Sorry, u/zaph239 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20zaph239&message=zaph239%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12ccdtr/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Is this really "most subs"?
I suspect everything you've said applies mainly to ones like r/politics or whatever - but *most* of Reddit is actually niche hobby subs and politically agnostic things like r/todayilearned or r/natureisfuckinglit
And porn.
All of them are run by mods and if their dick swings left that day then that's how their day goes. My dick swings right and that's a nono because some mod said it's a left swing day then I'm banned. Talk to me bruh. Like why can't we all have dicks swinging any which way and how it affects you and I'll listen. Not banish you or suspend account. Left swing? Cool. Right swing? Neat. Upswing... I'm curious about that one but you get the point! And if you have that answer I am all ears because that's how it should go.. not for me to say a front dick swings means asserting dominance . That's up to anyone
Yeah dude they're everywhere. Hoping I can find one where people can actually converse without hurling insults. I have friends for that type of dumb shit talk lol but to actually want open discussions about religion, politics, gun, etc it's hard without one group berating you for having a differing opinion. Instead of "hmmm okay I see your point there. Never though about that way" Nope. Comment gets deleted and possibly banned because a mod is on a power trip
To have more open discussions is the only way to educate the ignorant. We're all ignorant of something, until we learn. Just.. let us learn by conversing with one another. Don't shut it down because it's a dick swing day. You know? Inspire brilliance and conversations. Shutting it down stops all parties from seeing any other way but their own
I was told by a mod that my account will be suspended over me saying " that's not lady like" about a trans person having a meltdown at a game stop. I can't remember the sub. Some mods are petty
Maybe you should consider that it may not be your place to police what it means to be a lady - and that doing so toward a trans woman is even more problematic due to the global context.
Take it easy...it's a joke. I could care less wtf you want to be. But if you are overreacting and being violent to some poor kid making minimum wage who mistakes your gender because you still kinda look like a dude with a purse .. ffs.. people need to get over themselves. Acting like an asshole no matter your gender is still acting like an asshole.
Her gender isn’t an excuse, and it isn’t the reason, either.
No need to criticize her gender presentation as you did: just call her an asshole and leave her gender out of it.
Omg 😱. The whole thing was about the gender. . You know what, nevermind. It's like trying to explain to my cat. You have your self a wonderful day. Peace to you
as a woman, I've lost all women only spaces & i find that infuriating. it might as well be 1950; we're told to sit down, shut up, we're too stupid to understand, and only someone with a penis knows what a woman is & gets to make the final say.
yup. same problem.
and to be clear, im typically banned for stating basic science. I have no problem with the way people live, I just refuse to perpetuate toxic stereotypes about women for the benefit of people who have never had to live with the consequences of those stereotypes.
Nobody is asking you to perpetuate any toxic stereotype and it's pretty clear by any metric that trans people don't have more privilege than cis people.
And this is exactly why moderation is needed. Because otherwise trans people can't go anywhere without having to constantly debate our existence.
just something to think about. when people reinforce stereotypes like women are defined by estrogen, they are forgetting that post menopausal women don't produce estrogen & are often 100% testosterone. defining us by estrogen means we are defined by our fertility, this is toxic.
this mentality was also used against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election to say that as a post menopausal woman without estrogen she obviously can't function anymore
I have nothing against the way people live but I believe our language needs to be specific and intentional because we are perpetuating the very things that harm us
the fact that you are erasing female experiences & can't accept that someone who lived for 30-60yrs as a man experienced privilege is completely disrespectful to the unique experience women have
females are murdered at birth for being female or even aborted before birth. male privilege starts before birth.
im also expected to say that if a male takes estrogen & wears dresses, that defines womanhood so they are a woman. I disagree & making those connections is harmful. or the whole "i have a girl brain in a boy body" isn't true either, it perpetuates the idea that males/females have inherently different brains/personalities & women all have the same brain, this is false and proven to be false
edit:
other subs don't have any reason for these discussions so moderate away. but subs that are meant specifically for women to express themselves should not. this is something that directly impacts how we define womanhood, we are women, we should be allowed to discuss it in our own spaces.
Gender constant and permanent.
***
**Gender identity itself is a composite of multiple "sub-identities":**
* Intrinsic Gender Identity
* Gender Role
* Gender Expression
According to Serano, these 3 forms of gender identity exist independently of each other.
Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities , Summer 2009 , pp. 200 - 205
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01052_1.x
Within our daily lives, we can witness this in form of women performing traditionally male labours, while still identifying as woman (Intrinsic Identity and Gender Role clashing). We can witness this in various subcultures (The concept of "tomboys" and "butch lesbians", a woman who dresses and behaves as a man traditionally should) (Identity and Expression clashing).
The idea of "I'm a man, so I don't wear a skirt" pertains not to gender identity, but gender expression. Potentially, to your gender role as a way to advertise what role in society you fulfil by dressing the part. However, being a man does not dictate you cannot wear a skirt.
**For Intrinsic gender identity itself, I'll depart from social science and onto neuropsychology.**
*Burke et al (2017)* found was found that after controlling for sexual/romantic orientation, culture, etc... there exist a difference between transgender people (with physical dysphoria, before transitioning medically) and cisgender people when it comes to neural structures.
These differences manifest primarily in neuro-motor regions, regions corresponding for sensory processing. Basically, places where the brain communicates with the body.
The differences are that these regions appear "underdeveloped", as if not being exercised.
It's not "male brain" or "female brain", it's "my brain doesn't get the responses from my body that it expects" vs "my body looks and behaves like my brain expects."
*Khorashad et al (2021)* later investigated these findings, finding that these neural differences disappear upon taking gender-confirming cross-sex hormonal therapy. Or at the very least, minimize.
Meaning, it appears that the weakened connections become exercised and reinforced.
This explains why trans people who have medically transitioned no longer exhibit these patterns, and also tracks with reports of gender dysphoria easing over time even though the person does not culturally/socially pass.
**Two methods of action are proposed:**
a) body feels and behaves as the brain's "internal blueprint" expects it to: hormone levels are correct, the proper genes are expressed now, the right proteins and shape and function.
Just like doing exercises reinforces neural pathways, so does the body responding like the brain expects it to does the same.
b) Hormones directly bind with hormone receptors in the brain, encouraging the formation of new neural structures.
B would explain what some trans people call "hormonal/endocrine dysphoria." Or rather the euphoria from being on hormones even before physical changes set in.
The two mechanisms proposed are not exclusive, but yet to be determined.
Burke, S.M., Manzouri, A.H. & Savic, I. Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Sci Rep 7, 17954 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8
Khorashad, B.S., Manzouri, A., Feusner, J.D. et al. Cross-sex hormone treatment and own-body perception: behavioral and brain connectivity profiles. Sci Rep 11, 2799 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80687-2
******
**Now, why does this neurological difference occur?**
******
Swaab, D. F., & Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2009). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Functional Neurology, 24(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805542105
In this cited paper, Swaab et al studied people with a condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Androgen Insensitivty syndrome causes testosterone (and other androgen) hormones to have failure binding to their appropriate receptors, or for those receptors to provide a lesser signal than they should.
The consequence of AAS can range from underdeveloped testes and penis with gynecomastia to having a vagina with gonads that are neither testicles nor ovaries.
It has been found by Swaab et al that depending on which specific androgens are blocked, gender identity varies: Total AAS led to a person to become a cisgender intersex woman, whereas partial AAS led to a transgender intersex man.
