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

Especially when you see so many passionate women doing so much on these threads and in real life

You're right, no-ones ever asked me suck anything online. I have mixed feelings on that.

MadBadDaddy, was this a joke? If so, can you not see how utterly inappropriate it is?

"However, I still don't think it was a wrong move on Reddit's part. "whataboutery" doesn't justify any hateful behaviour."

Haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps you have addressed this elsewhere but...

What do you consider to be "hateful behaviour"?

Is it "hateful behaviour" merely to deny that TWAW? Or to say that they should be excluded from women's sports? Or that they should be excluded from certain women-only areas or facilities?

Is it "hateful" to voice the opinion that they are suffering from a mental illness, rather than them actually being women/men as they identify?

Generally speaking, I would say political discourse should allow for a fair amount of supposed "hate", because of course accusations of "hate" are somewhat subjective. Different sides can accuse each other of being hateful, while defending their own use of rhetoric. You don't want accusations of hate to easily shut down political debate. You can accuse abortionists of being "murderers" right? Is that hateful? From one perspective sure it may look like hateful rhetoric. From another perspective it's just an accurate statement of the immorality of what they are doing.

Of course you can distinguish threats of violence, harassment, and personal abuse, from political rhetoric. But in political rhetoric, supposed "hate" needs to be protected to a high degree, or it's the end of free speech.

@WeeBisom

Having been a regular of Gender Critical for many years, I think the sub was about as hateful as Mumsnet- which is to say it wasn't.I can see why someone wouldn't like it if they had a different theory about gender.

The fact that this discussion is even taking place is the main difference between MN & r/GC. I've made several comments about why I think one is hateful and the other isn't. I also think the mods make a huge difference.

And there was also a problem with r/GC users "brigading" other subs which I've yet to see on MN/FWR. That was pretty actively hateful

And just to illustrate the gulf between our perceptions - what you describe as a "theory about gender" is what I'd describe as 'my lifelong experience of myself'

The fact that this discussion is even taking place is the main difference between MN & r/GC

Very true, and that's one good thing MN has going for it, it allows discussion (even though posters themselves in FWR sometimes don't seem to want a discussion or try to hound you off if you speak up with a different opinion)
As in if you stay around, answer repeated questions at you, you're merailing, or ooo recipes, who knows about weetabix?! or if you go away like asked you apparently can't hack it and you've gone to do your knitting or bake a cake instead
WTF make your mind up lol

@MadBadDaddy
But Gender Critical wasn't a debate sub, nor did it allow feminism 101 discussions. If you popped onto Gender Critical crowing about your victory over the evil transphobes then yeah, you would have presumably been booted off for trolling. Brigading was never endorsed, and posters were banned if they brigaded. With regard to the gulf between our perceptions - this is a real problem. Women have the lifelong experience of being females in a deeply patriarchal society. The idea that a male could have an experience of himself as a female is something completely alien to many women - how could that be true? And how offensive for one of our oppressors to say that not only is he one of us, but he is actually the most oppressed! And isn't it suspicious , or strange, that 'transness' as a phenomenon only occurs in the domain of sex - there is no such thing as trans age, or trans race, or trans class? This is just to say that from a female point of view this isn't mere 'theory' to us either.

This is just to say that from a female point of view this isn't mere 'theory' to us either.

Indeed.

And isn't it suspicious , or strange, that 'transness' as a phenomenon only occurs in the domain of sex
curious as to how that's suspicious or strange?

And isn't it suspicious , or strange, that 'transness' as a phenomenon only occurs in the domain of sex

I don't think so - it's because sex is the one true immutable binary characteristic of humans.

@LemonadeAndDaisyChains

It's strange to me that the only category that you can identify into is 'sex/gender'. This enables the oppressors of women, men, to claim a female identity for themselves and to frame women as the oppressors (which is very convenient if you want to, say, destroy the women's liberation movement.) White people cannot declare themselves to be 'trans black'. It would be absurd to see a white person take over Black Lives Matter and claim to be more oppressed than 'cis black people'. And it's the same for literally every other socially constructed category in existence. I can't just self identity as disabled, or as a child, or as a different nationality.

It's even more galling given that we are told that identity is all about how someone 'feels' inside. Well, if I feel like a six year old child (a feeling that I have actually experienced!) why can't I self identify as a six year old? But all of a sudden it turns out that my feelings aren't so valid at all. Reality takes precedence. If I claim to be a child I'm a liar or a fraud. Women seem to be the only group who aren't allowed to police the boundaries of their own identity.

Women seem to be the only group who aren't allowed to police the boundaries of their own identity.

I'd edit that to revise the word "seem" with "are".

The TWAW mantra and associated ideology is oppressive and misogynistic in its desire not only re-cast womanhood as a "concept" but also appropriate the experiences of being a biological female whilst simultaneously denigrating us as a demographic when we say we object to this.

