Why r/GenderCritical was banned by Reddit

So far as I am aware, my deleted post did not break any of the known rules. Did not call anyone a man, did not use the term T**, and most certainly did not use a slur.

Perhaps it wasn't 'in the spirit' whereas the OP's gloating, inappropriate 'joke' and general air of hard-done by is?

If I had a pound for every time someone male said something offensive and then as they realised they were not going to be given a free pass added the words "only joking!", I'd be able to afford all the repairs to my house and have a cleaner coming in every day.

It is disappointing to be drawn into giving attention to someone who will use any ruse, nastiness etc for that purpose and then try to dismiss the ruse, unpleasantness as humour or something else. I apologise for giving any attention to the OP.

It should be noted that there are some people who in this world prefer any sort of attention. Sadly these people are not taught that they are not the centre of the world. Kindness is not given on demand.

Sniffers and wreckers.

Hmm.

Again, I just feel sorry for someone who has to insult women to feel ok about themselves.

I've taken everything that you've written at face value, as I'm sure that others have.

It's very revealing.

thebewilderness has an awesome lemon curd recipe

Just saying

One day I'll learn that my humour is possibly not my best feature

The trick with humour is making sure it's something your audience finds funny, rather than just yourself, you know.
It's a mistake blokes often make when they accuse women of not having a sense of humour about their 'banter' - well, at least I think you managed to avoid doing that!

One day I'll learn that my humour is possibly not my best feature

The trick with humour is making sure it's something your audience finds funny, rather than just yourself, you know.
It's a mistake blokes often make when they accuse women of not having a sense of humour about their 'banter' - well, at least I think you managed to avoid doing that!

No it doesn't follow at all. I don't see much self-deprecating about taking a break from all the high fives about women having (yet another) online forum shut down and telling a female-dominated website that they have a choice of two ways to think either, but it's amazing how people can read the same thing in different ways.

Maybe MRA would have been more accurate? That's certainly the impression that your posts have conveyed.

It wouldn't have made much difference to your perception of me even if I hadn't. I'm trans, I have an opinion, therefore I am TRA

No, that doesn't follow - we've had trans people post on this board who have opinions who clearly aren't TRAs. Maybe you're not really, but if so it was pretty daft and provocative to introduce yourself as such. Don't blame people if they took that at face value and read your posts accordingly.

I'm trans, I have an opinion, therefore I am TRA

I get TRA too as someone with an opinion on trans issues that usually goes against the majority on these threads - although I'm not trans, and never spoke about trans issues anywhere apart from on MN, never any kind of activism, nada.
Just average boring person with an opinion.
So I can see why you felt the need to say it, kind of a pre-empting, self deprecating humour way.
That's how I read it anyway

"You can accept it or deny it."

One of these comes with an army of men's fists behind it.

Yet you started this thread with "Hi! TRA here!..."

Did the 'A' mean something other than 'activist' then?

That's the problem with male entitlement, isn't it, and why so much of the TR activism is focused on trying to force women to budge up, change their behaviour, deny reality etc.

You know that you're trans. Okay, no problem. Women know that your a man who understands himself to be trans. Why can't that so be okay, no problem?

It's when men try to force other people - especially women - to deny their own realty, and then get really angry when women say 'no' that true male entitlement comes to the fore.

It's not the same as saying that you're gay or that you're left-handed. You being gay or left-handed doesn't impact on anyone else's rights.

You know full well that the intent of TRA is to undermine and diminish women's rights, even to the language we have to define ourselves.

Yes, or a man realises that they've contributed to the abuse of women, even if only by remaining silent, and no longer turns a blind eye.

The term 'peak trans' means the point at which individuals are reduced to stereotypes and hate becomes inevitable.

You are mistaken. The term "peak trans" describes the point at which a woman realizes they have been the victim of their social conditioning to be nice to abusive males.

That's very true TehBewilderness.

But MBD has done a very good job of demonstrating to all the Reddit and other lurkers why women need their own spaces.

"There is a comparison you could make between removing the existing rights of gay people using Clause 28, and trying to remove women's rights now."

I don't think section 28 "removed rights" in any clear way. It didn't stop gay sex. It didn't prevent gay people from working or whatever. It didn't stop gay activism, generally speaking.

It's primary purpose was only to stop a very specific kind of gay activism-- where a local authority or school was involved in gay activism towards children. I.e. it was against left-wing politics being pushed on children before they were in a position to make up their own minds on the issues.

I would absolutely support a similar law over the trans debate in schools. Now I have no problem at all with the issues being mentioned or discussed in schools, assuming it's age appropriate stuff. But I don't think that schools should be pushing one side of the debate, becoming activists for one viewpoint. Rather, let kids make up their own minds when they are older. It's not the job of schools to be promoting controversial politics to children. I don't know if schools today are actually guilty of promoting trans ideology, but nothing wrong with stopping them.