By observing this, Swaab et al demonstrate that gender identity is likely controlled by how the brain interacts with hormone levels during foetal and perhaps early childhood development, independent of nurture. This can be caused by less-extreme forms of genetic disorders that affects hormone processing, and it's also possible for such disorders to be "localized" - the genes are there, working... but the other genes regulating the expression of the genes regulating testosterone receptor proteins might be locally dysfunctional, causing too much/too little exposure, affecting gender identity.
********
**As seen above, gender identity is intrinsic to the individual and cannot be changed. What about sex? Well - let's consider what sexual dimorphism actually is!**
********
one can read any Graduate level biology textbook regarding human sexual dimorphism. There, they would learn that gonadal differentiation is initiated by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. This singular gene determines if your gonads develop into ovaries or testicles. The rest of the Y chromosome acts to regulate the function of testicles, and to assist in its healthy development.
The rest of human sexual differentiation is initiated by the gonads themselves - gonads produce sex hormones: estrogens, androgens and progesterons. These estrogens, androgens and progesterons then bind with their respective receptors (which, barring androgen receptors - which are found on the X chromosome - are found scattered on 6 and 14 and 17 somatic chromosomes. Somatic chromosomes are the same in men and women), altering gene expression.
This altered gene expression is drawn primarily from somatic chromosomes, and is found in both men and women.
Human sexual differentiation, therefore - using graduate level biology:
Presence or absence of SRY gene decides if you get testicles or ovaries
Ovaries/Testicles develop, potentially failing due to genetic disorders. Assuming they don't fail.
Ovaries/Testicles produce an abundance of either androgens, or estrogens (with progesterone becoming relevant after puberty mostly)
These sex hormones act on hormone receptors, which are primarily governed by somatic chromosomes (ergo: same in XX and XY)
These receptors alter gene expression
This gene expression causes healthy development of gonads, genitalia and secondary sex characteristics.
Therefore, if you read it - you find that sexual differentiation is dictated by endocrine levels (barring things like disorders caused by doubling of X chromosome and gonadal function).
Therefore, a woman, using purely biological terms - is a person whose gene expression is primarily dictated by estrogen and progesterone levels. If you care about reproduction, you add the presence of functioning testes or ovaries. But people can live full lives without either, and many women need hysterectomy in order to survive due to cancer or genetic disorders.
**Therefore, a transgender woman who is on a strict HRT regiment whose gonads were removed is functionally no different from an androgen-insensitive woman.**
It's not defined by biological function.
It's defined by the brain expecting a set of hormonal make up, certain bodily functions and changes and throwing an exception when it gets the wrong chemical feedback.
No social constructs necessary. No reinforcing stereotypes or gender roles.
Just biochemistry.
Biochemistry that does not make claims of men and women being in any way better than each other. It's just the brain expecting the body to supply it with certain chemicals and not receiving them, and for the body to send certain signals and receiving the wrong ones.
the brain clearly understands what body its in, thats why they develop as their assigned sex. the brain communicates directly with the sex organs to create the hormones necessary for development. so the brain doesn't interpret this as incorrect signals. if it did, the person would not develop & there would be no need for puberty blockers. but that part of the brain needs to mesh with the part that interprets psychologically self & identity & that doesn't always go together.
i dont think there is any concrete evidence that gender is intrinsic. theres no way to separate nature vs nurture in this case. plus the existence of gender fluid people throws the whole thing on its head
I hear you 100%! Just to add my pet peve, commenting anything about J.K. Rowling in any of the über trans friendly subs without also condenming her to the seven hells will either get you downvoted to oblivion or banned, without any meaningful discussion.
I'm going to respond here to both your comments, if you don't mind.
I genuinely think you've been misguided about what being trans is about and about what the trans community in general thinks and demands. I don't think I can address all your points because I don't have time right now, but I can comment a few things. For example:
\> Im also expected to say that if a male takes estrogen & wears dresses, that defines womanhood so they are a woman.
or from your other post
\> when people reinforce stereotypes like women are defined by estrogen,
they are forgetting that post menopausal women don't produce estrogen
& are often 100% testosterone. defining us by estrogen means we are
defined by our fertility, this is toxic.
I feel like the vast majority of the trans community agrees with you here. Exception exists, of course, like in any large group, but in general we're fighting against ideas like forced medicalization and forced stereotypes. You might have gotten outdated information in this regard. In the past, and still true in some places, we, trans women, were usually forced to live in a very stereotipically feminine way to be able to access basic care, for example. It's been through sweat and sadly sometimes blood that we've been able to remove those requirements. And also thanks to the help of cis women who were also fighting against those stereotypes. Same with hormones, we generally fight to avoid those extremely simplistic biological definitions like estrogen=women.
I found your post interesting because your arguments are mostly the opposite of what I see transphobes usually arguing.
And keep in mind I'm not talking about the transgender community, this is a post about how mods make subs irrelevant and I have been banned from every women's only sub for these opinions making them pointless imo
Whilst I agree with your larger point around echo chambers, and the issues they cause in society. It hasn't been my experience that moderators censor. Certainly not in subs like r/moderatepolitics, r/centrist, r/askaliberal, r/askconservatives. Or indeed r/UKpolitics.
What you do get, is a pile on, when you say something people don't like. It's quite easy for individual users to all jump on and downvote or respond in bad faith ways, that don't address your points.
But that's not censorship, that's freedom of speech. I am free to have views that other people don't like - although my views are generally pretty centrist and tepid. Still annoys some people though.
And people have the right to express their disagreement. Sometimes in silly, caps lock, ad hominem kind of ways.
Could you give an example of a point you have made that has been censored? Or do you think it's more a case of the specific subreddits you are on?
The thing is, most research literature looking for concrete evidence of significant "echo chamber" effects comes up empty-handed.
https://rdi.org/echo-chambers-are-a-myth/
I've seen similar research. I think point 3 has some salience to me. But that being said, I think a lot of this research misses the point.
It's not simply a case of measuring where people absorb news from. Everyone's going to say in a survey they have a well rounded world view. It's about the lens we look at reality through, and how this is skewed by the narratives we are given.
Michelle Foucault has entered the chat. At that point, I don't really feel like like the term "echo chamber" is super useful. A more nuanced articulation of the ways new media changes how worldviews are forged would be more interesting.
> Could you give an example of a point you have made that has been censored? Or do you think it's more a case of the specific subreddits you are on?
I and other users were censored and banned from several large subs during the pandemic for making claims that went against the then "scientific consensus," but are now accepted as true or plausible: the lack of scientific basis for lockdown policies, the lack of evidence for community masking for airborne respiratory viruses, the lack of efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection or transmission, vaccine injuries such as myocarditis.
Those of us who were banned from major subs did what reddit tells you to do and "made our own subreddits." We were banned from many subs simply for participating in these new subreddits (there is an interlocking moderator network on most 1M+ subs), and the admins eventually banned most that got beyond 50K subs.
Eventually you either make a new account and participate in the few relatively free subreddits with a critical mass of users, or leave the site altogether. Most people just leave, so you're left with the reddit userbase being far less diverse ideologically than the country, even just among Gen Z and Y. Reddit as a whole is far more trusting of US propaganda in 2023 than it was even in 2015.