The TWAW mantra and associated ideology is oppressive and misogynistic in its desire not only re-cast womanhood as a "concept" but also appropriate the experiences of being a biological female whilst simultaneously denigrating us as a demographic when we say we object to this

YY. They want to demote us to a third class.

Men

transwomen and other biologically male trans people

women and biologically female trans people

YY. They want to demote us to a third class

"They?"
I'm pretty sure "they" all don't, sounds a bit of a sweeping generalisation?
Maybe some do, who knows but bit much to claim as fact they're out to demote us all as women

Proponents of the TWAW gender identity ideology, lemonade. Not all trans people. Read the post I was referring to.

Maybe some do, who knows but bit much to claim as fact they're out to demote us all as women

People who support a TWAW ideology are absolutely "out" to "demote" women.

Look at the language.

The term "cis" has been deliberately coined and utilised in this debate to demote women to a sub category of their own sex.

It's a linguistic attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "woman" into a mailable concept as a route to render it meaningless as far describing an adult human female and the unique experience of womanhood.

In that sense I'd go further than the word "demote" and use the word "redundant" in terms of intent.

WeeBisom

Thanks for your thoughts
If I'd posted anything on r/GC I would have been insta-banned just by virtue of the other subs I belong to, never mind anything I'm likely to have said.

I agree our perception-gap is a real problem. The idea that a male could have an experience of himself as a female is something completely alien to many women - how could that be true? I totally get that. It was just as alien and incredible to me when I first had that same idea as a 6 year old.

I wrote a lot more than that but scrapped it as it isn't really on-topic. Another time maybe.

I think transfolk would have a much easier time if these TRA's were only more reasonable and rational. When I hear such things as 'we are real women' as if trying to convince people who know better, it just seems like all rationality has gone out of the window.

I understand you have a condition that deserves to be taken seriously, it really does, but stating that your condition is something that it isnt will never ever ever ever get you the results so many seem to be asking for.

I totally get that. It was just as alien and incredible to me when I first had that same idea as a 6 year old.

You didn't have an experience of being female at 6 - in your own words you had the "alien" and "incredible" "idea" of that being so.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the theory that (especially at aged 6) you did not have a "perception gap" rather are more likely to have rejected stereotypical "maleness" and in the absence of an alternative understanding that people can express themselves and behave in a way that's non conforming to their birth sex, chose to emulate a female identity.

Obviously this is a deeply personal question and I understand if it's not something you wish to respond to.

I ask not to be goady or disrespectful but rather expand my understanding of gender dysphoria in children and how it manifests.

Ok now perhaps you could explain why the r/jkrowling sub was banned as well?!

Not read the whole thread, sorry.

OP, why can't trans women be out and proud trans women and accept that they are not female, that the struggles come from the same place (very narrow gender roles and male violence) and work together?

We are natural allies. These have been feminist issues forever.

Why the antagonism which as far as I can see goes 1 way?

So, ashamed as I am to say it, I wimp out. I try to keep my own little corner free of weeds as I've described above, I'll sign a petition or upvote a post, but I guess that's all.

Good to know that while you’re willing to “wimp out” on things like rape and death threats, which have no impact on your wellbeing, psychologically or otherwise, you’re happy to make time to crow to the uppity women about your efforts in closing a Reddit forum.

Your solipsism is your own affair, of course, but women rarely have the luxury of gazing only at their own navel.

'I wrote a lot more than that but scrapped it as it isn't really on-topic. Another time maybe.'

Write it my friend. Why not?

MN is fine with off topic.

Thing is, the male and female experience of life is different from the word go.

Other thing is, many many girls want, and always have wanted, to opt out of their gender role. Forever.

Feminists have fought for women and girls to be seen as people. Not treated like women/ girls. I was a feminist before I knew what it meant because I noticed how I was treated due to my sex and I did not like it. I wanted to be treated as a person.

Many women are non binary/ non gendered in the modern terms. So under stonewall trans umbrella. But still we aren't listened to. Why is that?

DeRigueurMortis Generally I'll happily respond to any respectful (dammit even semi-respectful) enquiry such as yours but I would rather stay on-topic as anything I say is up for anyone's interpretation. That said, any theories I have read or formulated about my experience (including the hateful ones) are interesting but abstract. For the younger me, self-acceptance eventually trumped understanding, because there was no understanding, which might help explain the friction when the ROTW demanded understanding before acceptance. One recent idea tickled me though - that I was born somehow allergic to male socialisation.

ShinyFootball
Why the antagonism which as far as I can see goes 1 way?
I'm no saint, but if this thread held an antagonism competition I would be the proud owner of a wooden spoon.

Your solipsism is your own affair, of course, but women rarely have the luxury of gazing only at their own navel.

We do experience the impossibility of it though...

When 8 months pregnant aside from realising I couldn't bend over enough to tie shoelaces (or even see my feet standing up) I had the revelation that my navel was utterly obscured unless looking in a mirror.

Thankfully I wasn't the owner of the Mirror of Erised and potentially driven loopy by a reflection of successfully identifying into a pain free birth, lack of complications, sore breasts etc all to follow.