IMHO, radical any group are never open for debates. That's why they are radical. They do not function with logic.
Dean_Clean 3y ago
I agree with not silencing them. Allow their arguments and assertions to be heard by all. Unfortunately debate is difficult when several of the subs ban a person from wanting to debate ideas by dismissing it as misogyny or hate speech. Some subs automatically ban a person if they comment on another sub that they don't like. This means that the forums turn into echo chambers.
DanteLivra 3y ago
We tried that, it's like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good you are, the pigeon will not care and shit on the board.
Egalitarian2020 3y ago
"We should not try to silence nazis" - right-wing user of r/MensRights who got shut down while spouting racist or other bigoted shit in the past.
It's all so tiresome, having so-called MRAs defend radfems' "right" to call for the murder of men or the castration of boys.
FrankSavage420 3y ago
lol ok good friggen luck, it’s circular reasoning, denial of truth, and screaming all the way down; shit subreddits are what keeps it alive because they can always go back to their crowd to get more affirmation
Dean_Clean 3y ago
Exactly.
Ahlruin 3y ago
yeh but theirs a ton of hate subs that go untouched, i honestly think their nuking small rando subs just to cover conservative sub bans, they banned the donald for breaking rules claiming hate posts that are anti woman, but... the donald has been locked for months only 1 politician and mods who post news articles were allowed to post anything... the sub was entirely dead. but at the same time r.conspiracy wich is an anti jew circle jerk or r.politics wich just had a post trending calling for a purge of republicans irl has 0 admin moderation. its also against site rules for mods to NOT enforce site rules and yet r.political humor doesnt enforce site rules allowing harrasment and misinformation.
Cr3w-IronWolf 3y ago
This site has turned into a shithole of mass proportions of pure hypocrisy and lies
aofk 3y ago
I disagree. They're drawing a strong line between what they choose to allow and not. Reddit is not the United States of America. This is not the place for free speech. Radical feminism has done similar things to other subs that have been banned, but people defend it? Typical hypocritical behavior of redditors.
ArnavChalla 3y ago
Most of these subreddits want men to have no rights and constantly talk about how men are disposable. Good riddance imo.
If you like a zero censorship policy, that's fine with me. But I won't stand for partial censorship where one side is censored and the other is allowed to speak whatever they want.
merton1111 3y ago
That's what censorship is. No speech is called silence.
Dnile1000BC 3y ago
They are banning a lot of feminist subs because they are TERFs. This means these feminists are against trans.
I say serves them right. TERFs are man haters. Feminism is the progenitor for all of these ridiculous censorship, racist and sexist movements. They deserve to burn in the hell they created.
Ahlruin 3y ago
how dare you not think men are woman!
Dnile1000BC 3y ago
If everyone is a woman then no one is. Ironically this would actually result in real equality instead of feminist equality (which is to say no equality at all).
prwwrp 3y ago
The issue with TERFs isn't so much that biological sex is something important to maintain, outside of a basis for their victimhood, so much as they hate men so much that whereas they would otherwise be fully accepting of trans-women, they hate men so much that a trans-woman is seen as an invading man. There's not science or scientific thinking they care about, it's all based in irrational hatred of men.
Ahlruin 3y ago
but it is invading men, just as woman invade mens spaces
ApprehensiveMail8 3y ago
"as long as they are not directly trying to incite violence/other forms of crime."
My understanding is that the term "radical feminism" is used to refer to the branch of the feminism movement that has engaged in criminal behavior / violent activities. S.C.U.M. etc.
I'm not sure if that is what they discuss on the reddit thread, but the term is used that way by mainstream feminists.
Oncefa2 3y ago
Technically the term radical feminism refers to the branch of feminism obsessed with patriarchy theory and "tearing down the patriarchy".
Ie most mainstream feminism is "radical feminism".
It is contrasted against left feminism which is the belief that women are oppressed by capitalism, and that by overthrowing capitalism, women will be liberated.
Many socialists disagree with left feminism and instead contend that men are the true victims of capitalism, and that capitalistic competition among men ultimately benefits women. Almost as if women were a second bourgeois class in society.
I imagine a lot of people who use the term radical feminism are really just referring to radicalism inside of the "radical" / patriarchal branch of feminism but technically speaking this is the true definition of the term.
Dean_Clean 3y ago
Where is the overlap between left feminism and espousing Marxism?
Dnile1000BC 3y ago
This makes no sense. Without the concept of patriarchy feminism cannot exist. Saying capitalism is oppressing women is as stupid as saying the speed of light is sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light over other essential speeds. Then again this is feminism we're talking about.
Radical feminism are those feminists that think #killallmen should be a thing. All feminism believe in patriarchy theory. It's the only way they can extort victim bucks from men.
Oncefa2 3y ago
Most feminists, at least in the anglosphere, are radical ("patriarchal") feminists.
I get the impression that feminism in some European countries a little different though.
[deleted] 3y ago
[deleted]
mdkb 3y ago
probly kill yr dog like they did Erin Pizzeys
73Scamper 3y ago
You're telling me some people think the idea of a free and unregulated market oppresses women? Isn't that a bit sexist against women as their inherent value as humans would have to be lower than men in order for the majority to be oppressed in a free market?
ElPercebe69 3y ago
Those people don't understand what capitalism means, in Spain we have very extended that left feminism branch (basically all feminism in Spain is left feminism) and when you ask one of the feminist about what does capitalism means they respond with "capitalism is the patriarchy blah blah" left feminism is perfect for a country like Spain where basic economy isn't teached at school
killcat 3y ago
They are indoctrinated, not taught.
Mikejones2756 3y ago
I agree with you in principle, but I'm glad this is happening. The demonization of men has been accepted and promoted long enough. Feminism and its hate permeate through the media as well as the educational system. Enough is enough.
goodmod 3y ago
You have been shadowbanned by reddit admins (not by mensrights moderators). See /r/ShadowBan for information about shadowbans.
I have approved this comment so I can reply to you.
It seems reddit has a bot that looks for certain types of user behaviour that indicate spamming or brigading. Sometimes innocent users get shadowbanned along with the bad guys. Usually they can fix this if they contact the admins.
mryugideck 3y ago
This post confuses me a lot.
Whats the difference between r/radical_feminism which apparently got banned and r/Radical_Feminists/ and r/RadicalFeminism which both are not banned?
Mr-X1 3y ago
The former was a subreddit that was against radical feminism.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
Not banned--just set to private and then they (r/radical_feminism) put up this apparently faked Reddit warning about hate speech. The other two subs are not trolling, though--they're actual, sincere radfem subs and are neither banned nor private.
shymeeee 3y ago
I think people should be able to voice their radical views, be they feminine, masculine, gender-based, political, religious.....etc.. I DO NOT WANT to live in a vacuum, protected from extreme deviations of the artificial, monotone dialogue framework either set by some company or the government!!!!! No way! I want to know, exactly, what people think, who and what they hate, and how intense are their feelings.