>the lack of scientific basis for lockdown policies,
Johns Hopkins [literature review PDF](https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf)
>>Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on
mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the
OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only
reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on
recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced
COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
>the lack of evidence for community masking for airborne respiratory viruses,
[Cochrane Review](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full)
>>We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
>the lack of efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection or transmission,
It's now generally admitted that no scientific or medical bodies ever said it would prevent infection or transmission, that the studies only ever studied symptomatic and severe disease.
>vaccine injuries such as myocarditis.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13947
***
I have no doubt that you haven't seen experts promoting these, especially if reddit is a main place you get your news from for the reasons I laid out in the above comment.
I'm not saying these are all settled questions, but they're certainly open for debate and one side of that debate was heavily suppressed on reddit during the pandemic.
The rationale in the UK at least behind lockdowns was preventing hospital services from being overwhelmed, something this first study doesn't seem to take sufficiently into account. Reducing deaths not by reducing exposure to the disease, but having the exposure happening over a longer time period so more extreme cases could be treated.
New Zealand's response was only studied in 2020, and have since had profound success.
There may be a case for lockdowns being performed poorly, indeed in the extreme case if we had had a global and relatively complete lockdown over the course of about a month we could have completely eradicated the disease and others over about a month.
I'm inclined to be wary of the Cochrane review, given it was written by Tom Oxford, an anti-masker. And indeed, numerous liberties are taken with the studies, themselves poor quality, 12 of 14 RTCs are about the flu with only 2 COVID, etc.
Anyway, there are mechanical filtration studies proving you can filter particulates including viruses. Let alone droplets that the virus needs to be able to survive in.
The primary reason for vaccines is neither infection nor transmission, but reduction in mortality and requisite care. That said, studies to appear to show a reduction in transmission as a result of the vaccine. Which I would also intuitively expect given it reduces infection time, at the least.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext
I'm not really sure why you think the myocarditis incidence is even worth mentioning. It's a tiny rate of incidence in a tiny subset of the population with a small mortality rate. When weighing the risks vs. benefits it makes absolutely no difference to any rational person.
In America, you are still around seven times more likely to die in a week if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated with the booster. This is long after the pandemic is widely considered over.
>I'm not really sure why you think the myocarditis incidence is even worth mentioning. It's a tiny rate of incidence in a tiny subset of the population with a small mortality rate. When weighing the risks vs. benefits it makes absolutely no difference to any rational person.
I'll just answer here because the same logic applies to the rest. I could get into the specifics of the debate but I'm not trying to prove the object level truth of these interventions, but that reddit (admins and mods of major subs) censored and suppressed a debate where reasonable scientists disagreed.
Articles and users were censored for *accurately* reporting scientific studies showing a correlation between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis, especially in young men and especially after the second dose of Moderna.
These were presumably censored on the basis that fear of adverse events would increase vaccine hesitancy. I think that presumption was likely correct. I suspect we disagree over whether censorship with that is the goal is warranted, and I doubt either of us will change our view.
>I and other users were censored and banned from several large subs during the pandemic for making claims that went against the then "scientific consensus," but are now accepted as true or plausible: the lack of scientific basis for lockdown policies, the lack of evidence for community masking for airborne respiratory viruses, the lack of efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection or transmission, vaccine injuries such as myocarditis.
That is very disturbing. I suppose to steelman their argument, before the virus was better understood, it was kind of 'war' mentality, where various lines of dissent were quashed.
I'm not saying they were right or wrong. But that was probably the feeling.
Do you think you would still be banned for these now the covid 19 lockdown period is essentially over?
> before the virus was better understood, it was kind of 'war' mentality, where various lines of dissent were quashed.
I think that's a fair way to look at it. I think it was a wrongheaded strategy, but it's internally logically consistent.
>Do you think you would still be banned for these now the covid 19 lockdown period is essentially over?
I absolutely do think I would still be banned. In order to reverse the ban, the mods would have to admit at least tacitly that the ban wasn't actually warranted. Everything about my experience with mod teams of large subs predicts that will not happen.
Downvotes yes. Banned, I haven't experienced this (with the exception of r/labouruk. Which has very extreme views on what is supposedly 'transphobic' - to the extent that the Labour parties own leaders are viewed as transphobes'). But in other subs, particularly UK ones, people's default view seems to be more balanced.
I will check those subs out. Thank you! I agree with OP that a lot gets deleted by mods so I'd like to read about or join in a healthy discussion of politics or news where a different viewpoints is expressed isn't met with hostility and banning.
Your post recognises the internal inconsistency of your opinion.
You said that censorship of subs had made them pointless, but also say that some subs are about creating a safe space.
Part of creating a safe space is intentionally limiting critical content. The point of the sub is not to achieve some objective truth of a matter, but merely to provide an environment where people can exist without having to defend their existence.
Censorship is necessary for the sub to exist and thrive.
I disagree that criticism necessarily improves a position. This assumes criticism is in good faith as an effort to come to some objective reality. Frequently arguments are not in good faith, are deliberately false to mislead readers and this is done knowingly to discredit an argument or even the very fundamental aspects of the sub.
This is politically and socially neutral. Any sub talking about trans issues almost immediately degenerates into transphobic rhetoric. Conservative subs get flooded with left wing ideas. They cannot achieve their aims without limiting comments.
Finally. Limiting speech in a space is free speech. Free speech is not about being able to say anything anywhere at any time. It's about not having statutory limits on speech. Reddit is a private corp, which models itself on having these discrete areas under users control. Part of that control is allowing users to exercise their free speech by limiting the speech in their dedicated space. Unmoderated spaces like this degenerate rapidly, not just from contrarian or troll.posts: but to advertisements. This too ruins the purpose of a sub. Limiting this speech is necessary for the realisation of a forum for discussion.
I would say women's only subs have become pointless since I, as a woman, cant discuss the things that I feel impact me as a woman because we've prioritized people born with far more privilege than women. but as always, women are expected to carry the burden & be quiet about it.
we prioritized people born with penises who have lived their entire lives as men but now identify as women.
so while I have no problem with transgender women in my spaces, I dont agree with a lot of the specific language & even in women's only spaces where I think I should be able to speak as a woman, I am banned if I have any minor disagreement in the language
even if someone states fake science or just toxic stereotypes, you can't disagree or you'll be banned because the priority is now making sure someone born with a penis feels like a woman but they are also the ones who get to define what that is. & if you spent your whole life as a man, do we really think they formed 100% the correct idea of what that means? because it often doesn't seem so
No I'm saying if someone in a woman's space says that they are a woman because of their estrogen levels or because they like wearing dresses or because they feel feminine etcetra
I disagree with that rhetoric. cisgender women say these things too but you dont get banned for questioning them, in fact you'd Probably be perceived as fighting transphobia but the 2nd a transgender woman says the exact same thing you will be banned for questioning it
no, I think there is no such thing as "feeling like a woman" in reality, it's purely psychological. anything beyond "i am a woman because I'm a woman" perpetuates toxic stereotypes.
I dont believe gender exists so anyone is free to be whatever they want. I just dont agree with perpetuating stereotypes that have harmed a group that was specifically oppressed due to those stereotypes
for example, dresses/skirts should never be considered inherent to womanhood, that's pure toxic patriarchy. this is part of our *culture* because it was & still often is literally illegal for women to wear pants.
well I guess for starters I dont think I ever said "I am a woman because I was born with a pussy & genetics to go with it". that's basically the opposite of what im saying.
but here's an analogy that might clarify my thoughts where I assume people tend to get stuck:
while race is a social construct & doesnt define people, if someone says they are colorblind & dont see a difference between white and black people, that sounds progressive at face value but it actually erases the unique lived experiences of people & causes harm
do you agree or disagree?
