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 think the plan is that we do away with the safeguarding and then the magical day will arrive instantaneously. Or something...

The idea behind keeping women covered and in purdah is largely to do with male sexual desire - the idea that men cannot control themselves when confronted with female flesh; along with the idea that women are best suited to the private sphere, and men the public sphere. It is an extreme and dogmatic practice based on very primitive interpretations and thought processes.

“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.”

What user name did you use on those threads?

I’d be interested to go back and read the responses you received.

This is now using extreme and unreasonable acts to attempt to validate the removal of reasonable actions to protect female people.

Again, and it is like being on repeat, no policies or laws will provide 100% protection for female people.

It doesn’t have to though. What safeguarding decisions should do is minimise the risks of harm (not just sex abuse and assaults) to the people the safeguarding laws and policies are meant to protect.

This constant fall back to ‘but it isn’t ‘natural’ for humans to attack and assault each other’ is actually just another stream of philosophical theory. It will remain theory because there is no way to test it. It is a lovely ideal and I want to live in that space.

Please note that I am going to use attack/assault or other but that includes rape. I have found this dismissive discussion of rape over the past few pages to be uncomfortable. I cannot imagine how some people feel reading it.

But this constant fall back to nature vs society influence even has its flaws. Because when is instinctive behaviour completely uninfluenced by society?

And if you notice it keeps focusing on rape and therefore ignores other sex crimes that do not involve the male person raping someone.

So a woman should be able to dress how she wants and should not expect to be harmed.

A woman should be able to go out at night if she wants to and not expect to be harmed.

And good safeguarding protocols put in place in what should be considered single sex spaces should contribute to ensuring that that woman is not attacked or harmed for any reason as best those protections can.

Whether it is ‘nature’ or ‘power’ or patriarchy’ is frankly irrelevant to the needs and the aims that suit today. Right here. Right now.

This discussion about ‘nature’ is another distractive tactic.

@Lostcat
Keeping men and women and their bodies apart.
No. Keeping men out of spaces where women do not want to see men. No explanation necessary. Keeping men out of groups where women discuss issues , that men have no right to be part of the discussion (because the women don't want them to listen). No explanation necessary.

No means no. Even if you as a man are not used to be told no/no access. That is called privilege.

I can't believe we're catapulted back to the late 1800s, when women had to fight for public toilets, waiting rooms and separate coaches on trains, to be able to travel unharrassed or -molested. Because men thought it their absolute right to harrass women who were travelling alone.

"Violence against women on UK trains has risen by 50% in two years, it was reported this week. The news barely raised an eyebrow among my female friends, so commonplace are sexual assaults and aggressions on public transport. Society seems to be teetering at a crossroads, perilously close to accepting that being stroked, squeezed or grabbed at is just another mundanity of women’s commutes. Grim, but not unlikely. And hardly a crime. Right?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/17/bystanders-save-women-sexual-assault-violence

Yep, quite happy for that. Men, women with it's broad definition (i.e unisex) and then a space for the actual females who want it.

Though really the third space is the second one, as the third should already exist.

Because the poster is a male entitlement activist.

Yes agreed

There is no science behind gender identity - all you really have is personal testimony and the observations of those working with people with dysphoria.

Men, women with it's broad definition (i.e unisex) and then a space for the actual females who want it

Nope. This is not what I said.
A space for men (trans and not trans), and space for women (trans and not trans) - which is actually the status quo- and a third space for those whose boundaries mean they do not want to interact with anyone registered male at birth/ or with XY chromosomes/ or who is capable of impregnating someone/ or however it is you want to draw the line (as I’m not clear really).

😂

Thank you.

This leveraging of the Taliban has been really disturbing and you have articulated why.

Going back to the discussion about patterns of posting that can be recognised on fwr……have any regulars noticed a pattern of threads which contain useful information being subjected to an intense period of fwr-baiting, so that they rapidly reach 40 pages, close, and drop off the front page of fwr, thus ensuring that the useful information isn’t read by passing visitors over the coming weeks and months, in contrast to what would happen with a thread with a dozen or so pages?

you go ahead and have your thought experiment Lost with all its collateral damage to women, in the real world we will continue to protect and defend our mothers, sisters and children against men (not all etc etc) and their apologists

you have decided that the real world doesn’t matter as you have higher ideals - in fact you’re throwing women and girls under the bus

you are in a minority on here and in the real world and are lucky the wise, well informed PPs on this board entertain your nonsense

and [you] are lucky the wise, well informed PPs on this board entertain your nonsense

😂😂😂😂😂. Lucky? this has to take the prize for the most ridiculous claim on the thread. And there’s some stiff competition.

Good luck with changing the nature of biological sex and the physical differentials between males and females.

To my mind what you are doing is simply denying that there any differences, or else that those differences do not have to equate to different outcomes or potentials under any circumstance.

Why do you think we have single sex categories in sport? Do you not realise that without categories predicated on biological sex then women would rarely get the chance to win or to excel; and in many circumstances would be injured or even disabled by competing aginst males?

People who are bigger and stronger physically tend to have more power or control over those that are smaller or weaker; which is why children can be in a very vulnerable situation - as both adult males and females can control them with physical violence or force.

Males cannot become pregnant, and no matter how many weird and disturbing experiments there may be, they would never be able to sustain a pregnancy.

Yeah ive only seen posters laughing at it
everyone is able to get their head round it, 3rd spaces are suggested at least once a day on FWR

Yep. The ones you come back to after only a short time (a couple of hours usually) and it says '...... post has 320 new posts' and you think, ah, this is going to be a nonsensical shit show of TRA bingo.

It is a positive and liberating thing for women and girls to be able to have access to single sex spaces when in the public realm....why would you want to remove that on account of a ideological attachment to' equality'?

Surely you appreciate that females ovulate...and when they ovulate they can become pregnant. This fact makes women more vulnerable than males...since females carry pregnancies and then go on to have more responsibility for the ensuing off-spring. Likewise, females tend to have less upper body strength than males and any number of other physical differentials.This has nothing to do with patriarchy and is just a matter of biological reality.

When dealing with reality and flawed human nature - with the whole gamut of human behaviour that entails - we learn to take measures that safeguard that which we want to protect. We don't rely on highfalutin' ideas about the goodness of human nature.

If we imagine that toilets are organised in every pub, theatre, coffee shop etc. by 'Unisex with Woman feels', 'Unisex with Man feels' and 'Female with gender critical beliefs'. How long would it be before the male people with 'woman feels' begin to use the female (gender critical) loos?

Edited for spelling.

You know it is not just about rape or violence...its is about the privacy and dignity of one's sex in certain situations. Being free from the male gaze or from male influence and tendencies.

How long would it be before the male people with 'woman feels' begin to use the female (gender Critucal) loos?

half an hour….max

You'll find most people here have been advocating for third spaces for a long time.

Well the time spent on these posts have been worth it for me. I can see clearly that this ideology is built on a house of sand and can only be defended by appeals to unevidenced claims of subconscious sex and the benefits of boundary removal. I doubt very much it is going to be able to survive the sunlight it is now being exposed to irl, though it will still do plenty of appalling damage to real people in its death throes. And then, of course,@Lostcat and chums will inevitably claim that it was nothing to do with them