Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

r/gendercritical banned from reddit.

255 replies

THRILLHO · 29/06/2020 18:25

Fuckers Angry

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
LemonadeAndDaisyChains · 01/07/2020 01:27

but a lot of us did take exception to being routinely described as child-grooming attention-seeking misogynistic deluded perverts trying to take over the world (Trans Women) or poor helpless impressionable confused lesbians (Trans Men)

well said and fair enough, I've never been on Reddit but that's where the whole debate lies really - there's discussion, which is fair enough, and then there's what you just said which is more hate mongering/inciting and it's not as easy to differentiate for some

ALittleBitofVitriol · 01/07/2020 02:17

And, unlike MN, r/GC also didn't seem to criticise any other aspects of Gender except for trans-people and happily turned a blind eye to a lot of reactionary, right wing patriarchal attitudes if it meant they could complain about Teh Tranz some more. Sorry not sorry x

Lies. Easily provable as lies by reading the sub for yourself except whoops, it's all conveniently been disappeared.

Delphinium20 · 01/07/2020 04:58

@MadBadDaddy

contactusdeletus

Thanks for the reply, but please don't shoot the messenger. I don't know exactly why r/GC was banned but I'd bet you a case of Gin that it wasn't because of pronouns.

I don't think any trans people cared that it 'wasn't for us' or 'wanted in', but a lot of us did take exception to being routinely described as child-grooming attention-seeking misogynistic deluded perverts trying to take over the world (Trans Women) or poor helpless impressionable confused lesbians (Trans Men).

And, unlike MN, r/GC also didn't seem to criticise any other aspects of Gender except for trans-people and happily turned a blind eye to a lot of reactionary, right wing patriarchal attitudes if it meant they could complain about Teh Tranz some more. Sorry not sorry x

That is NOT what the posts were about and you know it. The posts were primarily women supporting women who had been lied to, manipulated, threatened, abused, fired, and much more. You are trying to gaslight all the viewers here who never had the chance to see for themselves what 65k women and growing saw as TRAs' erosion of their sex-based rights to their own spaces. I'd happily point out how you were wrong, but the entire sub has been taken down.
MangoFeverDream · 01/07/2020 05:36

Honestly r/GC was more anti-male than ‘transphobic’ because they recognise the source of female oppression. Some of those women had been through a lot and their perspective had value. Very sad

JKRismyhero · 01/07/2020 11:00

www.rareddit.com/r/GenderCritical

Someone posted this on spinster this morning, at least there's some record.

sleepyhead · 01/07/2020 11:01

It's one of the aims of this chilling of debate - to remove the evidence and then howl "transphobia!".

Reminiscent of ultra-patriarchal systems: a man's word is enough, a woman's word is worth half as much and needs corroboration (by a man).

When the evidence is gone then a thousand gender critical voices don't carry the weight of one trans woman with hurt feelings.

And when evidence is given it's never pure enough. But feelings are enough for the other side to cry literal violence.

lady69 · 01/07/2020 11:02

Yet the rape subs remain. Funny that.

MadBadDaddy · 01/07/2020 11:19

Delphinium20
You are trying to gaslight all the viewers here who never had the chance to see for themselves

My original post here simply pointed out the structural differences between Reddit/GC and MN and why one was hateful and the other not.
You can always visit r/GenderCynical and see a long, long list of what is considered, I shall generously say, problematic.

You can also visit 'saidit' and play 'spot-the-non-trans-related-post'

MangoFeverDream
Some of those women had been through a lot and their perspective had value.

You want to talk about 'gaslighting' and 'grooming' and 'ideology'? Anyone who took their experiences there was told one thing and one thing only; and anyone, male or female, who dissented was un-personed and pretty much instantly banned. It was a self-selecting distillery of targeted intolerance, a cathedral of fear and hate. And that is why it is gone.

Kettlingur · 01/07/2020 11:25

You can always visit r/GenderCynical and see a long, long list of what is considered, I shall generously say, problematic.

Yes, isn't it interesting that GenderCynical is still there.