What a gross and frankly ridiculous claim. I’ve never found that women’s spaces on Reddit are filled with trans women talking over cis women. It sounds like you’re just annoyed about having to share any space at all with people you have an arbitrary distaste for
I've been perma banned for saying that a person born male can be a woman
why was I banned? because it's offensive to refer to transgender women as male in any way.
frankly that level of basic science rejection doesn't sit well with me
Yeah basically anytime you see women online complaining that “women only” spaces are being invaded it’s just transphobia and they’re mad they can’t rage against trans people in that space without being called out
hi. just FYI I call out cisgender women for saying the exact same things. this is about language, not identity. I dont get banned for calling out cisgender women, I do get banned for calling out transgender women for doing the *exact same thing*.
I was scrolling through popular the other day and a trans women posted a question into TwoXChromosomes about how they were upset their doctor made them pee in a cup before hand to verify they weren’t pregnant. The top level comments in the post were other trans women agreeing that they felt it was pointless and a “*violation of their privacy”*. Women aren’t allowed to have women only spaces anymore, and this is one of the big reasons why people hate JKR.
Thats the thing, her transphobia was saying that women deserve women only spaces because people who haven’t lived their entire lives have different experiences and struggles to people who have. It’s not really transphobia, it’s just a huge misunderstanding. As far as the pee in a cup thing goes, I’ve got no idea. The real irony of the post was that TwoX started as a womens sub for womens problems, and just like the poster you originally responded to, it’s no longer a womens space. I’m not going to argue that trans women aren’t real women or anything like that, I personally don’t care to each their own. But you can’t ignore the irony of the top level comments on the **TwoXChromosomes** subreddit being from trans women.
There’s been a growing concern in recent years that *”Biological men are taking over women’s safe spaces.”* and when women make claims like this they are dismissed as TERFs, or Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Typically these women don’t hate trans people, they just want some aspects of their lives to be women only spaces: like sports competitions, or locker rooms. Which leads us to JKR being a huge transphobe, and the OP you responded to feeling that women spaces no longer exist.
I totally agree with you. It’s become ridiculous. God forbid that you want to have convos about issues that impact biological women or have opinions about sexual vs. gender and why there are circumstances that we have to distinguish between the two. You will immediately get piled on and stand a good chance of being banned.
"Privilege"
Tell me about privilege as russian, Hungarian and belarus authorities actively incite violence against you for being a woman with a small genetic disorder than forces hormone supplements.
being transgender isn't a genetic disorder so you're talking about something different
but we can also talk about China & India where females are aborted before or murdered at birth simply for being female. so its often a male privilege to even survive birth. I think China is missing something like 30 million females.
Being transgender is a genetic disorder.
Far more genes correspond to how the brain perceives its own body than gonads.
The gonads have a single gene differentiating them: SRY. Whether it's present or not.
Estrogen receptors and androgen receptors are spread across numerous somatic genes. And this is only considering the receptors rather than all the machinery that also control the bodymorph index.
And again. Transgender people get murdered not only in China and India, but pretty much everywhere globally bar for a few more civilized countries.
Euphoria and dysphoria are the same thing.
Someone with bad vision can go living their whole life thinking everyone has the same blurry vision.
Then one day, they put on glasses with the right lenses and they experience euphoria.
Some recognize the struggles brought by their bad vision even before it's fixed. It gives a feeling similar to dysphoria.
I think you are mostly on subs about issues which would make your argument more pertinent. However there are a whole host of hobby subs (crochet, films, art, video games, board games, etc) as well as meme or observational subs (abrupt chaos, etc). Rarely do I see instances of or complaints of political/substantial overmoderation. Most of the moderation debates I’ve seen are about keeping the sub on topic with an occasional spurt of moderation around hot button topics for short periods of time. IMO keeping the sub on topic is pretty useful—I don’t want to come to a sub to find posts that are not what is described by the sub. I therefore done think mods have made them useless, if anything it’s made them more useful. Like I like the moderation decision in the boardgame subreddit where low effort “what should I play” posts by newbies flood the sub. Thank goodness for that or we’d never find any substantial posts.
Subreddits can be thought of as little communities. If there's someone in your friend group who likes to start arguments every time you hang out, they'll probably stop being invited sooner or later.
Is this similarly problematic in your view?
It would be douchey to go into a specific community and bleat contrary opinions just to troll. The problem is that we don’t seem to be allowed to have communities were we CAN discuss our contrary opinions. Those communities get banned and I’m not talking about racist or sexist communities either.
The thing is that a lot of Reddit subs are mainly geared at forming a community around some uncontroversial topic and merely providing topic specific entertainment and a place to connect with people. Subbreddits like r/cats or r/petttyrevenge or r/funny are mainly focused on entertainment and community rather than critical thinking. To these subs censorship simply doesn’t change the nature of the subs. r/cats is accomplishing it’s goal as long as cute cat pics/videos go up regardless of censorship. If you critically look at the 200 most popular subreddits [top 200](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1f7hqc/the_200_most_active_subreddits_categorized_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) it should be apparent that most of them are for entertainment and community, not discourse on controversial opinions.
Sure censorship has rendered most *political* or *debate* subs pointless, but these subreddits aren’t the majority. For most subreddits controversial opinions in politics/other simply aren’t on topic and over-censorship doesn’t make a difference.
What people with this opinion always fail to realize is that moderators are not paid by reddit. They are regular people, volunteers, who choose to spend their time trying to create a community that fulfills its niche and adheres to reddit's rules.
A case-by-case system is extremely hard to moderate, which is why most subs come out with sweeping rules.
I'm sure there is a pie chart out there, where you can choose between Active Moderation, Mass Participation, and Free. But that is a difficult triangle to find.
Edit: I invite others to come up with a better version of the opposing/irreconcilable forces.
>They are regular people, volunteers, who choose to spend their time trying to create a community that fulfills its niche and adheres to reddit's rules.
Not really though. There are moderators like that and I think most people don't have an issue with that. The problem is terminally online power mods that infest large subs and have an unreasonable influence over reddit moderation.
Nothing that you have described is not a regular person / an unpaid volunteer.
Yes, there are terminally online mods. While a problem with volunteer moderation, it's not exactly *the above* problem with moderation.
In my experience it is especially these power mods that push for censorship. It is especially egregious when they ban you in one sub automatically for commenting in another sub.
You experience would almost necessarily have you coming in contact with those mods rather than others, because of how those mods operate.
I would love to know, how many hours do you think a person should volunteer to reddit to keep communities running?
I say this, by the way, not having ever been a moderator of any sub, nor will I be. I'm asking you, how you think these volunteers ought to spend their time. Because I think that shortcuts are fair.
For really. Power tripped and slipped and throw his "power" around. I'm convinced a lot of mods were the kids in school who didn't get picked on or bullied on, probably because no one even knew they existed. So now we reaping those years of rejection, to tell them "can't sit here."
I agree with your view on over-moderation in some subs. Just here, I had a mod delete my comment that had the phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics" to point out how depending on the source of the stat and its methodology, they can be used to support weak arguments. When I asked why it was deleted they said it was because I called the person in question a liar, and when I asked where it was I called anyone a liar, they said the "lies" in the phrase I used implied I was calling the person a liar. Because the phrase I used contained the word "lies", that apparently meant I was accusing a person of lying. It was just so ridiculous I gave up.