ElecricXplorer 3y ago
They probably count is as a form of hate not because it hates men but because often radical feminists are also TERFs.
z3bru 3y ago
GenderCritical is gone aswell.
I really am not a fan of the changes, yeah a few of the subs deserved this, but overall I think this is the worse outcome. Now the people from those banned subs will just reinforce their mindset that people are out to get them for their ideas, instead of disproving them.
el_beso_negro 3y ago
"radical because they think that men can't menstruate and women can't produce sperm"
Minnesotan-Gaming 3y ago
Next should be r/femaledatingstrategy because that place is just female incel cove. I believe they were trying to get buzzfeed to say that reddit is pandered to men or something
CzechoslovakianJesus 3y ago
They're afraid of getting their legal cheeks clapped and are throwing a bone so they can claim to be impartial.
ssaa6oo 3y ago
It's because of trannies.
TXJohn83 3y ago
Censorship is wrong, but it is what the world is moving towards more and more.
arnoldwhite 3y ago
You're saying that Reddit, a private company, shouldn't have a say in who and how they're own databases and their own website is used? You're saying that the government should step in and stop this private organization from curating as they please? No?
Then for the love of God, don't throw around terms like censorship without having the faintest idea of what it means.
ReversedGif 3y ago
When a company has a monopoly (e.g. as Reddit does due to network effects), their power approaches that of the government. Then, the word censorship applies.
Imagine if your internet service provider cancelled your internet plan due to something you said online, and that there was no other service provider in your area to switch to. How does that differ from the government preventing you from speaking? The ISP would have nearly as much power as the government. Therefore it qualifies as censorship, in essence if not by definition.
I looked up the definition of censorship; the first definition I found that stated whether private institutions can be guilty of censorship or not was Wikipedia:
So, I think you need to rethink your stance here.
arnoldwhite 3y ago
Alright, I think there are some major points of confusion here.
Firstly, how exactly is Reddit a monopoly? Which industry would that be?
Secondly, seems like you're quoting from the wrong Wikipedia article. You'll want the one called "Censorship in the United States" if your concern is legal censorship in relation to Free Speech, which I assume is your case given your ISP example.
But even if you're just saying that this is a type of corporate censorship (which of does not count as legal censorship, nor does it constitute an infringement of your First Amendment rights, and I'll argue that it shouldn't), you'd have to be able to actually define the censorship bit.
Removing a subreddit because moderators on that subreddit, after repeated warnings, fails to moderate in accordance to the ToS and user policy they've already promised to adhere to - is not censorship. If anything, it's termination following BoC. You're not removed from Reddit for expressing a particular view, you're removed from not honoring the contract. You don't get to claim that you're being censored for not getting to express opinion X if you've already agreed, contractually, not to express opinion X.
If you're gonna make a point about corporate censorship, you should instead focus on the fact that Reddit will force you to agree to their terms of service before they let you use their databases and their servers to host your posts to begin with.
On top of that, you'd have to tell me what exactly the definition of speech is here - because there is no one particular definition of protected speech -, just take a look at the mountains of case law on this.
Here's an interesting example.
You're a software engineer. You start sharing memes or opinions on your company's Slack channel about how transgendered women aren't really women, and that forcing people to use preferred pronouns are wrong. Your HR department threatens to fire you unless you stop it since those views aren't compatible with the company's diversity policy.
This is corporate censorship. It's not illegal in any way shape or form, it's not an infringement of your Free Speech rights, but it is corporate censorship.
Now, let's say that instead of that, you were joking about how you'd like to see trans women killed, or sharing creepy snuff films. You're immediately terminated as result.
Now is this censorship? What speech specifically is being censored? Which political opinion is this are you fired for expressing that you couldn't have expressed without also inciting violence against a particular group, or sharing objectively offensive material?
Keep in mind that these subreddits were fire with just that - people not expressing opinions but sharing posts that clearly go against Reddit's content policy, making jokes about violence against specific groups, or even specific people, or actually planning such violence.
There were plenty of posts on the radical feminists subreddit about how not only men in general but specific men in media, ought to be killed. The moderators were warned several types but yet did not delete these posts.
Thus, Reddit removed the subreddit because it was becoming unmanageable.
However, nobody was banned. Users on that rad fem subreddit can go on and express their radical feminists opinions elsewhere on Reddit, on whichever channel they want, as long as they don't make death threats or incite violence.
So is this really censorship? When no specific speech is being censored?
ReversedGif 3y ago
Nobody said anything about the legality of censorship, free speech, or the First Amendment. Nobody said anything about the government stepping in.
OP said "censorship is wrong," which is an opinion and therefore not really refutable. You jumped in, seemingly trying to argue that it wasn't technically censorship, but then I showed that censorship is indeed an applicable term here.
Now, you're continuing to strawman.
arnoldwhite 3y ago
Did you read my reply? Because I specifically explained why I don't think this constitutes censorship of any kind.
ReversedGif 3y ago
Yes, but I found nearly all of it to be irrelevant. The bans meet the colloquial definition of "censorship", and any language lawyering over it is just masturbatory.
arnoldwhite 3y ago
Yeah, absolutely nobody cares whether it meets the colloquial definition or not, or at the very least they shouldn't. Virtually anything can be called censorship if we ignore all judicial or practical context. What's interesting is the implications on free speech, hate speech and Reddit role in the interchange of ideas.
Don't try to muddy the water with some vague "words mean whatever people generally want them to mean".
I wrote a elaborate, good faith response to your objection about my use of the term which you didn't bother to respond to for the simple reason that you didn't understand it. Which is fine. But If you weren't interested in having a conversation about this you shouldn't have replied to me to begin with.
You cite a definition from a wiki article when you know that Wikipedia is hardly a source on anything - or maybe you didn't know that which if anything would be worse.
No, the truth of the matter is that a subreddit getting removed for a series of TOS violations is not censorship in any sense of the word, or at least any sense that matters.
Colon-Blo 3y ago
Good. Damn feminist Ninja Turtles.
omegaphallic 3y ago
Many of these TERFs are also SWERFs, so they attack the civil liberties of sex workers and clients as a matter of course, so while morally I'm outraged at the attack on their civil liberties, emotionally I'm laughing at the karmic smack down. But also leery, because is a very unexpected state of affairs and I don't know what happens next.
[deleted] 3y ago
The fact that any platform would encourage a nation to prosecute people for speech is appalling. Hate speech is free speech no matter how sensitive people get.
MazeZZZ 3y ago
Honestly I preferred Reddit back in the day when you could say anything you wanted no matter how bad it was. This sub getting banned is not a good sign, it just shows Reddit is getting more balsey with who its banning, it hadn't really banned leftist subs before, who knows what they'll go for next.
BurningOrangeHeaven 3y ago
They will just push people to the next platform that doesn't care about anything except making money - already happening with conservatives/republicans moving towards whatever that new twitter alternative is called.
rahsoft 3y ago
what this the sub reddit that was TERFS?
Which might explain why they got banned?
​
if so then I have no sympathy as they would be treated by the same rules they applied to everyone else.