ThePankhurstConnection · 01/07/2020 11:30

@MadBadDaddy

contactusdeletus

Thanks for the reply, but please don't shoot the messenger. I don't know exactly why r/GC was banned but I'd bet you a case of Gin that it wasn't because of pronouns.

I don't think any trans people cared that it 'wasn't for us' or 'wanted in', but a lot of us did take exception to being routinely described as child-grooming attention-seeking misogynistic deluded perverts trying to take over the world (Trans Women) or poor helpless impressionable confused lesbians (Trans Men).

And, unlike MN, r/GC also didn't seem to criticise any other aspects of Gender except for trans-people and happily turned a blind eye to a lot of reactionary, right wing patriarchal attitudes if it meant they could complain about Teh Tranz some more. Sorry not sorry x

Bullshit. On the day it went only one thread on the front page was about a trans person. There was a thread on male violence, one related to porn. I know for a fact there were posts on other aspects and issues for feminism because those are the very threads I participated in. Oh it's fine to lie about it now you think noone can check. It is clear you are here with an agenda and a pack of lies.
ThePankhurstConnection · 01/07/2020 11:31

@MadBadDaddy

Delphinium20 You are trying to gaslight all the viewers here who never had the chance to see for themselves

My original post here simply pointed out the structural differences between Reddit/GC and MN and why one was hateful and the other not.
You can always visit r/GenderCynical and see a long, long list of what is considered, I shall generously say, problematic.

You can also visit 'saidit' and play 'spot-the-non-trans-related-post'

MangoFeverDream
Some of those women had been through a lot and their perspective had value.

You want to talk about 'gaslighting' and 'grooming' and 'ideology'? Anyone who took their experiences there was told one thing and one thing only; and anyone, male or female, who dissented was un-personed and pretty much instantly banned. It was a self-selecting distillery of targeted intolerance, a cathedral of fear and hate. And that is why it is gone.

Ha! Gendercynical and it's carefully cherry-picked out of context posts. Yes... that will be informative.
GrossePois · 01/07/2020 11:35

r/GenderCriticalGuys remains also.

iswhois · 02/07/2020 02:36

Might have been posted before, but here is a list of subs that Reddit still finds acceptable. R/joannerowling has been banned now also

r/gendercritical banned from reddit.
DeRigueurMortis · 02/07/2020 02:56

@FreddieMac

Yeah deleted the app. How did you tell Reddit that was why tho?

Deleting the app from your mobile device does NOT delete your account.

To delete your account you need to log into Reddit from a browser not the app (you can't delete your account within the app).

Open Reddit in a browser, log in then go to account settings.

Scroll to the very bottom and you'll see a tiny font "deactivate account" - it's not a button just the "words" but they are a link.

Click on that and you'll get the option to delete your account and the reasons why.

Obviously feel free to articulate your feelings but also consider given their actions if you want them to have data associated with the email address you used to sign up that you are GC if that's your reason for leaving.

It's also a good reason why a lot of women use "throwaway" email addresses for social media.

SetYourselfOnFire · 02/07/2020 04:30

🎵Telling LIES well that's no surprise! 🎵

It was deleted because anyone who read TRA characterizations of it then spent a couple weeks reading it usually gets converted to TERF, or at least knows you're full of shit. That's how I found GC in the first place. Here you'll be saying MN is different but on Twitter you'll be saying it's the most transphobic site on the internet.

MadBadDaddy · 02/07/2020 10:47

SetYourselfOnFire
you're full of shit.
you'll be saying
Is that 'you' plural or singular?
Are you criticising an ideology or a person?
because on MN the distinction is made often, whereas on r/GC I never saw anyone make such a distinction, never saw someone say 'hang on...' when the vitriol was flowing. Trans didn't reallt exist - TWs were liars and TMs were mugs.
Feminism isn't a hive mind, but r/GC was and it wasn't content to just sit there quietly moaning to itself and sought to spread the word throughout Reddit before it was rightly booted. The very concept of Trans people was a declaration of war and 'you' were in it to win it. That's how the 0.01% became characterised as an army - the 'TRA'

But are 'we' soldiers or weapons?

contactusdeletus · 02/07/2020 12:50

@MadBadDaddy

"Thanks for the reply but please don't shoot the messenger" - I haven't shot the messenger. I challenged you, personally, on your opinion. I even quoted you. I can't imagine where the confusion has come from.