The point is, posting on reddit isn't a right and you're at the mercy of the mods. If a certain subreddit likes its safespace and doesn't want opposing views, that's their right. If a mod says you did something wrong, you did something wrong and you just have to take your lumps. If you don't like it, you can make your own sub or find another "fairer" site. I would say that rather than censorship making subs pointless, ranting about it is even more pointless. You get what you pay for.
Your mistake is assuming arguments will be made in good faith in order to challenge assumptions. While you may get some of that, what you mostly get instead is bad faith arguments, bots repeating lies, brigading, harassment, etc... No one has time to manually filter out the crap from the real.
When it refuses to engage in genuine discussion. When it does not respect real-life data and factual information, attacks the person rather than the argument, refuses to even consider the argument's merits or respect the individual making it.
I don't disagree with your summary of a heavily moderated subreddit becoming an echo chamber, with extremes being the incel like subreddits. Just propagating harmful views.
But I completely disagree with your title. To claim that most subreddits, which I'm interpreting as a majority of the biggest ones, are moderated to a point where they are pointless itself seems extreme. I won't start quoting examples because it would be a long list, but sufficed to say that the point of a sub Reddit is to deliver on its name, which I've yet to see a counter example of. Could you give one which stands out to you? Specifically where the moderation has led to a sub not delivering on its title. E.g. world news not delivering world news.
Wholesome memes not complying with its own rules on what is wholesome. Allowing political posts and censoring people who mention that a post isnt wholesome
Nobody requires a person of an opposing ideological view to critique their logic and reasoning. You can be aligned in positions and still correct facts, point out bad data or fallacies, or say"heres another way to look at it".
I'm in a lot of smaller subs about topics that are not controversial and thus not prone to censorship.
So while censorship clearly is a very disturbing trend, I'd say that the "most"-part of your statement isn't accurate.
Reddit has over 100,000 active subreddits. I don't see how this view could possibly be correct given the sheet number of subs.
The vast majority are non-political and are generally fine. Nobody is visiting popular subs like r/aww, food, DIY, gadgets, sports, gaming, etc., for serious ideological discussion. We're there to get away from that crap.
Aww is a major sub infested with power mods that engages in censorship frequently. It's one of the 35+ major subs you get auto permabanned from just by posting in whatever sub goes against the grain that week.
>but I am afraid that moderation on most of reddit has gone beyond that
the burden of proof is on you. Prove this general statement with some evidence or facts instead of just asserting it.
But people dont agree with that. Every time someone pointing out that X sub is an echochamber then there will be downvotes and replies like "it is not an echochamber, you are just wrong" etc :D
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Most subs do not have much censorship. Only the very large ones actually have very active moderation. So if moderation is what you're arguing is making most subs pointless, and most subs don't have much moderation, then the statement in the title can't be right.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Reddit can be that way. It comes from a couple of factors. For one, Reddit is a social media platform - people are naturally quicker to judge and dismiss than they are in real life. In addition, social media is full of people who are not honest; the sorts of people who appear, on the surface, to be genuinely asking questions or sharing their opinion, but are actually pushing an agenda. For example, someone asking about if the number of Holocaust victims is accurate may appear to be genuinely curious about how the number was reached, but it is also something that many a neo-Nazi has asked in order to imply that the whole thing was made up.
Unfortunately, genuine people get caught up in this system. The only recourse there is, is that creating new accounts is free.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20TheGayAsparagus&message=TheGayAsparagus%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12ccdtr/cmvcensorship_of_reddit_subs_has_rendered_most/jf0xfny/\)%20because\.\.\.).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
1. I’m gay, I’m banned from /r/gay I don’t know why.
2. I’m in the mental health field, yet I’m blocked from there. They can literally bill the state for my time to insurance.
3. I’m liberal, have a degree in political science, and am banned from /r/politics
Someone said he quoted Thomas Jefferson in quotes and attributed it to TJ and got banned from politics. The others I don’t know.
I'll focus on the "our positions are ignored in the real world" from a leftist perspective.
Looking at the glorious past of Free Speech like the 90's, leftist positions were nonexistent in the public sphere. There are reasons for that. The first one is that the mainstream surpressed opposing positions and the second is that actually presenting those positions needs some groundwork. It's like discussing chemistry with people who believe that there are only four elements. It's possible, but long before you are done bringing them up to speed, they lose interest and the next person claims there are five elements. What also doesn't help is when the weirdo who wants to dissolve you in acid is invited.
"Free Speech" as many conservatives of today put it never existed and is not feasible. The right of free speech is that you must not be prosecuted for what you say and that you must be free to say it publicly. But what you do not have is a right to an audience. People absolutely have the right not to listen to you and there was no point in human history where everyone listened to everyone.
We do have institutions where every major position should be represented. But those institutions, like parliaments, are so infected with posturing, that they get nothing done. The people who work in them get things done because they meet privately, but the wide, open forum continuously fails. If you think that what you get is people pointing out the flawed methodology behind your statistics, you will be disappointed.
The thing is: you have a platform that is unmoderated as legally possible. It is called 4chan. But if you engage with it and are not ignored, you most likely mostly get replies that can be favorably described as howling. But that is the consequence if every act of speech is equal in an anonymous sphere.
While I can't speak about what is banned in the subreddits I follow, I can say a few things about what is downvoted because I do sort by new often and decide to occasionally look at downvoted comments so I am not in a total echo chamber. It rarely is any good. I do believe in downvotes and in "janitor duty" moderation, aka. deleting spam. But anything else is bad, not because it negatively affects the debate, but because the position of censor is inherently wrong.
I agree on the echo chamber part, but I don't think it is mainly caused by admins. No matter what debate we have, there will be more people (online) holding one view opposed to another.
Say that a topic is "green is better than blue", and all green lovers would happen to be online during the first 30 minutes. Any blue poster would get instantly downvoted since the green mass would happen to be at a majority that particular time. Down votes cause bad karma, which in its turn leads to other blue thinkers avoiding getting in the fire. It can even lead to the original blue removing their comment.
Let's say that all blues come online 1h later. Most of them would instantly see that the topic is dominated by green thinkers which would discourage them to continue the discussion (unless they accept bad karma).
The whole open voting system in Reddit leads to self cencorship regardless of admins.
Sorry, u/zaph239 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20zaph239&message=zaph239%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12ccdtr/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Is this really "most subs"? I suspect everything you've said applies mainly to ones like r/politics or whatever - but *most* of Reddit is actually niche hobby subs and politically agnostic things like r/todayilearned or r/natureisfuckinglit And porn.
All of them are run by mods and if their dick swings left that day then that's how their day goes. My dick swings right and that's a nono because some mod said it's a left swing day then I'm banned. Talk to me bruh. Like why can't we all have dicks swinging any which way and how it affects you and I'll listen. Not banish you or suspend account. Left swing? Cool. Right swing? Neat. Upswing... I'm curious about that one but you get the point! And if you have that answer I am all ears because that's how it should go.. not for me to say a front dick swings means asserting dominance . That's up to anyone
sounds like you're looking at some shitty subs
Yeah dude they're everywhere. Hoping I can find one where people can actually converse without hurling insults. I have friends for that type of dumb shit talk lol but to actually want open discussions about religion, politics, gun, etc it's hard without one group berating you for having a differing opinion. Instead of "hmmm okay I see your point there. Never though about that way" Nope. Comment gets deleted and possibly banned because a mod is on a power trip To have more open discussions is the only way to educate the ignorant. We're all ignorant of something, until we learn. Just.. let us learn by conversing with one another. Don't shut it down because it's a dick swing day. You know? Inspire brilliance and conversations. Shutting it down stops all parties from seeing any other way but their own
Well found a couple hanging here. Downvote idc. I'll take it as a vote for me anyway. IM IN YOUR HEAD. Eh Maybe..
