Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

There are posts on this actual thread that literally claim the FWR board as GC territory

If you think that feminism can exist without a critique of gender, then you do not understand feminism.

If you think women's rights can exist independently of a critique of gender, then you do not understand the history of women's rights activism.

There IS no feminism without an ability to discuss and critique gender.

So, grey rock (the actual technique, rather than posting pictures and encouraging others to follow) is a fair way to behave

Given that when I use it, it's to protect my own mental health, and to avoid engaging in arguments where I myself don't feel capable of bringing my best debate behaviour, yes, it's fair. Both to me, and to the person I would otherwise be engaging with in less-than-awesome argumentation.

In my experience, people who post things that have been subject to “grey rock” only seem to get the “grey rock” after they’ve been asked rebuttal questions they don’t seem to be able to/can’t answer, and/or repeat the same things over and over (“you’re all transphobic”).

This is not specific to anyone on this particular thread at this point BTW, just general observations, others may see it differently.

Retrofitted

Well said and I completely agree with you.

Yup. The arguments are just ever decreasing circles of whataboutery or DARVO or Be Kinder You Mean Women.

For a long time I thought that trans people must genuinely be born in the wrong body and I accepted that. And then I read something ludicrous in the Guardian and it was so silly and ridiculous that my critical faculties woke up and I started to test my own thinking. I did the work, tested my hypotheses, saw the flaws and started searching for a better explanation for this phenomenon.

The foundational structures of this ideology are so weak that there is no discourse other than mantras, distraction tactics and, as set out above, DARVO and all the rest.

I kind of wish there was something more coherent underneath it all. I would prefer to have sensible discussions between opposing sides trying to find a way forward and a truth. Instead we get online filibustering ad infinitum.

The good news is though that people don’t go from being GC to being credulous. The traffic only goes the other way. Many times people don’t get it at first. And some never get it. But many more do and that is growing all the time.

You dont have to respond hooves, the point of debate is to persuade your opponent. If we remain unconvinced there may be a fault in your logic or communication. 🤷‍♀️

Why are we not extended the same courtesy of not having to respond

Nobody has to respond.

But the flip side of that is that unless you support your assertion, nobody has to take your argument seriously.

Here's a 'me' example - a few posts above, I asserted that there is no feminism without a critique of gender.

it's possible for an opponent (someone who believes gender has nothing to do with feminism and is off limits in feminist discussion) to require me to substantiate that assertion.

I won't, because I can't be bothered right now, as I'm tired and fucked off after yet another day of heat and smoke where I live, and I didn't sleep last night because of the humidity, and I consider it self evident.

But, in response, that opponent would be entitled to say 'Well, given you can't be arsed to support your assertion, I'm paying no attention to it.'

OK.

Now run the scenario with a genderist who can't be arsed to substantiate their (many, anti-feminist) assertions. Why should feminists be arsed ?

I mean, if anyone here wants to 'convert' me to an understanding that feminism is a movement that reifies gender, and can bring their best debate behaviour to that effort, you can PM me and I promise to bring my best listening. But I'm not gonna be convinced by a series of unevidenced assertions.

Given that when I use it, it's to protect my own mental health, and to avoid engaging in arguments where I myself don't feel capable of bringing my best debate behaviour, yes, it's fair. Both to me, and to the person I would otherwise be engaging with in less-than-awesome argumentation.

Then the reverse should be equally true. I should be allowed to "grey rock" without repeated calls for me to answer 1 specific question over and over again with increasing insults being thrown in my direction for not answering. People posting a different opinion will be hounded until they give answers that satisfy the GC posters.

Oh Vitriol in future can I just outsource my posts to you? You say what I mean in so many fewer words!

I have been puzzling over this since I read the email chain and the thing that stood out was that Lang repeated her request for specifics and was never told. Not the first time that has happened to those of us who have been sent to the naughty step for misunderstandings.
Given the repeated objection from MN management to questions being repeated I am forced to conclude that the rude behavior was Lang asking three times what the generalization was that she was deleted for. They didn't answer her question for whatever reason, so she repeated it.

I am deeply offended that Justine banned a content provider and is now talking about her. Just another of those things she falsely claims she does not do.
This however :As such it’s really not on for one group of users to declare that their position/ argument is the only one that is acceptable and to deliberately make it difficult for those who disagree, to post is an effing outrage.
You committing to hosting opposition to child safeguarding on a parenting site is astonishing, to say the very least.

Hearhooves

So far as I'm concerned, you can grey rock who you like, if it's for the sake of your own mental health, and to protect both yourself and your opponent from getting dragged into harmful argumentation.

No disagreement from me.

Lol janes, I was just thinking that you are so much more thoughtful and patient!

Bold fail. As such it’s really not on for one group of users to declare that their position/argument is the only one that is acceptable and to deliberately make it difficult for those who disagree, to post

Safeguarding children is the only acceptable position for a parenting site to take.

@hearhoovesthinkzebras well said.

This is just going to keep going round in circles, and anyone who disagrees with the herd will be told they've "misunderstood" or are being coerced.

I kind of wish there was something more coherent underneath it all. I would prefer to have sensible discussions between opposing sides trying to find a way forward and a truth

Spent a whole year post dd's GD diagnosis trying to get to the coherent bit.

It's not there, or at least, the only partway solid land is that 'sometimes people feel distressed about their body, we don't know why' and 'homophobia, both external and internatized, is extremely prevalent in society'.

QFT:If you think that feminism can exist without a critique of gender, then you do not understand feminism.

If you think women's rights can exist independently of a critique of gender, then you do not understand the history of women's rights activism.

There IS no feminism without an ability to discuss and critique gender.

Now run the scenario with a genderist who can't be arsed to substantiate their (many, anti-feminist) assertions. Why should feminists be arsed ?

But not being arsed is not the same as "can you answer this question hooves?"

"Hooves are you going to answer the question?"

"Hooves I asked you a question"

"Yeah hooves we asked you a question"

"Actually I answered that question 2 pages ago"

"Nope. Not the right answer. Try again"
"Oh hooves can't answer, must be a man"

What part of that is grey rock, not responding, can't be arsed?

Frankly, that's bullying and is not in any way, shape or form being open to debate or discussion.

I am deeply offended that Justine banned a content provider and is now talking about her

See, this is just another point where they just can't win.
People have been calling for mods to answer, repeatedly, to justify themselves, to name how many reports, what happened etc and when they do actually respond you get people offended that they're talking about her!
You can't have it both ways!

anyone who disagrees with the herd

Example of bad faith argumentation.

I'm not part of a herd. I'm an individual woman, with my own individual history informing my own thoughts, as are all the feminist here.

I've also invited any proponents of gender who want to genuinely and with good will communicate to PM me, and have committed to active and careful listening.

Flinging about words like 'herd' rules someone out of that dialogue.

Just a general observation apropos of nothing. No one is entitled to have others respond to them.. I get ignored plenty of times, so what?

If you feel someone, anyone is posting in bad faith, you have to ignore, ignore and ignore some more.

Yes those are the only solid bits of footing I could find as well. And I’m so sorry you found your way here through its impact on your DD.

Safeguarding children is the only acceptable position for a parenting site to take.

This

Hooves, I've answered you to the best of my ability as a fucked-off, overheated, tired feminist, and I've been polite to you.

From that perspective, can we not now go in a back and forth. I've explained why I grey rock, I've said if you need to do so, that's fine. End of, really.

And no to herd as well. I did my own thinking and found the ideology wanting. All by myself.

I am always amazed that people who sing the me song on thread after thread don't seem to know or care that we see you.