You said "MN is not Reddit and that should be celebrated.The fact that I or other TWs can post here at all without being instantly evicted is the difference between MN and reddit/GC, regardless of whether or not I am pulled to bits or drowned in honey. As biased and one sided as it is, MN/FWR supports actual debate, and employs professional mods. Reddit OTOH is a collection of self-policing echo chambers. If you disagree or oppose, you are toast."

You dismissed r/gendercritical as an "echo chamber" and suggested Mumsnet was the superior forum, because Mumsnet permits transwomen to comment and allows debate on gender issues.

I pointed out that r/gendercritical existed for a different purpose. It offered a safe space for natal women against the bulwark of transgender ideology. Allowing transwomen access would have defeated the point. The zero tolerance approach to trans ideology / trans terminology also existed to allow the conversation to move forward, instead of being bogged down by the need to defend the definition of a woman every five minutes.

You interpret this as the space being "a hivemind" and not allowing dissent or debate. In actual fact there was always plenty of dissent and debate on the sub. It was just built on a foundation which was not up for debate - the belief that biological sex is the only thing that makes someone a woman. Everyone draws their line in the sand somewhere, and that was r/gendercritical's.

It was always made very clear what that space was, and was not. It was not a space for you or any other trans advocate to enter and attempt to re-educate women. This attitude is patronising. It implies that women who disagree with you just haven't educated ourselves to a sufficient standard, or we would of course have formed the "right" opinions.

contactusdeletus · 02/07/2020 12:53

Some questions for you, in the spirit of the good old Mumsnet love of debate:

Do you accept that women have the right to set up our own spaces away from transwomen? Why / why not?

Do you accept that people have the right to reject your view of gender as a spiritual force which supercedes biological sex? Why / why not?

Do you accept that women have the right to set up spaces in which you will never be welcome, to have conversations which will seem heretical to you? Why / why not?

If the answer to any of these questions was "yes", then I can't understand why you aren't defending the right of r/gendercritical to exist. If you answered no . . . do you also believe atheist spaces should be shut down because they offend the religious? Why? Why not?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2020 13:14

Great questions, and yes I'd be interested in the answers too.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 02/07/2020 13:22

It was deleted because anyone who read TRA characterizations of it then spent a couple weeks reading it usually gets converted to TERF, or at least knows you're full of shit. That's how I found GC in the first place. Here you'll be saying MN is different but on Twitter you'll be saying it's the most transphobic site on the internet.

Guess who just won the thread? Mumsnet is also very effective, which is why it's always much targeted. As was GenderTrender. Nasty women, still talking after they've been told very firmly to STFU.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2020 14:09

GenderTrender was awesome.

contactusdeletus · 02/07/2020 16:42

"I don't know exactly why r/GC was banned but I'd bet you a case of gin that it wasn't because of pronouns."

Hmm, I wonder. I've seen a lot of talk about how "hateful" the sub was, but when I visited the shadow sub to see what offended them "misgendering" was always top of the list. r/gendercritical insisted on using sex-based pronouns. This meant they could call out misogyny when it was being wielded against trans men, and call out male privilege and male socialization when it was being wielded by trans women. When it came to things like sexism and male violence, they firmly believed you had to be able to name the problem.

It was fact based and it was effective. It certainly opened my eyes to a lot of the sexism flying in both directions, which was obvious the minute you applied sex-based pronouns to the debate. People may not have liked it, but it wasn't spite. It had a purpose.