​
... However, I think banning is not the best idea( unless it could be proven that they broke a very specific law)
​
Quarantining would be a better process ?
or sign in with warning of very strong content.
​
when you ban things , you drive it underground and that makes it more ..dangerous(?)
I would rather have counterarguments as suggested here, even if they got ignored.
​
I'm actually more concerned about the abuse of the tool that does not allow posting in one sub reddit if you are a member of another..
I should be surprised that reddit couldn't have anticipated that the possibility of doing being able to do that because its counterintuitive to its original purpose. But then again a lot of recent behaviour by Reddit( and some of their users, like hijacking reddits for political purposes) gives me the impression "we don't give a damm".
Its election year in the US, and we are going to see a lot more shenanigans on social media by people who don't seem to be able to understand the whole process/purpose of an election
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
No, I think you're thinking of arr/gendercritical, which did indeed get banned. arr/radical_feminism isn't banned; it's set to private and Reddit has put that cute li'l Surgeon General's warning label ("hate speech") on it.
Now, what is true is that most radfems tend also to be TERFs, but I don't think anything in the /rad_fem sub explicitly endorsed TE.
falls_asleep_reading 3y ago
As would I. Unfortunately, that isn't possible: the subs that got banned also had a habit of banning anyone who expressed an opinion that wasn't identical to their own.
You cannot have argument/counterargument if the people with the counterarguments are silenced specifically because they have a counterargument.
ratmon 3y ago
This sub is worse tho
Voidrith 3y ago
Its literally not. In any way. Lmfao
Jakeybaby125 3y ago
This guy's a black racist towards white people. Don't bother.
benny_da_boi1139 3y ago
How can you tell
Jakeybaby125 3y ago
Look at his profile and comments
benny_da_boi1139 3y ago
Now I see it. Yeah that dude is a ducking hypocrite.
HovisTMM 3y ago
Isnt that note from the mods? Feels like a tongue in cheek way of calling out the censorship.
Nergaal 3y ago
free speech means people are allowed to express their opinions without fear of retaliation. now SILENCE you bigot!
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
Could be--that's not the way it looked, though.
Continuing the purgative trend, arr/banfemalehatesubs was banned yesterday and just half an hour ago arr/banmalehatesubs got banned. They are swingin' that axe like they mean it.
dangsoggyoatmeal 3y ago
"You must be invited to this community"
HeroWither123546 3y ago
I'm HONESTLY surprised r/MensRights survived, but r/RightwingLGBT didn't
antilopes 3y ago
I have never been worried about MensRights being banned. It has hateful stuff but the mods are in control, they delete the worst of it and can tighten up if the admins demand. Brigading other subs is a common cause of getting banned, and that is strongly discouraged here.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
Example of the hateful stuff?
sizzler 3y ago
Any post about women drags out the hateful ones.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
Nice claim. Any proof?
sizzler 3y ago
18hrs ago - This is terrible. You'd never find a REAL feminist molesting their younger sibling. I mean there's Lena Dunham, but she's not a REAL feminist really.
16hrs - Infact it just looks like you were damseling your arse off and somewhat changed course when the desired sympathy did not arrive as you were expecting it to.
and this post https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hivr0m/incelness\_is\_on\_the\_rise\_everywhere\_and\_it\_might/
These are from just the last 24hrs, not that hateful but you can feel the undercurrent. This is why we need to appreciate the mods because they keep the worst out, most members here are nothing like that and you never know if some of these posters are bad actors.
​
Now have you got any proof otherwise or you gonna shut up?
​
EDIT also you:
Okay so then never interact with a woman. Problem solved.
empatheticapathetic -1 points · 6 hours ago
Yes.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
Excuse me? Why would i shut up for asking for proof? How about you shut the fuck up and talk like a fucking adult. Who the fuck would listen to someone who communicates like you?
So no source? And whats the problem with this? Lena Dunham molested her sister and she's a celebrated feminist. Are you excusing child molestation? Thanks for demonstrating the double standard that exists in society.
No source and no context. What does this statement even mean?
Inceldom is on the rise. The statistical and anecdotal proof is in that post. What exactly is the problem? The problem is clearly the rising increase in incels. Is that what you were highlighting? I agree that's a real problem.
So you admittedly have no proof? I'd ask you if you were aware how admittedly stupid this seems but i think i'd be wasting my time...
You are quite dense. This 'yes' is a sarcastic response to the previous commenters overreaction to his non-solution on how to deal with false rape accusations. If he's going to make a stupid unrealistic suggestion then i'm going to agree with him to call out his uselessness.
But as we've already realised by this point, you are too dumb to understand the nuance of communication. The best you can seem to manage is make false statements, provide zero proof, admit you have not provided proof and then start swearing. I guess you're probably on your period.
sizzler 3y ago
Lel you hateful fuck, this post properly dragged you out by your knuckles.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
Hilarious. You're speechless. Not surprising since you had no argument or proof. Try to conduct yourself with more credibility in the future, I promise it'll change your life.
sizzler 3y ago
I'm not speechless, I've realised you are a waste of time! bai!
furay10 3y ago
So, how much longer until /r/TwoXChromosomes can finally be banned? Just one giant circle jerk of "Z man did X action to me for absolutely no reason and I did absolutely nothing to instigate or retaliate. Equality. Now I can't Y because of it. Please send hate karma"
tothecatmobile 3y ago
This has nothing to do with the reddit admins.
Thats an anti-feminist subreddit, and they set themselves to private and put that blurb up themselves.
Tank-o-grad 3y ago
Is that a message from reddit or is that a description of the sub written by the sub's mods?
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
From Reddit. No radfem mod would ever call radical feminism hate speech.
ILOVEBOPIT 3y ago
Yeah this is definitely a description from their own moderators and it’s an anti rad-fem sub. Mods just set it to private themselves. Makes much more sense than Reddit calling out radical feminism or calling for its prosecution.
Tank-o-grad 3y ago
Unless it's been set up to document the shenanigans of radical feminists in a similar way to r/karen
Terraneaux 3y ago
You are wrong. You should honestly just delete your post.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
Oh, I know. It was a troll job.
Use your head; don't you think it's a bit late for that?
Terraneaux 3y ago
Nope.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
You should.
GemmaHannah 3y ago
So happy to find fhat GendeeCrital was banned and removed. That site brought me and my girlfriend alot of upset and depression. Im so happy hateful feminism is being brought down.
antifeminist3 3y ago
The reason it is hate speech, is because they are TERFs, and think trans-women are not women. That is the only reason. so the man-hating is perfectly fine. Reddit's new policies state that a 'majority group' is not protected under their hate speech rules.
AveenoFresh 3y ago
Bingo
meeselbon573 3y ago
That is a very interesting theory.
