Why r/GenderCritical was banned by Reddit

[MadBadDaddy]

Hi! TRA here! Thought I'd take a quick breather from all the crowing, high-fiving, etc. to throw a lifeline to any actual open-minded critical thinkers wondering why Reddit banned r/gendercritical. Basically, you have 2 options when it comes to what to believe:

1. It's a true conspiracy: silicon valley, hollywood & the media are in the thrall of the well-funded TransAgenda, the need for woke points, child-groomers, women-haters, MRAs, etc. etc.

1. r/GenderCritical was hateful - if you want evidence then go to r/GenderCynical which existed to harvest said hatefulness. Read their strictly enforced rules about hate speech, misogyny, anti-feminism, pile-ons, doxxing, etc. (NB: abbreviating "trans exclusionary radical feminist" is not considered hate speech on this subreddit) and then sort their posts by "top" and "all time" and judge for yourself.

The trans men, trans women and non-binary people of Reddit do not hate women and do not tolerate abuse. Have a better day. x

Stop causing harm and nasty women cant weaponise it.

And the reason that the GC Reddit site was banned is that it was full of women thinking for themselves and making allegiances which, even for a site as happy to turn a blind eye to all sorts of horrors, was just too much for Reddit.

I have to say I'm pretty unimpressed with feminists doing the same thing and using a tragedy for similarly weak reasons.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is pretty unimpressed with you full stop. It's your side who let off smoke bombs outside Grenfell Tower, not radical feminists.

I can't believe you, who made a really tenuous link from Grenfell to someone saying "bean counters" was a slur, and claimed to be "triggered" because for some reason you associate that with the Grenfell fire, can't see how inappropriate and objectionable it is for "activists" on your side to seek to intimidate women by letting off smoke bombs outside Grenfell Tower.

One of the speakers at the meeting was a female firefighter who was at Grenfell, btw.

MadBadDaddy
It hasn't exactly done my lot any favours, has it?

Now I am getting confused. Who exactly are "my lot", again? Because the people it has done no good are clearly the people who have targetted JKR with repulsive tweets and shown themselves up; are you identifying with them?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime
My lot=The transgendered population of the observable universe. As much as I might want to disown them, if they are trans then they are my 'lot'. Such behaviour wasn't striking a blow for anyone's rights. I have opinions on the whole business and if you want I can start a JKR thread but I really would rather stick my head in a food blender

That sounds very much like a 'yes' then.

If you're not against women being abused, and are okay with any sort of behaviour as long as the perpetrator identifies as trans, then they are your lot.

Nice.

averysuitablegirl And if I am against women being abused, and am not OK with any sort of behaviour as long as the perpetrator identifies as trans. then what? They aren't trans any more?

Are you against women being abused?

I still don't get it. I do not identify with all women whatever they do: I don't just wish to disown, I do disown (eg) female persons who take their young children to join ISIS and then glorify the disgusting murder and sexual enslavement of other women, for instance. A Roman Catholic can disown members of the IRA and their behaviour, and disown sexually abusive priests who use the Church and their position to gain access to the children they abuse; a Muslim can disown Muslim murderers and extremists. So why cannot a trans person of whatever gender disown trans extremists who behave in a disgusting way?

I am sure you would disown a man in his early twenties who with no provocation from her struck a woman in her mid sixties and knocked her to the ground; certainly I don't suppose you would condone his behaviour, because you don't come over as the sort of person who thinks that is ok. Would his claiming to be female (in spite of the male muscles and the male beard and the male genitals and the male hormones, not to mention the premeditated intent) make his behaviour in some way acceptable and mean that you identify with him? Why?

So why cannot a trans person of whatever gender disown trans extremists who behave in a disgusting way?

They can. They can choose to condemn others behaviour, explicitly condone it or ignore it, which amounts to the same thing.

averysuitablegirl yes

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime This is getting cloudy. A shitty trans-person is still a trans-person like Myra Hindley is still a woman.

So why can you not just disown people who send disgusting and abusive tweets, MadBadDaddy? You said, "As much as I might want to disown them, if they are trans then they are my 'lot'."

You clearly choose to have them as your lot; it is not obligatory, any more than anyone with red hair cannot condemn and refuse to be counted with a red-headed terrorist or red-headed fascist or a red-headed cat-torturer or a red-head who picks his nose and eats it....

" No, because it attacks what I am, not what I believe"

I think this is the crux, the entire trans movements thinks that belief = being.

You may see yourself as a woman, but others are under no obligation to share your perception.

If you feel so attacked because others don't perceive you the way you perceive yourself, I suggest you get therapy.

And that is meant as friendly as possible, I've been there myself, around 1.5 years long.

But you do not go around pretending others are denying what you 'are'. That is absolutely a lie. And a really shameful, manipulative one to get them to submit to your view of yourself.

@WeeBisom

OP, you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say Gender Critical denied your existence. But on the other you say Gender Critical was committed to framing your existence as a threat to women. They can't very well frame your existence as a threat if they don't think you exist.

I don't think you've got hostility because you are seen as a representative of trans ideology. I think it's more to do with you coming onto a gender critical space gloating and crowing about how another gender critical space got shut down, making gross and inappropriate comments about how no one asks you to suck their dick, and just generally behaving like a flippant goady troll who can dish it out but can't take it back in return. I think everyone here has been very patient with you.

I suppose by now we should expect MRAs to make themselves to home here if we respond to their goady gloating threads in any way at all.

Is that a 'yes' you are against abuse of women, but all the abuse of women on other subs of Reddit, the smoke bombs thrown to try to prevent women meeting, the hundreds of abusive messages sent to JKR are okay, or not so not okay that you can be bothered to actually engage with the reality of the impact of them on women?

That's not really a yes then, is it? It's actually somewhere between 'no' and 'I don't give a shit'.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

@MrGHardy

" No, because it attacks what I am, not what I believe"

I think this is the crux, the entire trans movements thinks that belief = being.

You may see yourself as a woman, but others are under no obligation to share your perception.

If you feel so attacked because others don't perceive you the way you perceive yourself, I suggest you get therapy.

And that is meant as friendly as possible, I've been there myself, around 1.5 years long.

But you do not go around pretending others are denying what you 'are'. That is absolutely a lie. And a really shameful, manipulative one to get them to submit to your view of yourself.

You're right, it is the crux. My thoughts on the matter are buried on these pages somewhere. TL/DR-You can accept it or deny it. Neither I nor anyone else can 'prove' that I'm trans, or not, but I know that I am. There's nothing especially logical or rational or scientific about it, and even if there was, it wouldn't change much. I could make the same statement about being gay, or being left-handed. I'm not here speaking on behalf of the 'trans-movement', or anyone else. I'm here to explain why I think r/GC got the chop. If this thread has become All About Me then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention but I''m responding questions, not asking them . I said a little upthread that from this point I'll only respond if I'm directly addressed.

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.

averysuitablegirl I have to put some brackets around what I'll offer my opinion on. I'm not dismissing your valid concerns, I'm copping out. And I don't have answers or proposed solutions to the big questions. I'm not an activist.

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? The more I say, the more open to misinterpretation it is. I've said plenty on this thread that adresses this point and it's all searchable

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

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