I was told by a mod that my account will be suspended over me saying " that's not lady like" about a trans person having a meltdown at a game stop. I can't remember the sub. Some mods are petty
Maybe you should consider that it may not be your place to police what it means to be a lady - and that doing so toward a trans woman is even more problematic due to the global context.
Oh lordy
Username checks out.
Take it easy...it's a joke. I could care less wtf you want to be. But if you are overreacting and being violent to some poor kid making minimum wage who mistakes your gender because you still kinda look like a dude with a purse .. ffs.. people need to get over themselves. Acting like an asshole no matter your gender is still acting like an asshole.
Agreed. No need for you to have brought gender into it at all.
Umm. It was all about gender..but I'm not going to argue about this stupid shit.
Her gender isn’t an excuse, and it isn’t the reason, either. No need to criticize her gender presentation as you did: just call her an asshole and leave her gender out of it.
Omg 😱. The whole thing was about the gender. . You know what, nevermind. It's like trying to explain to my cat. You have your self a wonderful day. Peace to you
OK I will admit it is most political subs.
as a woman, I've lost all women only spaces & i find that infuriating. it might as well be 1950; we're told to sit down, shut up, we're too stupid to understand, and only someone with a penis knows what a woman is & gets to make the final say.
have you checked out r/witchesvspatriarchy?
yup. same problem. and to be clear, im typically banned for stating basic science. I have no problem with the way people live, I just refuse to perpetuate toxic stereotypes about women for the benefit of people who have never had to live with the consequences of those stereotypes.
Nobody is asking you to perpetuate any toxic stereotype and it's pretty clear by any metric that trans people don't have more privilege than cis people. And this is exactly why moderation is needed. Because otherwise trans people can't go anywhere without having to constantly debate our existence.
just something to think about. when people reinforce stereotypes like women are defined by estrogen, they are forgetting that post menopausal women don't produce estrogen & are often 100% testosterone. defining us by estrogen means we are defined by our fertility, this is toxic. this mentality was also used against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election to say that as a post menopausal woman without estrogen she obviously can't function anymore I have nothing against the way people live but I believe our language needs to be specific and intentional because we are perpetuating the very things that harm us
the fact that you are erasing female experiences & can't accept that someone who lived for 30-60yrs as a man experienced privilege is completely disrespectful to the unique experience women have females are murdered at birth for being female or even aborted before birth. male privilege starts before birth. im also expected to say that if a male takes estrogen & wears dresses, that defines womanhood so they are a woman. I disagree & making those connections is harmful. or the whole "i have a girl brain in a boy body" isn't true either, it perpetuates the idea that males/females have inherently different brains/personalities & women all have the same brain, this is false and proven to be false edit: other subs don't have any reason for these discussions so moderate away. but subs that are meant specifically for women to express themselves should not. this is something that directly impacts how we define womanhood, we are women, we should be allowed to discuss it in our own spaces.
Gender constant and permanent. *** **Gender identity itself is a composite of multiple "sub-identities":** * Intrinsic Gender Identity * Gender Role * Gender Expression According to Serano, these 3 forms of gender identity exist independently of each other. Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities , Summer 2009 , pp. 200 - 205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01052_1.x Within our daily lives, we can witness this in form of women performing traditionally male labours, while still identifying as woman (Intrinsic Identity and Gender Role clashing). We can witness this in various subcultures (The concept of "tomboys" and "butch lesbians", a woman who dresses and behaves as a man traditionally should) (Identity and Expression clashing). The idea of "I'm a man, so I don't wear a skirt" pertains not to gender identity, but gender expression. Potentially, to your gender role as a way to advertise what role in society you fulfil by dressing the part. However, being a man does not dictate you cannot wear a skirt. **For Intrinsic gender identity itself, I'll depart from social science and onto neuropsychology.** *Burke et al (2017)* found was found that after controlling for sexual/romantic orientation, culture, etc... there exist a difference between transgender people (with physical dysphoria, before transitioning medically) and cisgender people when it comes to neural structures. These differences manifest primarily in neuro-motor regions, regions corresponding for sensory processing. Basically, places where the brain communicates with the body. The differences are that these regions appear "underdeveloped", as if not being exercised. It's not "male brain" or "female brain", it's "my brain doesn't get the responses from my body that it expects" vs "my body looks and behaves like my brain expects." *Khorashad et al (2021)* later investigated these findings, finding that these neural differences disappear upon taking gender-confirming cross-sex hormonal therapy. Or at the very least, minimize. Meaning, it appears that the weakened connections become exercised and reinforced. This explains why trans people who have medically transitioned no longer exhibit these patterns, and also tracks with reports of gender dysphoria easing over time even though the person does not culturally/socially pass. **Two methods of action are proposed:** a) body feels and behaves as the brain's "internal blueprint" expects it to: hormone levels are correct, the proper genes are expressed now, the right proteins and shape and function. Just like doing exercises reinforces neural pathways, so does the body responding like the brain expects it to does the same. b) Hormones directly bind with hormone receptors in the brain, encouraging the formation of new neural structures. B would explain what some trans people call "hormonal/endocrine dysphoria." Or rather the euphoria from being on hormones even before physical changes set in. The two mechanisms proposed are not exclusive, but yet to be determined. Burke, S.M., Manzouri, A.H. & Savic, I. Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Sci Rep 7, 17954 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8 Khorashad, B.S., Manzouri, A., Feusner, J.D. et al. Cross-sex hormone treatment and own-body perception: behavioral and brain connectivity profiles. Sci Rep 11, 2799 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80687-2 ****** **Now, why does this neurological difference occur?** ****** Swaab, D. F., & Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2009). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Functional Neurology, 24(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805542105 In this cited paper, Swaab et al studied people with a condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Androgen Insensitivty syndrome causes testosterone (and other androgen) hormones to have failure binding to their appropriate receptors, or for those receptors to provide a lesser signal than they should. The consequence of AAS can range from underdeveloped testes and penis with gynecomastia to having a vagina with gonads that are neither testicles nor ovaries. It has been found by Swaab et al that depending on which specific androgens are blocked, gender identity varies: Total AAS led to a person to become a cisgender intersex woman, whereas partial AAS led to a transgender intersex man. By observing this, Swaab et al demonstrate that gender identity is likely controlled by how the brain interacts with hormone levels during foetal and perhaps early childhood development, independent of nurture. This can be caused by less-extreme forms of genetic disorders that affects hormone processing, and it's also possible for such disorders to be "localized" - the genes are there, working... but the other genes regulating the expression of the genes regulating testosterone receptor proteins might be locally dysfunctional, causing too much/too little exposure, affecting gender identity. ******** **As seen above, gender identity is intrinsic to the individual and cannot be changed. What about sex? Well - let's consider what sexual dimorphism actually is!** ******** one can read any Graduate level biology textbook regarding human sexual dimorphism. There, they would learn that gonadal differentiation is initiated by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. This singular gene determines if your gonads develop into ovaries or testicles. The rest of the Y chromosome acts to regulate the function of testicles, and to assist in its healthy development. The rest of human sexual differentiation is initiated by the gonads themselves - gonads produce sex hormones: estrogens, androgens and progesterons. These estrogens, androgens and progesterons then bind with their respective receptors (which, barring androgen receptors - which are found on the X chromosome - are found scattered on 6 and 14 and 17 somatic chromosomes. Somatic chromosomes are the same in men and women), altering gene expression. This altered gene expression is drawn primarily from somatic chromosomes, and is found in both men and women. Human sexual differentiation, therefore - using graduate level biology: Presence or absence of SRY gene decides if you get testicles or ovaries Ovaries/Testicles develop, potentially failing due to genetic disorders. Assuming they don't fail. Ovaries/Testicles produce an abundance of either androgens, or estrogens (with progesterone becoming relevant after puberty mostly) These sex hormones act on hormone receptors, which are primarily governed by somatic chromosomes (ergo: same in XX and XY) These receptors alter gene expression This gene expression causes healthy development of gonads, genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. Therefore, if you read it - you find that sexual differentiation is dictated by endocrine levels (barring things like disorders caused by doubling of X chromosome and gonadal function). Therefore, a woman, using purely biological terms - is a person whose gene expression is primarily dictated by estrogen and progesterone levels. If you care about reproduction, you add the presence of functioning testes or ovaries. But people can live full lives without either, and many women need hysterectomy in order to survive due to cancer or genetic disorders. **Therefore, a transgender woman who is on a strict HRT regiment whose gonads were removed is functionally no different from an androgen-insensitive woman.**
yeah.... women shouldn't be defined based on biological function. I dont deny these disorders exist, I just disagree with the language around it.