DKDensse_ 3y ago
For those who want more details/example, search about the "cotton ceiling" argument.
antifeminist3 3y ago
Looked it up. It indirectly implies that attraction has no basis in biology or physical attributes, because people 'discriminate' against trans people and should not. If that were actually true, then there would be not such thing as heterosexual people and homosexual people.
amiga165 3y ago
And on that I agree with them. Never hurt anyone, and if a dude wants to play dress up in public thats fine, But... dont let them compete against actual women. Hormones, bone structure, muscle development etc are different, and your average top 1000 Male athlete would wipe out the real female opposition. As a father of 2 girls, I want them competing on a level playing field, not a skewed one. BUT, let them set up own events etc no problem. I am waiting for some tennis dude to realise he's top 100 in the world, not good enough to be #1. Say I am woman, take hormone suppressants for 6 months or so. No operation. Compete in women's tennis for 3 to 5 years, win all the tournaments then go back to being Bob.
nisaaru 3y ago
I sort of "disagree" because I can't wait for "trans" "females" taking over women sports.
Why? Surely not because I support the "cause":-)
But to massively trigger the PC females who are the silent enablers of this LGBTQ+- agenda. An agenda pushed to destroy the social fabric of society by femnazis/bolsheviks in MSM/social forums for the global elite's goals.
What a delicious conundrum. Either Stop this agenda or no "safe spaces". Funny how that happened. TERFs are already the first sign that female defence instincts are waking up.
P.S. This post is NOT about LGBTQ+- people. It's about a weaponised agenda instrumentalising whatever identity they can find or create to break the social fabric.
JoshH2903 3y ago
I don't see how saying that women are women is hate speech
antifeminist3 3y ago
Reddit has gone far-left politically, and adheres to 'gender is a social construct'. Therefore, when you speak about women and men, they only definition allowed is gender as a social construct. If I have a penis and say "my brain tells me I'm a woman, therfore I am", this mode of thinking is the only type allowed with respect to the definition of gender. Gender as reflect by biological and reproductive function is 'not allowed' as far as the definition of gender.
Reddit mods are controlling the definition of gender. If you refuse to acknowledge that Kaitlyn Jenner is a woman in every way equal to the woman Hillary Clinton, you have committed hate speech against trans-women because you erase acknowledgement of trans-woman as real women. By controlling the definition, they are trying to control how you think about gender.
GiverofUTIs 3y ago
You know it's funny how feminists think.
Feminists will recognize that TERFs exist. TERFs hate trans women because they think they are actually men, who are reprehensible to them. But feminists will not recognize that TERFs hate men because they would lend credit to the fact that feminism has an enormous man hating problem.
antilopes 3y ago
Normal feminists [Edit: i.e. non-radical, e.g. liberal, progressive, 3rd wave, mainstream] have always quietly noticed that radical feminists contain a far higher proportion of outright man-haters, but they don't explicitly call them out on it. They acknowledge it indirectly, in calling them "extreme" or "wild", but seldom name what it is that they are extreme about nor acknowledging the implication there is a milder version of it in their own ranks.
If challenged directly on their mainstream haters they excuse it as traumatised women needing a space to vent, as if a huge public sub was a small group of close friends who know her history and context. Well, public venting is a thing too.
But when the same thing is vilified when traumatised men do it, and this is excused by a load of hateful victim-blaming and special pleading and claims about the background effects of patriarchy being overwhelmingly relevant in individual cases where it obviously isn't... that's why I don't spend much time on feminist subs.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
Irrelevant what you or anyone decides to deem ‘normal’
J-Unleashed 3y ago
So, if this is the case, do we follow this logic about political views? Because I'm fairly certain that the right isn't the majority group on Reddit.
antifeminist3 3y ago
By creating such a rule, they are stating that a minority group can attack a majority group on reddit. Different rules for different groups of people.
J-Unleashed 3y ago
Funny how these regulations and parameters become awfully flimsy when you actually apply pressure to them with simple figures. It reminds me of when I was a kid, and the rules for any given game would change if a specific kid farted. It shows their rules are myopic, at best.
ArnavChalla 3y ago
Not really my man. r/thefairersex was also banned
antifeminist3 3y ago
That is because of their refusal to accept gender as a social construct:
Reddit has gone far-left politically, and adheres to 'gender is a social construct'. Therefore, when you speak about women and men, they only definition allowed is gender as a social construct. If I have a penis and say "my brain tells me I'm a woman, therfore I am", this mode of thinking is the only type allowed with respect to the definition of gender. Gender as reflect by biological and reproductive function is 'not allowed' as far as the definition of gender.
Reddit mods are controlling the definition of gender. If you refuse to acknowledge that Kaitlyn Jenner is a woman in every way equal to the woman Hillary Clinton, you have committed hate speech against trans-women because you erase acknowledgement of trans-woman as real women. By controlling the definition, they are trying to control how you think about gender.
antilopes 3y ago
Good, /TheFairerSex was a man-hating shithole with little other purpose.
ArnavChalla 3y ago
All these radical subs are being banned, Its not a coincidence, there's a small group who's causing this chaos by reporting apparently. I'm on their discord. They're a bit more extreme than r/mensrights(by no means incels, they're anti incel, only against man hating radical feminists), but tbh what they're doing is pretty awesome, they tried to advertise their sub/disc on here but the post was removed apparently. It's r/pink_pill_watch
antilopes 3y ago
Thanks, I'll check them out. I have done a little bit of reporting myself on man-hating subs.
FDS could be OK if they reined in their crazies, there is no reason radical feminists should not be allowed to swap dating advice. I'd think they do far less damage in the real world than RedPill.
[Edit: If they just used /s where appropriate it would avoid a huge amount of shock and horror from MRAs.]
Nice to see that PPF has set themselves to private.
ArnavChalla 3y ago
FDS is a meh, I won't mind if they're gone either. Idk if I've gotten worse or better but last I remember they were saying about how men have no inherent worth, and also how to game men. It's not as much a hate subreddit, so I won't mind it if it undergoes heavy reform.
empatheticapathetic 3y ago
This is pure misandrist agenda. FDS do literally nothing but complain men are worthless and there isn’t a single solution for anything on there. 100% shit posting. They’re all fucking insane. Whereas TRP is about actual practical solutions to improve your life
chocoboat 3y ago
A so called "terf" is anyone who thinks that male and female are biological terms, instead of something you can become by dressing and acting according to outdated stereotypes.
Trans people should be free to dress and act however they want to, pursue whatever hobbies they want, and call themselves whatever they want. I wish them nothing but the best in life. But a man does not become a woman if he adheres to stereotypes, and I do not want men in women's sports or women's prisons. I don't want girls in school gym class to be told they have to change clothes in front of biological males or else they're transphobic.
All stereotypes are trash and we should completely do away with them entirely. The insane woke crowd instead loves stereotypes so much that they believe dresses and heels and makeup = female instead of biology.
To me that's just as absurd as insisting that a white person can transition to black by changing their appearance/clothes/personality to fit into black stereotypes. Everyone would laugh at the absurdity and foolishness of a white kid pretending to be black and insisting on being called black, but switch it to sex instead of race and suddenly self identity MUST be believed and supported?