The trouble is that adherents to transgender ideology believe that pronouns shouldn't be something you use for a trans person as a personal favour. They believe referring to a trans person by their biological sex is an act of hatred, which robs someone of their very humanity. I quite frequently see trans advocates say not using someone's preferred pronouns "dehumanizes" them or "unpersons" them. I don't agree with that. Questioning the validity of someone's claim to be the opposite sex does not mean invalidating them as a person, as a whole.

contactusdeletus · 02/07/2020 16:48

"I don't think any trans people cared that it 'wasn't for us' or 'wanted in'"

I disagree with this. In my experience, you can't set up any type of women's group without transwomen wanting in. In my experience, you find it invalidating to your womanhood to be excluded from such groups. Even the fact that you've put quotes around "wasn't for us" is telling, to me. On some level it seems you don't really think r/gendercritical should have been out of bounds to you. You take issue with the statement.

As for the idea that trans people didn't want in, I disagree. I followed the sub for years and trans people showed up in it all the time. Mostly they misunderstood the purpose of the sub and tried convert women to their ideology, and their threads were shut down. Mostly they used the "I'm a benevolent ally, just trying to understand you" approach.

You know the kind of thing. It's basically tone policing. Suggesting the world would be a better place if we could all bake a cake of kittens and rainbows and smiles, and if women just weren't quite so mean about the erosion of our rights. Inevitably women were expected to give ground for the sake of being nice to trans people, while trans people were asked to give no ground and make no compromises whatsoever. Because that would be gatekeeping.

Sometimes they showed up as allies or said they wanted to learn. They were usually surprised that this was met with impatience. Once again, they'd misunderstood the purpose of the forum. It wasn't a place for women to educate them. It wasn't a place for them at all. There were plenty of other ways to learn about gender critical ideology, if they really felt inclined to do so.

By the way, this wasn't unique to transwomen. Men who showed up in the forum were also expected to act as guests there. They were also told not to expect the women of the sub to do their work for them, and not to speak over women. In fact, when men did show up they were almost immediately redirected to r/GenderCriticalGuys, the forum for gender critical men, because their socialization often made it difficult for them to even realize when they were doing this.

contactusdeletus · 02/07/2020 21:09

"but a lot of us did take exception to being routinely described as child-grooming attention-seeking misogynistic deluded perverts trying to take over the world (Trans Women) or poor helpless impressionable confused lesbians (Trans Men)."

These attitudes aren't unique to r/gendercritical. You'll find them in abundance here on Mumsnet too. And yet you want in on this forum regardless. I'm not sure I see the difference, except that we don't enforce sex-based pronouns here.

I was going to say we're more polite, but thinking about it . . . no, Mumsnetters can be pretty caustic, actually Grin

"child-grooming" - This a valid concern which has been brought up time and time again on Mumsnet. Have you read any of the recent threads about Mermaids? Or seen the material being distributed to primary schools lately? There has also been plenty of discussion on here about Lactatia, the nine year old drag queen, and Jazz Jennings, child star of a TLC reality show. How is the discussion of these issues on r/gendercritical any different to the ones we have here?

"attention-seeking" This is also a common opinion here, particularly with regards to the more out there identities on the trans spectrum, like the animal kin ones or the "not like other girls" non binaries. This forum also has its share of women complaining about attention seeking behaviour from the trans community, whether it's trans widows describing the inappropriate anime girl clothing of their husbands, or parents struggling with their trender children.

"misogynistic" It is misogynistic to the core to suggest that "woman" is a costume you can don. Or that we are defined by the stereotypes established to oppress us. Yet the whole concept of being trans relies on it. Gender identity is a sexist ideology, no matter how you slice it. No matter how much personal sympathy you have for someone's dysphoria. Once again, this is not an uncommon opinion on FWR. Far from it. What misogyny were the women of r/gendercritical accusing you of that was so different, or so unfair?

"deluded" Look, you believe in gender identity. It's a feeling. It's not nice or polite to call you deluded over it, but at the same time, it's not totally unreasonable. I might really believe in transmutation or the healing power of crystals, and you might think me totally deluded for that. When you put your faith in the unprovable, you can always expect to be faced with skepticism. And there are plenty of skeptics on Mumsnet too. I don't see how the ones on r/gendercritical were worse.