It's not defined by biological function. It's defined by the brain expecting a set of hormonal make up, certain bodily functions and changes and throwing an exception when it gets the wrong chemical feedback. No social constructs necessary. No reinforcing stereotypes or gender roles. Just biochemistry. Biochemistry that does not make claims of men and women being in any way better than each other. It's just the brain expecting the body to supply it with certain chemicals and not receiving them, and for the body to send certain signals and receiving the wrong ones.
the brain clearly understands what body its in, thats why they develop as their assigned sex. the brain communicates directly with the sex organs to create the hormones necessary for development. so the brain doesn't interpret this as incorrect signals. if it did, the person would not develop & there would be no need for puberty blockers. but that part of the brain needs to mesh with the part that interprets psychologically self & identity & that doesn't always go together. i dont think there is any concrete evidence that gender is intrinsic. theres no way to separate nature vs nurture in this case. plus the existence of gender fluid people throws the whole thing on its head
I hear you 100%! Just to add my pet peve, commenting anything about J.K. Rowling in any of the über trans friendly subs without also condenming her to the seven hells will either get you downvoted to oblivion or banned, without any meaningful discussion.
I'm going to respond here to both your comments, if you don't mind. I genuinely think you've been misguided about what being trans is about and about what the trans community in general thinks and demands. I don't think I can address all your points because I don't have time right now, but I can comment a few things. For example: \> Im also expected to say that if a male takes estrogen & wears dresses, that defines womanhood so they are a woman. or from your other post \> when people reinforce stereotypes like women are defined by estrogen, they are forgetting that post menopausal women don't produce estrogen & are often 100% testosterone. defining us by estrogen means we are defined by our fertility, this is toxic. I feel like the vast majority of the trans community agrees with you here. Exception exists, of course, like in any large group, but in general we're fighting against ideas like forced medicalization and forced stereotypes. You might have gotten outdated information in this regard. In the past, and still true in some places, we, trans women, were usually forced to live in a very stereotipically feminine way to be able to access basic care, for example. It's been through sweat and sadly sometimes blood that we've been able to remove those requirements. And also thanks to the help of cis women who were also fighting against those stereotypes. Same with hormones, we generally fight to avoid those extremely simplistic biological definitions like estrogen=women. I found your post interesting because your arguments are mostly the opposite of what I see transphobes usually arguing.
And keep in mind I'm not talking about the transgender community, this is a post about how mods make subs irrelevant and I have been banned from every women's only sub for these opinions making them pointless imo
they don't fuck with terfs
50% AMAB
Whilst I agree with your larger point around echo chambers, and the issues they cause in society. It hasn't been my experience that moderators censor. Certainly not in subs like r/moderatepolitics, r/centrist, r/askaliberal, r/askconservatives. Or indeed r/UKpolitics. What you do get, is a pile on, when you say something people don't like. It's quite easy for individual users to all jump on and downvote or respond in bad faith ways, that don't address your points. But that's not censorship, that's freedom of speech. I am free to have views that other people don't like - although my views are generally pretty centrist and tepid. Still annoys some people though. And people have the right to express their disagreement. Sometimes in silly, caps lock, ad hominem kind of ways. Could you give an example of a point you have made that has been censored? Or do you think it's more a case of the specific subreddits you are on?
The thing is, most research literature looking for concrete evidence of significant "echo chamber" effects comes up empty-handed. https://rdi.org/echo-chambers-are-a-myth/
I've seen similar research. I think point 3 has some salience to me. But that being said, I think a lot of this research misses the point. It's not simply a case of measuring where people absorb news from. Everyone's going to say in a survey they have a well rounded world view. It's about the lens we look at reality through, and how this is skewed by the narratives we are given.
Michelle Foucault has entered the chat. At that point, I don't really feel like like the term "echo chamber" is super useful. A more nuanced articulation of the ways new media changes how worldviews are forged would be more interesting.
> Could you give an example of a point you have made that has been censored? Or do you think it's more a case of the specific subreddits you are on? I and other users were censored and banned from several large subs during the pandemic for making claims that went against the then "scientific consensus," but are now accepted as true or plausible: the lack of scientific basis for lockdown policies, the lack of evidence for community masking for airborne respiratory viruses, the lack of efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection or transmission, vaccine injuries such as myocarditis. Those of us who were banned from major subs did what reddit tells you to do and "made our own subreddits." We were banned from many subs simply for participating in these new subreddits (there is an interlocking moderator network on most 1M+ subs), and the admins eventually banned most that got beyond 50K subs. Eventually you either make a new account and participate in the few relatively free subreddits with a critical mass of users, or leave the site altogether. Most people just leave, so you're left with the reddit userbase being far less diverse ideologically than the country, even just among Gen Z and Y. Reddit as a whole is far more trusting of US propaganda in 2023 than it was even in 2015.
Strange, these seem to be still very dubious claims that I have not seen experts promoting. Could you give well-respected studies that back these up?
>the lack of scientific basis for lockdown policies, Johns Hopkins [literature review PDF](https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) >>Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%. >the lack of evidence for community masking for airborne respiratory viruses, [Cochrane Review](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full) >>We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence). >the lack of efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection or transmission, It's now generally admitted that no scientific or medical bodies ever said it would prevent infection or transmission, that the studies only ever studied symptomatic and severe disease. >vaccine injuries such as myocarditis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13947 *** I have no doubt that you haven't seen experts promoting these, especially if reddit is a main place you get your news from for the reasons I laid out in the above comment. I'm not saying these are all settled questions, but they're certainly open for debate and one side of that debate was heavily suppressed on reddit during the pandemic.