I don't agree with everything that gender critical feminists have to say, but it's completely absurd that they can be banned from Reddit for wanting to protect women's rights to sex-segregated spaces. And it's especially absurd that the subreddit for male supporters of gender critical feminism was allowed to stay up!
prwwrp 3y ago
Dude, don't run cover for man-haters, sure the reason that they catch shit is for attacking trans-women, but they attack trans-women because they have a deep underlying hatred of men that makes them driven to attack trans-women especially. This isn't an issue of defending scientific terms, they only use it as an excuse for what they already want to believe, which is that men are evil and trans-women especially so for invading their sex. Trans-women also use gender as a way to anchor themselves psychologically in the sex they feel they are, which blows up the radical feminist arguments about gender. I see that as good since the radical feminist desire to erase gender is itself deeply anti-science and anti-human by denying the vital interplay of sex and gender.
Both sides of these feminist arguments are bad imo but defending radical feminists because of their position on trans-women is myopic.
chocoboat 3y ago
I am not claiming there is no man-hating at all among gender critical feminists. But the core reason they exist as a group is not for the purpose of hating men, it's for protecting women's rights.
They care because women are being directly affected by unfair situations that arise when males are allowed to be counted as female.
I am certainly not defending everything they say. But I support the idea that "gender" is ridiculous and should not allow people of the opposite sex to enter spaces that were separated by biological sex for a reason.
Souseisekigun 3y ago
I mean the trans community generally accepts the existence of masculine transwomen and feminine transmen along with accepting that being a feminine man or a masculine woman does not necessarily mean you're trans so it's not a case of people thinking that everything comes down to stereotypes. You're right that it would be utterly absurd if that's what people thought so please give us the credit of understanding that that's not actually what most trans people actually believe.
There's no agreed upon theories regarding what actually causes people to be trans or what it means so it's hard to definitively say anything about it. However, the theory I personally subscribe to is that it's probably some kind of brain thing that's caused by hormonal and genetic factors. If you examine the research you can see for example that identical twins are 12x more likely to both be trans than non-identical twins, brain scans have showed that transpeople have identifiablt different brains in various ways and there's some correlations between malfunctioning androgen receptors and gender dysphoria. We're not 100% sure what it is or how it works, but from what I can see it's hard to conduce that there isn't something happening somewhere. If it was just "this guy wants to wear skirts oh I guess he's a woman" then I severely doubt we'd have any of this stuff. And relevant to your point, as far as I know this kind of does not exist in the same way for skin colour.
Even if you don't personally agree with it you can probably see the train of thought behind "hormone levels change the body and mind, hormones are supposed to be released based on sex, transgender women disproportionately have genes that make testosterone less effective or hinder the production of testosterone, now their brains are identifiably different from cismen whenever we scan them, hmm". Whereas the primary thing involved with skin colour is melanin and as far as I can tell that doesn't affect the brain at all? Maybe it pigments some parts of the brain based on a quick Google but that's just colour. There doesn't seem to be anything even remotely close to the kinds of differences that hormone levels or other things cause. So if you're approaching the issue from the perspective that being transgender is most likely a neurological phenomenon like I am then the comparison doesn't hold up. The mechanism just isn't there. Same goes for all the dolphin or attack helicopter stuff. Kids are born with messed up chromosomes and genitals all the time, so there's room to wonder what other weird things with gender and sex might be happening, but there's no cases of a kid being born in such a state that you can't tell whether or not they're human or an AGM-114 Hellfire missile and no one is holding up brain scans of humans and a T-34 and trying to note down the similarities and differences.
You definitely wouldn't want transmen in women's prisons or transwomen in men's prisons either. I admit it can be a hard issue to solve and sometimes people can be a bit too naive when it comes to it.
chocoboat 3y ago
It actually is what a lot of people think. Of course, not all trans people see it that way, and not all people who think that way are trans themselves.
I have seen so many stories of trans people discussing how they came to know they were trans, where it's all completely about stereotypes. They always liked pink, they always wanted to wear dresses and be cute, they wanted to be friends with girls instead of the loud boisterous boys, they always wanted long hair and things like sparkly fun clothing and accessories like earrings and bracelets, and so on.
I reject the idea that any of these things belong to one sex or the other, just as I reject the idea that any clothes/hobbies/interests/careers/etc. should be exclusive to one race or another. And the entire concept of "gender" as something separate from sex is based entirely on the idea that stereotypes matter, that certain personality types or appearances count as female.
Male and female are nothing but part of people's biology, and should be completely irrelevant almost all of the time (with the exception of things separated by sex for a valid reason, like sports leagues).
I don't claim to know what causes people to believe they are meant to be the opposite sex. I understand that it's very difficult for them, and that they face a lot of unfair discrimination and abuse because of it. I want them to be able to seek any treatment they want, including transitioning if they feel it is the best option for them. People should have the freedom to live their lives however they feel is best for them.
But they aren't entitled to have other people participate in it, or to infringe upon other people's rights. People should not be forced to say that men can become women, just as they should not be forced to say that Rachel Dolezal is black. Female athletes should not have to lose their hard earned victories because males were let into the women's league.
That's true. It's a complicated situation with no easy and obvious answers.
XenoX101 3y ago
You can accept that they have gender dysphoria, while still recognising that physiologically they still have the chromosomes and in most cases physical stature of their biological sex. Indeed the very definition of gender dysphoria and trans to begin with relies on an originating sex that one does not feel they belong to, therefore any admission of a trans person is an admission of their originating sex. It seems the main distinction is that liberals want to give them 'their truth' while conservatives prefer the originating definitions. Either way both acknowledge the reality that humanity and most species for that matter have a dichotomy of male and female for 99.9% of people.
Dragonwysper 3y ago
As a trans man myself, I'd like to explain what exactly being transgender is, and how it's very much different to racial 'transitions'.
Being trans is not in any way a want. We don't want to come off as male or female or neutral to get into any 'restricted' areas or 'take over' women's sports and spaces just because. Most (if not, all) trans folk have varying levels of dysphoria, thus making it a necessity to transition if we want to be happy. The only decision or want that exists there is whether or not we want to express who we are and try to be comfortable in our own skins.
As a personal example of dysphoria, I hate my breasts. There's a part of me, really, really deep down that knows I'm not supposed to have them, and that I was supposed to be born physically male. I wear chest binders to cover them up, for two reasons. 1, the appearance of a flat chest on myself makes me feel happy and comfortable, and takes much of the dysphoria and discomfort away, and 2, it makes other people see me as male, meaning they treat me and refer to me as such, which also quells the dysphoria and makes me feel happy. Most trans people only follow gender stereotypes because it helps them pass as their identified gender, and thus, quells dysphoria.
The dysphoria itself is caused by a sort of birth defect in which a person develops the brain and neural pathways of one sex, but the physical form of the other, which causes a massive feeling of disconnect and uncomfortability.
It's very much possible to get sexes muddled up, since there's a 50/50 chance of someone being born as either a male or a female. Intersex people are a very clear example of that.