"perverts" Again, Mumsnet isn't shy about calling out perverts, paedophiles and creeps in the transgender community either. Yes, r/gendercritical put more of a focus on it, but they weren't reporting anything that wasn't true. And often the media were too afraid to report on these cases properly. They would describe the perpetrators as women, or fail to condemn the violence in proper terms. A transwomen could murder a lesbian couple and their son and the story would be reported on as if it was a personal disagreement between women, not a lesbophobic attack. There would be op-eds written that suggested the real tragedy wasn't the murders but the terrible way the murders played into stereotypes about trans people. Some trans people would flaunt their fetishes, spout rapey conversion therapy rhetoric about lesbians, or openly threaten sexual violence against women, and the rest of the community would utterly fail to speak up against them. I saw these things happen time and again, with my own eyes. You don't police your own community.

All we ever hear, when an instance of a transgender pervert or sex attacker comes to light, is the same old No True Scotsman insistence that they're "not really trans". Self ID only seems to be real when it suits you. And then when women say "okay, but even if this person isn't trans, your proposed changes to the law still give him free rein to offend" you don't have any solution to that. As a community. The dominant voices speaking for you all seem to believe women should just accept a certain amount of risk. That some of us will just have to be collateral damage. To make transwomen feel better. To keep transwomen safe. You seem to think we owe you that. That this is a sacrifice we should make.

No-one thinks every trans person is a pervert. But it is a fetish for many men. There's hardly a story on the trans widows thread that doesn't make that clear. And there are perverts and sex offenders who identify as trans. A disturbing amount of them, to my eyes. I won't look the other way when they're dragged into the light. And if the trans community insists on doing so - if you insist on showing such little respect for women's safety that you won't even address our concerns about toilets and changing rooms in good faith - then I'm certainly not inclined to come over all #NotAllTrans on your behalf.

If Jonathan Yaniv can genuinely be said to be as trans as anyone else, then that exposes huge problems with self ID, for everyone. Women shouldn't have to pretend we don't see that and just swallow the risk to our safety. If you don't like hearing trans people called perverts, do something about the world that enables these pervs to claim trans identity.

"trying to take over the world" Interesting that you present this as if it's some outlandish statement of comic hyperbole. I think there are many women here on Mumsnet who'd say the trans agenda has in fact taken over. In many places it's a fait accompli, with women struggling even to get our voices heard in resistance. Gender identity protections are stripping away sex-based rights. Women are being called hateful bigots for defining ourselves according to the dictionary. We're being no-platformed, threatened, fired, doxxed, and censored. The fight is very real and it's not a joke to us.

You don't think so, obviously, but 60,000 women on r/gendercritical did.

contactusdeletus · 02/07/2020 21:27

Apologies to all for the massive walls of text, but I think the closing of such a huge gender critical space deserves a thorough response.

So on to the finish line:

"And, unlike MN, r/GC also didn't seem to criticise any other aspects of Gender except for trans-people and happily turned a blind eye to a lot of reactionary, right wing patriarchal attitudes if it meant they could complain about Teh Tranz some more. Sorry not sorry x"

Others have called this out as an attempt at gaslighting, and I'm inclined to agree. r/gendercritical was critical of every aspect of gender. If you think the sub talked about the trans movement a lot - well of course they did. You basically built a religion around gender, and started changing laws and language to enshrine it! Of course that become the primary preoccupation. But there was still plenty of discussion about sex based oppression, including discussions about infanticide and sex trafficking.

The idea that the sub turned a blind eye to right wing or patriarchal attitudes just to indulge in a spot of trans bashing is also untrue. Every time a gender critical article found publication in a conservative outlet, it was criticized. Every time women would argue about whether or not it was worth allying ourselves with these people, even to get the conversation out there. Some felt it was a necessary evil, others felt we should be better. Ironically enough, it was probably the best example of how r/gendercritical wasn't a hivemind.

Also, it's just nonsense to say patriarchal attitudes were tolerated on the sub. What on earth are you talking about? If you're going to present that as a statement of fact I want multiple, specific screenshotted examples, presented in context, so we can see if someone ever really said something like "pink is a girls colour" or "a woman's place is in the home" while every other woman nodded along happily. I suspect it never happened. The image you paint is of a lot of rabid Stepford Wives, and it just doesn't quite gel