Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”

[ConversingWithStrangers]

The only thing I can think of is posting on a UK sub about male violence. A man said that it’s not just men who have a problem with being violent because he’d been assaulted by a trans woman. I replied, “how did you know your assailant was trans?”.

They literally have subs for men to masturbate to videos of women who have a look of being “dead behind the eyes” they’ve been abused so much.

(It’s either that or somebody doesn’t like my crochet advice).

“I don’t think we have the data to say who has a “biological propensity” to commit rape.”

It’s in the legislation. Under England and Wales criminal law, the criminal act of rape is an act perpetrated with a penis.

Therefore, under England and Wales criminal law, rape is an act perpetrated by biological males.

The point being made is that sexual violence is not caused by biology; it is a social / political issue rooted in power and patriarchy. The solution to sexual violence is not a society built around sex segregation according to reproductive gametes (these solutions are oppressive, increase violence , and promote heteronormativity and patriarchy!); it is transforming structural inequalities and power imbalances between men and women,

but it doesn’t logically follow that sexual violence is caused by biology

Men are more able to rape women because on average they are stronger and can overpower them.

@Lostcat you're really really wrong.
"Protecting women and girls’ privacy / dignity / honour/ risk of sexual violence / rape/ pregnancy etc. is absolutely a very typical discourse/ narrative/ justification for sex segregation policies in these types of cultures/ settings"
No it's not! That's not what the Taliban are trying to do, and it's not what they think they're doing.
Is there any point repeating myself? The Taliban ARE NOT MOTIVATED by a desire to protect women and girls' privicy / dignity / honour or to reduce the risk of them experiencing sexual violence / rape or pregnancy.
There is another option for women who have been raped in Afgahnistan, if their family choose to let them live: they can marry their rapist. That's a whole life of exposure to sexual violence and rape that the Taliban sets them up for. Once again for the dummies, they are NOT motivated by a desire to protect women and girls.
You're hanging onto a well worn trope here for dear life, trying to shame women into dropping boundaries by calling them prudes, conservatives, shrinking violets. By suggesting that any desire they have to exclude male people from their company puts them in the same league as the Taliban, and must therefore be thoroughly illegitimate.
I know whose desires are illegitimate, @Lostcat. It's not mine, or the many women like me who say, "No." Get over it.

Why exactly do you think men have mostly been the ones who have controlled society for millennia, @Lostcat ?

@Lostcat you're really really wrong.
"Protecting women and girls’ privacy / dignity / honour/ risk of sexual violence / rape/ pregnancy etc. is absolutely a very typical discourse/ narrative/ justification for sex segregation policies in these types of cultures/ settings"

It's just sophistry, because Lost knows they aren't going to win the argument as to why women shouldn't have privacy and dignity when they need it.

"These sorts of policies are justified with reference to a “naturalised” account/ understanding of sexual violence (the type we are debating) - eg women should cover up their bodies because men can’t control their biological sexual urges ."
@Lostcat where are you getting your ideas about Islamic culture from? I respect that it's outing but I'm so curious to know what tertiary institution you're associated with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NinePartsofDesire
This book might interest you.
"The name comes from the saying by Ali: "God created sexual desire in 10 parts; then he gave nine parts to women and one to men."[4] William B. Quandt of Foreign Affairs wrote that in the view of Islamists, "Given women's incredible sexuality, restrictions are needed to preserve the welfare and stability of society."[5]"
The Taliban are Islamists. It's not male people they believe can't control their biological sexual urges. It's female people. That's why they must be contained.

And I would like to gently remind anyone tempted by @Lostcat 's ideology that there are real people being harmed. Young women with double mastectomies. Young people who will never experience orgasm and are now sterile. Desperate parents. Terrified female prisoners. I can hardly breathe sometime for the horror of it. If my life's work was a promotion of this ideology I would consider it a life very badly lived indeed. But I guess they are just collateral damage while we transform 'structural inequalities and power imbalances between men and women' by mangling words and ignoring safeguarding.