It's not possible to get racial cultures muddled up. That's all environmental. To compare the two is like comparing apples and peanuts. Completely unrelated.
As for the debate on whether trans people should be allowed in gendered prisons and sports... I can't say anything. It'd definitely be best for us to stay in neutral areas in many cases, but many trans people want to be in gendered places to feel more comfortable and accepted within their gender identity, and very, very few mean any harm to anyone. Remember, a male sexual predator is very unlikely to adorn a dress to sneak into the women's bathrooms to assault somebody, and more likely to just walk in there as is, in order to draw less attention.
Apologies for the extra long post. Just wanted to try to make the whole thing clear, since it kinda seems like you have the wrong idea.
chocoboat 3y ago
I know that most trans people just want to live their lives in a way that is not typical of what people expect of someone of their biological sex. Most don't want to infringe on other people and treat anyone unfairly. But... a small percentage do want this, and are being allowed to do it.
There are biological males who had no athletic accomplishments in the men's division who are now winning championships in the women's division, and getting plenty of attention for it. It feels good to be a winner and get positive attention. In school competitions no medical transition is even required, any male will be allowed into the women's division if they ask.
There are also men who have committed sexual assault against women, and then identify as women so they can be sent to a women's prison. In one case where this was allowed, he predictably assaulted female inmates until he was sent to a men's prison.
Obviously most trans people would never want to do any of these unfair and terrible things. But it's a problem when the few who want to do this are being given the opportunity.
There's nothing at all wrong with this. I want people to be able to live however they want, and take any actions they want to be happy and healthy. Everyone should be able to change their appearance however they want, dress however they want, and undergo medical procedures to change their body if that is what they feel is best for them.
But someone who has lived for 30 years with a biologically male body, with male height and bone structure and muscle mass, should not be able to start adhering to female stereotypes and take female hormones for a little while, and have this qualify them to fight against women in the UFC.
Yes, the issues of race and gender are not exactly the same in every way. But when it comes to legally qualifying as the opposite biological sex in order to personally benefit from it, I don't see any difference between Rachel McKinnon claiming to be female in order to win world championships in cycling, and a white person claiming to be black in order to qualify for scholarships or affect their chance of being accepted into college.
Biological male bodies have an undeniable advantage over biological female bodies when it comes to athletic competitions. It's no surprise that biological males are winning championships and setting world records in women's sports, and biological females are not too competitive in men's sports. it just isn't fair, even after hormone treatments.
Prisons are a more complicated issue with no easy solution. A trans woman would not be safe in a men's prison. Some kind of alternate solution is needed. As for bathrooms, I don't really care about that because no one polices bathrooms anyway, and no one should be seeing anyone else's genitals in the bathroom. And it's pretty sad that some women are being chased out of the women's bathroom because they have short hair and are mistaken for a man.
Dragonwysper 3y ago
I agree that it's unfair to put a trans woman (or someone claiming to be a trans woman) against cisgender women in physical sports or activities. Physically male people have much more pronounced muscle growth, and someone who's AMAB (assigned male at birth) don't have to work nearly as hard to get as many or more muscles than someone who's AFAB.
It's tough to say we should completely ban trans people from competing in gendered sports, because not all have malicious intent, but things are likely to end up unfair, no matter what they do.
The best solution would just be to ensure there's gender neutral sports teams in all public schools and organizations.
As for prisons, definitely. Someone else suggested prisons specifically for trans people. I feel like that wouldn't go over well at all, and there'd likely be very few people who'd have to go to it, though there should perhaps be prisons for anybody and everybody, and maybe just have some extra guards to make sure nobody assaults anyone else.
KolaDesi 3y ago
I empathize with your pain and I'm happy you've found a way to be comfortable with yourself, but I can't get behind one single thing: why changing the meaning of man and woman?
It would be meaningless, until some folk start to change other concepts too in order to unfairly fit, such as fe/male spaces and sexual orientation. The cognitive dissonance some of us feel when talking about a lesbian couple when one (or even both) has a male body is too strong to ignore.
Words used to have a meaning.
Dragonwysper 3y ago
Nobody's changing the meaning of man and woman. That's why most trans people say their gender identity is male or female, or refer to themselves as trans men or trans women, rather than say their sex is male or female.
As for your second paragraph with the hypothetical of a lesbian couple with a cisgender woman and a trans woman (or two trans women), they'd refer to themselves as a lesbian couple because both of their gender identities are female. They both identify and present as female, therefore it would be inaccurate to consider them a straight couple (or a gay male couple). Plus, many (if not most) trans people seek to medically transition, so the trans woman/women would likely eventually be physically female as well.
Words still carry their meaning. No rational trans person is dissuading the concept of physical biology. If they were, then they couldn't rationally say dysphoria and gender dissonance exists, both of which are caused by the disconnect between the brain's gender identity and the person's external physical form.
KolaDesi 3y ago
Thanks for your insight.
By the way, about your last paragraph, I've sometimes read comments written by (presumably) trans women that were pretty biological inaccurate, such as "I think I can feel my period right now", or "I just have a big clit", or "I've had my first vaginal orgasm". What does the trans community think about those people? I guess the community isn't a hivemind and there are different groups of opinions.
That's what I don't get it, it looks like some people genuinely believe that. Take ContraPoints: she said that vaginas can be manly and penises can be feminine, all because they are attached to someone whose gender doesn't match their sex. To me the whole argument doesn't make too much sense, in fact it clashes with all the dysphoria issue.
Unless, of course, not all the community agrees with Contra.
Dragonwysper 3y ago
I'd think many trans people would feel kinda conflicted on those types of people. Nobody would outright say anything or dissuade that person's feelings, but I'd imagine many would be thinking it, especially for a pre-everything trans person.
I will say, when trans men start hormonal treatment, they start growing some extra tissue down there. It gets hard and acts, more or less, like a normal penis does. I know many trans men consider it their penis, even if it isn't technically so. I'd think most of the trans men and women relating their sexual organs/features to their gender identities are doing so in an effort to see the good in it and be as comfortable as they can for the time being. So a trans woman relating her penis to a larger-than-normal clitoris is likely doing so to feel more feminine and comfortable, rather than completely dissuading biology and being ignorant to the actuality of her physical features.
The trans women who say they can "feel their period" sound like they're ignorant either way, since no trans woman, pre or post op, can get a period.
With the Contra thing, again, they're likely saying it because many trans people who don't yet have the money or permissions to get HRT or gender reassignment surgeries need some way to feel more or less content with their current form, and to think of their sexual organs as feminine or masculine, even if they aren't so, can help tremendously.
throwlaja 3y ago
This is crazy, I cannot imagine myself hating some part of my body. I.E. I'm short, kinda hate being short, everything is hard, girls dont pay attention to you, you are kinda weak etc. but I don't really hate being short, I hate that other people hate shorts. I'm perfectly fine with my height and in fact, there are several advantages to it.
So it must really suck hating parts of your body, just so you know, genetic men also can develop breast because of hormonal problems or simply being fat, and even then, its not normal to hate a part of your body, even if that part doesn't look like its from your gender.
