Permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’

[RumAndReisling]

Following ten years uneventful membership of a major social media site I have been permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’.

Never again will I be able to participate on that site.

My crime? Saying that if you had given birth to a child, there was no way you could literally change sex and produce semen to father one.

Is this not a statement of fact, or is this now unacceptable to say?

AIBU to say that my husband isn’t able to give birth?

And I was asking that if that wasn’t the case; why did only some of us give birth?

@GrinAndVomit

Is this statement true for all biological women?

A man getting his baby to suck his nipples for his own gratification is child abuse.

A man wearing a dress and wanting to call himself Mary is not.

It's scary how things are going right now.
I commented saying how disgusting it was, the photo of the trans guy breastfeeding and was called a bigot.
Its actually insane right now and I fear we are heading towards a society where paedophilia is accepted. Truly terrifying.

@GrinAndVomit

And calling someone a TRA for questioning the scientific validity of op's statement is abysmal

A 1 in 20,000 case of a 46, XX DSD. Still not able to produce sperm and give birth to a child.

trans woman I meant

Oh come on.

The group of people who give birth is a subset of the 'set of women' which is entirely separate from the 'set of men'. The OP's wording was fine.

There's no mechanism by which a man can nourish a child from his chest.

The baby does not benefit from suckling from a man

By “some of us” Op is referring to some humans, but only the female ones.
Again, you’re confusing the words “all” and “only”. The basic biological function of female humans is to gestate and give birth. Only females do this.
Not all females do this.

Hardly anybody with a trans identity has genital surgery, which is a good thing because there's a high risk of infection, very poor outcomes and lots of complications to do with incontinence and loss of sexual function. And that's just surgeons trying to make that part of the body into a crude facsimile of the genitals of the opposite sex. It's completely impossible to make a male body function like a female body, or vice versa, even for sexual purposes, never mind for reproduction. Women's bodies are incredibly complex and every part of the body is involved in pregnancy. Activists sometimes seem to think it would be possible for a male person to have a womb implanted and some kind of hormone cocktail administered and bingo, they could have IVF and go through a pregnancy. No, they couldn't, as there's far more to it than having a womb and not having high levels of testosterone.

My personal view is that medical science shouldn't be wasting time and resources on even contemplating these procedures. We have so many real medical problems that need improved understanding and treatments and aren't a priority, and I'd like scientists and HCPs to focus on those. I'm thinking of conditions like endometriosis, painful periods, menopause problems, improving care for women through pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding. Psychological issues need psychological treatments, not surgery.

Well I could have easily said the same thing and I wouldn't have realised that I had broken any rules!

I wonder if it actually says in the rules that you are not allowed to state biological facts?

@RumAndReisling I am very sorry that you have had this experience, but thanks for the warning. I have every - probably naively - hope that your ban won't last long, as surely they must come to their senses soon... 💐🥂

There’s no evidence that anyone has ever been able to produce both sperm and eggs that can function and give rise to a baby. There is no evidence anyone has ever changed from being able to produce viable sperm to being able to produce viable eggs, whether by taking hormones or spontaneously.

so I can’t see that what you said is wrong or hateful. All I can think is that now in some circles/institutions it’s seen as hateful to discuss something that might upset a trans person, even if it’s the truth. However, if this doesnt apply to other groups (if it seems to be ok to say you don’t believe in god, or slag off white people or “cis” people, for example) then discrimination is being practised isn’t it? Other protected groups are not being given the same power to cancel people on the basis of being offended as trans people are.

If you’re talking about the one trending on Twitter lately, if you read the facts rather than shouting “transphobia” at any opportunity, you’ll see that there is MAJOR concern over a man, however they choose to identify in their own head, indulging in their fetish over the needs of a helpless baby which is what is commonly known and recognised as CHILD ABUSE.

Or do you think men can breastfeed a baby and give them the nutrients and comfort they need?

Is it scientifically invalid that only female people can give birth, and only male
people produce semen?

is it scientifically invalid that you can give birth, then go on to produce semen and father a baby?

Is there any evidence to contest these statements?

Pretending to not know the difference between “only” and “all” is a common TRA tactic.

Gender Identity is NOT a protected characteristic. You should read the Equality Act.

And what exactly is the conspiracy theory? That biological men can’t have babies? That’s just life, I’m afraid. Quite literal life!

Intersex folk can give birth. Why are you so concerned about what people have in their pants

You said Most posts there will even equate a trans woman to a pedophile.

That is an accusation that was levelled at one person that was doing something dodgy with a baby. It's not all trans people.

Do you not think a male person letting a baby suck on his nipples is the slightest bit suspect?
If you saw Dave from down the road doing the same, wouldn't you think the same?

What is it about a male person wearing a dress and earrings that creates a forcefield that stops people from thinking?

I'm not pretending not to know the difference, op, your point in your second post was sloppily made.

I might agree with your sentiment, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay you on the back for this.

*pat you on the back

About 10 posts equated it to pedophilia. Thats pretty hateful, if you ask me.

https://twitter.com/australianwoma1/status/1676016045889560576?s=46&t=_2xlgEVFNSYHTxLiSk3Mew

It appears those people have good reason to be concerned. Is it still hateful if it's true?

Yes, but only the female ones. Which doesn’t contradict what OP said.

Sex is not a spectrum. You cannot impregnate yourself by producing eggs and sperm. You can have a medical condition that means your sex organs did not develop according to either of the two pathways. This is a medical condition and not based on feelings. These people are often infertile and have a host of other issues.

People who have a strong belief that gender identity is more important than biological sex, use the argument that because people with medical disorders exist, it is too difficult to determine who is male and who is female and it means sex segregated facilities, sports, healthcare and services need to be illegal.

To go back to the OP, the definition of what constitutes hate speech is in the eye of the provider. They feel saying anything relating female humans to biological sex is hate speech. Social media plays a big role in our society, being banned from social media means you get cut off from that part of society. That is a dangerous precedent and gives social media companies too much power. Just like banks closing down accounts because the account owner has opinions they don't like. It gets really close to 1984.