“The solution to sexual violence is…transforming structural inequalities and power imbalances between men and women,”

Says the poster repeatedly

• arguing that biological males who want access to women and girls in a state of undress should be entitled to have access to women and girls in a state of undress

• refusing to agree that women and girls have the right to say no to the access demands of biological males

• scornfully dismissing women standing up for the right to privacy and dignity of women and girls as “prudery” “profoundly conservative” “irrational” “childish” and equivalent to the Taliban.

The idea that a woman can protect herself from being raped by dressing “modestly” is an extremely widespread patriarchal belief. It is completely wrongheaded and rooted in patriarchy. It is founded on a naturalised understanding/ account of sexual violence.
Women shouldn’t go out at night to prevent men raping them is another one.
These are all part of the same logics - men naturally rape women; the solution to sexual violence? Keeping men and women and their bodies apart.

Yeah, put them together when the women are vulnerable so that the men can rape until they are exhausted and then we can build a better society

These are all part of the same logics - men naturally rape women; the solution to sexual violence? Keeping men and women and their bodies apart.

I simply don't want to share female only spaces with men for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity. You seem to be advocating for 100% mixed sex everything. Is that right?

These logics - sexual violence is natural , sex segregation by reproductive gametes is protective - are simplisms. They are both produced by and reproductive of patriarchal social systems.

So? It doesn't change the fact that most people want some spaces to be single sex for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity.

They may be common patriarchal beliefs but they're not shared by the Taliban. Their beliefs manage to be even more terrifying, if that's possible.
But while I'm in the mood for arguing, because you've pissed me off, I'd say that the belief that a woman can protect herself from rape by dressing modestly and not going out at night is a belief that desperate women cling to in communities / societies where they are utterly vulnerable to the whims of violent males. In the same way that lucky charms are clung to by impoverished people, not the landed gentry.
Also, I believe you are espousing beliefs, and striving to make social and political changes, that will render women more and more vulnerable to the whims of violent males.

Also, I believe you are espousing beliefs, and striving to make social and political changes, that will render women more and more vulnerable to the whims of violent males.

This.

we aren’t having much luck dismantling the patriarchy on a global scale so let’s stick with safeguarding until the magical day when men (not all blah blah blah) decide to be kind to us

Yes I know. The problem is it is the other way around, which is what I’m trying to demonstrate.

You haven't changed my mind, @Lostcat .
I still say "NO." Even accusing me of being a pawn of the patriarchy isn't working.
No.
I do not consent to sharing amenities, spaces, services, anything segregated on the basis of sex with male-body-sex people, whether or not they have a female-brain-sex or whatever it was.

I’m sorry to hear that @TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged

OK, since you're not swayed by facts or reality, how about this.

Why is "female people should be allowed to have a word for themselves and some single sex spaces and sports which do not include any male people however they believe they identify BECAUSE WE WANT THEM" not a good enough reason?

I don't care whether you're sorry. I want to know whether you can respect that boundary? Whether you will seek to override that withholding of consent?

Yes I know. The problem is it is the other way around, which is what I’m trying to demonstrate.

It's largely irrelevant which "way around" it is in terms of the actual material reality of males and females in the world today. Why are you pushing so hard for what males who identify as women want?

Absolutely you are entitled to your boundary. But you can’t expect the rest of society to organise themselves around your prejudice (apologies for being blunt), especially when it is oppressive and promotes violence.
Other people have needs and boundaries too.

I have often advocated for the provision of third spaces for gender critical feminists- and others who want to be separated based on reproductive gametes. But for some reason that makes posters on these threads even more angry and they can’t seem to even get their heads around it.

Whereas your solution, apparently, is to remove women and girls’ right to single-sex female-only male-free spaces when they are in a state of undress.

And your approach to “dismantling the structural power balances between males and females” is to campaign for males to get whatever access to women and girls they want but to call those males women. Because the humans whose wishes you prioritise are male. And by calling those males women, you rebrand your male sexual entitlement activism as radical and progressive.