This is unfortunately not true and there are many cases of this happening.
Dragonwysper 3y ago
It's usually much more not necessarily hating sexual parts of your body, than it is feeling disconnected from them, and knowing they're not supposed to be there. But many trans people (myself included) do hate our sexual features because they inhibit us from fitting in with our gender identities.
There are many cisgender people who hate features of themselves. Many people are dysmorphic, tons of people have bad genetics in some regard or another and hate whatever that causes, and many people just think they're ugly in general. It seems to be kinda rare to find someone who's completely accepting and comfortable of every part of their body and who they are, especially in middle school, high school, and college. Many people are very insecure.
I'm certainly glad you're comfortable with yourself, and I hope you continue to be. It's a blessing to not have physical insecurities like many others do.
And yes, there are definitely men that develop breasts as a result of hormonal or weight issues. I'd assume some of them do hate it, because it's not their perception of masculine, and they may very likely feel the same disconnect that trans people feel towards them.
I suppose there are a lot of fucked up people in this world, and some that would see pretending to be a trans woman as a good way to sneak into the women's bathrooms. Most trans people don't mean any harm, though.
sircocklord 3y ago
Maybe just have prisons and leagues for only trans people?
Dragonwysper 3y ago
I feel like there wouldn't be nearly enough trans people in any of them for it to work. I myself only know a few trans and nonbinary folk in my school, who I doubt (if interested at all) would be able to constitute an entire sports team. I feel like it'd be much better to just have gender-neutral prisons and leagues, and just have extra guards in the prisons to make sure there's nobody being assaulted.
sircocklord 3y ago
Well that would be great if it wasn't a constitution literally designed to isolate corruption from the world, so:
A. The guards can't find everything out and. B. So far it seems a lot of the assaults have come from the guards themselves.
FiveMagicBeans 3y ago
And what about men's rights to sex-segregated spaces?
I constantly hear people parrot the inane argument that they don't want their daughter exposed to some "man" who has decided to transition and then mysteriously go silent or overtly supportive of women demanding access to previously "male" spaces. How can it be "equality" in one direction, and offensive in the other?
chocoboat 3y ago
Those matter too. But you shouldn't be surprised the feminists are more concerned about men invading women's spaces, just as a MRA is more concerned about men's spaces not being private.
CharacterWall4 3y ago
Trans men, or biological women are simply not a physical threat to men. Unless a weapon is added to the mix.
stoopididoit 3y ago
Wow what an incredibly naive viewpoint.
CharacterWall4 3y ago
How so? I do not know any men who fear for their safety due to trans men. No offence
chocoboat 3y ago
Physical threat is not the only reason to not want the opposite sex in the same sports leagues, locker rooms, prisons, etc.
Some men would not be comfortable changing clothes in front of a member of the opposite sex, or might have concerns of being accused of inappropriate behavior if they're undressed around a member of the opposite sex.
CharacterWall4 3y ago
Ah I see. I agree with you, I am aware of those potential issues. But I was focusing on the physical threat part.
I don't like feeling uncomfortable but this is just that, a feeling. Whereas physical threat is something else. I would prefer to be uncomfortable than scared.
False accusations are a true problem but physics threat is on another path.
kronox 3y ago
Were next.
[deleted] 3y ago
[removed]
AutoModerator 3y ago
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
camusdreams 3y ago
Pretty ironic, tbh
Sintar07 3y ago
Well... At least they're pretending to be slightly consistent, I guess.
ApprehensiveMail8 3y ago
Censorship on Reddit isn't technically a violation of free speech- you have the right to say or write whatever you want, you don't have the right to free hosting on the platform.
That being said, given the way this site is organized, banning content for being controversial just seems silly and counterproductive. If I go to r/radicalfeminism I know what I expect to see there. That's why I generally don't go there.
If you are going to ban, go with one of the following reasons;
Post it where it belongs.
2) A community with misleading advertising:
If the sub is called radical feminism and 3/4 of the posts there are bizarre anti-semitic rants with no logical connection to feminism, I've got some problems with that. Again, post it where it belongs.
3) Communities that refuse to engage productively with people who have differences of opinion, even if it is directly relevant to the topic.
If you post an argument, expect a counter-argument. That is the point.
4) Content that is not a genuine reflection of the poster's beliefs.
I don't need to agree with you. But if you don't agree with you that's fraud.
5) Excessively low quality content with no apparent point
If you are writing, you want something. You have an agenda. If we can't tell what it is you are wasting your time and ours.
--------
Notice how I never said anything about inciting violence. If someone is using words to express their genuine agenda, and not blocking dissent, I don't see how that can ever incite violence. Violence occurs when people with an agenda give up on words.
snoozeflu 3y ago
Wouldn't that make it a publisher then? Because they are only allowing to be published content that they pick & choose and deem appropriate. I'm just trying to learn the difference between the two, I can never get it right.
ApprehensiveMail8 3y ago
Yes, I believe that Reddit is classified as a publishing company in some regards - Reddit is majority owned by a publishing conglomerate.
When I hear "publisher" I typically think of status as the copyright holder of a written work. Reddit's user agreement grants publication rights non-exclusively. The user retains their rights to submitted content but also Reddit is also granted unlimited, perpetual, unrestricted, worldwide reproduction rights. I suppose if this was not included in the user agreement Reddit would still be considered a publisher because they distribute copies of the work - it would just be illegal publication; copyright infringement.
So both Reddit and the poster can be considered the publisher of comments on Reddit, IMHO.
In the context of my original comment, however, Reddit's status as a publisher may be irrelevant - freedom of speech is not applicable to Reddit because they are a private enterprise, not a governmental entity. Freedom of speech per the bill of rights does not limit private enterprises.
That being said, title 2 of the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits enterprises that offer public accommodations from refusing service on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. This is applicable to private enterprises.
I am not advocating that anyone sue Reddit at this time, however if a user in the United States wished to challenge the policies in a court of law I believe they would most likely do so through a discrimination lawsuit*.
Does that answer your question?
*IANAL, by the way.
morerokk 3y ago
Yes it is.
What you meant to say is "censorship on reddit isn't a violation of the first amendment". But nobody said that it was.
Yes, reddit can legally censor their userbase. That doesn't mean they should.
ApprehensiveMail8 3y ago
First amendment is unique to the United States. But some form of freedom of speech exists almost everywhere. It is called "freedom of opinion and expression" in the universal declaration of human rights.
But am not aware of ANY interpretation of freedom of expression/ speech that would grant somebody entitlement to publication. You can say whatever you want, you can type whatever you want, you aren't entitled to have someone else repeat it, post it, publish it or host it on their website. At that point you would be violating the other's parties freedom of opinion and expression.
Should they censor their userbase? The capitalist/ pragmatist in me says yes, absolutely. Anyone who has ever set up a website or blog with a comment section can tell you that a platform with no censorship at all will rapidly fill up with spam. Not politically controversial ideas, just utter bot-generated garbage. This will show up long before any thoughtful comment from an actual reader.
I'm not sure about Reddit's newest policies- it's not the route I would go. But they are (mostly) men and as such I will defend their right to moderate their own platform. They own it, we don't.
The_Entertainer217 3y ago
I’m not a big fan of classifying things as “hate speech” tbh, it reminds me a bit too much of thought crime and newspeak from 1984 and it creeps me out.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
Yeah, you won't see me disagree.
ausgamer529 3y ago
Radical Feminism is hate speech
-WolfChop- 3y ago
Thank god, now I gotta go spam the group.
tykusstarcraft 3y ago
its because lots of those subs are TERF subs and holy shit do they hate trans ppl .
[deleted] 3y ago
Hey at least they are doing it on both sides of the spectrum.
acmemetalworks 3y ago
The left will eat itself.
I've been saying this for years.
We've been living through a moral panic for the last 4 years.
Now comes the purity spiral.
Souseisekigun 3y ago
The left has been eating itself since the 19th century. It's a known problem and running joke within leftist circles about how every leftist party/movement splits and disowns the rest as impure over the slightest ideological disagreements on the most irrelevant issues. Every so often someone tries to "unite the left", but it fails miserably because if they were capable of uniting they'd have never gotten to this point in the first place and the "unite" secretly meant "admit I'm right" anyway.
Ledpoizn445 3y ago
Rad-fems were probably banned because they notoriously hate trans people, specifically trans-women
morerokk 3y ago
Which is funny because that wasn't even their primary characteristic.
TERFs just really hate men, their hatred of trans people is merely an extension of that. They see MtF's as "invading women's spaces" and FtM's as "women giving in to the patriarchy".
Nobody gives a shit about man-hating feminists, but hating on trans people goes too far for the woke crowd.
ausgamer529 3y ago
The best kind of women's
arnoldwhite 3y ago
Is this a meme I'm missing?
ReversedGif 3y ago
Maybe /r/futanari.
ausgamer529 3y ago
I wish they were real
7_legged_spider 3y ago
So, it's set to private, but not banned, like all of the others affected by the purge? SMH
aofk 3y ago
I hope FDS goes next. A lot of KillAllMen types in there and no respect for men. Most of them literally view men as a meal/shelter plan for life.
Spatenblatt 3y ago
They even prepared for being targeted. They made their own site in case of ban, their plan to flame reddit as "female hating" on every platform available.
They know they are guilty and act accordingly.
Egalitarianwhistle 3y ago
It's just a matter of time before the woke police shut down this sub as well. It doesn't matter how well behaved we are.
​
Witch hunters will always find a new witch. The question is not if but when.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
They'll certainly try to, as they have done for some time. A lot of VERY spicy subs are still up, though, so until I start seeing clearer confirmed patterns of what they're chasing after in the bans, I neither make nor endorse any predictions.
Think of it this way: arr/MGTOW and arr/FDS are both still up. At the same time, though, both The_Donald and Chapo are kaput. I've read many confident hypotheses today as to what the unifying thread behind all this is, but none of them gave me any confidence.
I'll wait 'n' see.
The-Wizard-of-Oz- 3y ago
animal1988 3y ago
I'm just glad a bunch of the NSFW subs made it. You know which ones I'm talking about :)
manofbadadvice 3y ago
I don’t wanna know which ones you are talking about.
LetsTalkFV 3y ago
This makes no sense at all.
Has anyone seen any proof that this isn't just a stunt by the mods to gain some infamy? There is no way, if this was truly a pro-radical feminist sub, that reddit would put something like that on their page.
If this was an anti-rad feminist sub, as a couple ppl on here are saying, it might make more sense, but I can't see why the mods would want to draw undue attention to themselves.
I don't get it.
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
I admit I'm finding it all pretty strange myself. One poster said it might actually be an ANTI-radfem sub that set itself to private before all this week's upheaval; I could believe that.
It just seems very, very strange for Reddit or any other major media platform publicly to admit that radical feminism is a hate group. I mean, it is, but I would never, ever expect to see any public admissions of that fact.
fuzbik 3y ago
Yeah but like its private company they can censor what they want. Its all about making that money after all. Also they introduced that new rule about hating minorities not being okay but hating majorities is aight. Kind of funny
Wolf0133 3y ago
Censorship is happening anyway, wether we like it or not... they might as well censor evil subs like that then haha
Darth-trax 3y ago
Finally, something we can all get behind. Reddit I usually don't agree with a lot you might do, but good job!
Coloring_Fractals 3y ago
It’s showing the sub has gone private and the message was written by the sub mods not the admins
Darth-trax 3y ago
Oh, sorry I thought it was actually banned my bad.
Lazysweetness 3y ago
Wow, i am so proud of Reddit right now that is for sure.
thatusenameistaken 3y ago
You realize that by banning a sub or two they agree with, it gives them an excuse and cover to ban all the subs they don't agree with?
They can always point and say "look, we banned all the extremists. Not just mensrights, we banned a feminist sub too."
Blutarg 3y ago
Of course, people have just as much right to "hate speech" as to any other kind of speech.
NotSeaPartie 3y ago
It’s because RadFems are raging transphobes. TERFs are what they’re called in the LGBT community i think, they don’t think that trans-women should be included in feminism.
WeenieHutJr 3y ago
lol yall are next
SharedRegime 3y ago
Hey, they got called what they are. Hateful. Step in the right direction.
Godudop 3y ago
I wish FDS would be banned. Even though I am for Free speech
NotherThrowaway284 3y ago
Uhhh...so which is it? You can have one or the other, but definitely not both.
Godudop 3y ago
I mean if they have to ban Subreddits than FDS should be on their list
Chronic_Messiah 3y ago
They don't have to lol
Lethn 3y ago
Then you're not in favour of free speech are you?
KingKookus 3y ago
Free speech is great if everyone has it. You can’t say group 1 has free speech but not group 2.
ElfmanLV 3y ago
FDS often incites harm to men and only men. They really toe the line of being hate speech, which does not get saved by statutes of free speech.
Lethn 3y ago
If there's evidence of them actually doing that then fine, but only if there's evidence. I think this whole thing of getting uppity over somebody ranting about a group of people is just dumb. How many times for example have we seen accusations thrown at us all where idiot users who have no idea what they're talking about claim we hate women? Far too easy to abuse in my opinion. Rules should always be about very specific actions not just conveniently vague so staff can easily get rid of people they don't like.
ElfmanLV 3y ago
If you've ever visited FDS you wouldn't be asking for evidence. It's really their entire substance. It's like asking for proof that McDonald's sells burgers and fries.
insane_playzYT 3y ago
I don't think this was reddit. Reddit would just quarantine and add a message asking you if you wanted to view it (like T_D and MGTOW)
It is probably the moderators "protesting"
im_just_dreamy 3y ago
YES, r/radical_feminists still exists tho
I love that they did this but at the same time ppl should be allowed to express any opinion as ling as it isnt trying to directly cause physical harm/violence towards a group or individual