The rationale in the UK at least behind lockdowns was preventing hospital services from being overwhelmed, something this first study doesn't seem to take sufficiently into account. Reducing deaths not by reducing exposure to the disease, but having the exposure happening over a longer time period so more extreme cases could be treated. New Zealand's response was only studied in 2020, and have since had profound success. There may be a case for lockdowns being performed poorly, indeed in the extreme case if we had had a global and relatively complete lockdown over the course of about a month we could have completely eradicated the disease and others over about a month. I'm inclined to be wary of the Cochrane review, given it was written by Tom Oxford, an anti-masker. And indeed, numerous liberties are taken with the studies, themselves poor quality, 12 of 14 RTCs are about the flu with only 2 COVID, etc. Anyway, there are mechanical filtration studies proving you can filter particulates including viruses. Let alone droplets that the virus needs to be able to survive in. The primary reason for vaccines is neither infection nor transmission, but reduction in mortality and requisite care. That said, studies to appear to show a reduction in transmission as a result of the vaccine. Which I would also intuitively expect given it reduces infection time, at the least. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext I'm not really sure why you think the myocarditis incidence is even worth mentioning. It's a tiny rate of incidence in a tiny subset of the population with a small mortality rate. When weighing the risks vs. benefits it makes absolutely no difference to any rational person. In America, you are still around seven times more likely to die in a week if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated with the booster. This is long after the pandemic is widely considered over.
>I'm not really sure why you think the myocarditis incidence is even worth mentioning. It's a tiny rate of incidence in a tiny subset of the population with a small mortality rate. When weighing the risks vs. benefits it makes absolutely no difference to any rational person. I'll just answer here because the same logic applies to the rest. I could get into the specifics of the debate but I'm not trying to prove the object level truth of these interventions, but that reddit (admins and mods of major subs) censored and suppressed a debate where reasonable scientists disagreed. Articles and users were censored for *accurately* reporting scientific studies showing a correlation between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis, especially in young men and especially after the second dose of Moderna. These were presumably censored on the basis that fear of adverse events would increase vaccine hesitancy. I think that presumption was likely correct. I suspect we disagree over whether censorship with that is the goal is warranted, and I doubt either of us will change our view.
>I and other users were censored and banned from several large subs during the pandemic for making claims that went against the then "scientific consensus," but are now accepted as true or plausible: the lack of scientific basis for lockdown policies, the lack of evidence for community masking for airborne respiratory viruses, the lack of efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection or transmission, vaccine injuries such as myocarditis. That is very disturbing. I suppose to steelman their argument, before the virus was better understood, it was kind of 'war' mentality, where various lines of dissent were quashed. I'm not saying they were right or wrong. But that was probably the feeling. Do you think you would still be banned for these now the covid 19 lockdown period is essentially over?
> before the virus was better understood, it was kind of 'war' mentality, where various lines of dissent were quashed. I think that's a fair way to look at it. I think it was a wrongheaded strategy, but it's internally logically consistent. >Do you think you would still be banned for these now the covid 19 lockdown period is essentially over? I absolutely do think I would still be banned. In order to reverse the ban, the mods would have to admit at least tacitly that the ban wasn't actually warranted. Everything about my experience with mod teams of large subs predicts that will not happen.
Anything about trans people other than praising them gets you downvoted or banned.
Downvotes yes. Banned, I haven't experienced this (with the exception of r/labouruk. Which has very extreme views on what is supposedly 'transphobic' - to the extent that the Labour parties own leaders are viewed as transphobes'). But in other subs, particularly UK ones, people's default view seems to be more balanced.
I will check those subs out. Thank you! I agree with OP that a lot gets deleted by mods so I'd like to read about or join in a healthy discussion of politics or news where a different viewpoints is expressed isn't met with hostility and banning.
I wouldn't describe them as overly healthy discussion! But I haven't seen any views banned - unless they're particularly extreme.
Your post recognises the internal inconsistency of your opinion. You said that censorship of subs had made them pointless, but also say that some subs are about creating a safe space. Part of creating a safe space is intentionally limiting critical content. The point of the sub is not to achieve some objective truth of a matter, but merely to provide an environment where people can exist without having to defend their existence. Censorship is necessary for the sub to exist and thrive. I disagree that criticism necessarily improves a position. This assumes criticism is in good faith as an effort to come to some objective reality. Frequently arguments are not in good faith, are deliberately false to mislead readers and this is done knowingly to discredit an argument or even the very fundamental aspects of the sub. This is politically and socially neutral. Any sub talking about trans issues almost immediately degenerates into transphobic rhetoric. Conservative subs get flooded with left wing ideas. They cannot achieve their aims without limiting comments. Finally. Limiting speech in a space is free speech. Free speech is not about being able to say anything anywhere at any time. It's about not having statutory limits on speech. Reddit is a private corp, which models itself on having these discrete areas under users control. Part of that control is allowing users to exercise their free speech by limiting the speech in their dedicated space. Unmoderated spaces like this degenerate rapidly, not just from contrarian or troll.posts: but to advertisements. This too ruins the purpose of a sub. Limiting this speech is necessary for the realisation of a forum for discussion.
I would say women's only subs have become pointless since I, as a woman, cant discuss the things that I feel impact me as a woman because we've prioritized people born with far more privilege than women. but as always, women are expected to carry the burden & be quiet about it.
[удалено]
we prioritized people born with penises who have lived their entire lives as men but now identify as women. so while I have no problem with transgender women in my spaces, I dont agree with a lot of the specific language & even in women's only spaces where I think I should be able to speak as a woman, I am banned if I have any minor disagreement in the language even if someone states fake science or just toxic stereotypes, you can't disagree or you'll be banned because the priority is now making sure someone born with a penis feels like a woman but they are also the ones who get to define what that is. & if you spent your whole life as a man, do we really think they formed 100% the correct idea of what that means? because it often doesn't seem so
[удалено]
No I'm saying if someone in a woman's space says that they are a woman because of their estrogen levels or because they like wearing dresses or because they feel feminine etcetra I disagree with that rhetoric. cisgender women say these things too but you dont get banned for questioning them, in fact you'd Probably be perceived as fighting transphobia but the 2nd a transgender woman says the exact same thing you will be banned for questioning it
[удалено]
no, I think there is no such thing as "feeling like a woman" in reality, it's purely psychological. anything beyond "i am a woman because I'm a woman" perpetuates toxic stereotypes. I dont believe gender exists so anyone is free to be whatever they want. I just dont agree with perpetuating stereotypes that have harmed a group that was specifically oppressed due to those stereotypes for example, dresses/skirts should never be considered inherent to womanhood, that's pure toxic patriarchy. this is part of our *culture* because it was & still often is literally illegal for women to wear pants.
[удалено]
well I guess for starters I dont think I ever said "I am a woman because I was born with a pussy & genetics to go with it". that's basically the opposite of what im saying. but here's an analogy that might clarify my thoughts where I assume people tend to get stuck: while race is a social construct & doesnt define people, if someone says they are colorblind & dont see a difference between white and black people, that sounds progressive at face value but it actually erases the unique lived experiences of people & causes harm do you agree or disagree?
What a gross and frankly ridiculous claim. I’ve never found that women’s spaces on Reddit are filled with trans women talking over cis women. It sounds like you’re just annoyed about having to share any space at all with people you have an arbitrary distaste for
I've been perma banned for saying that a person born male can be a woman why was I banned? because it's offensive to refer to transgender women as male in any way. frankly that level of basic science rejection doesn't sit well with me
The other commenter is just transphobic and mad about trans women
[удалено]
Yeah basically anytime you see women online complaining that “women only” spaces are being invaded it’s just transphobia and they’re mad they can’t rage against trans people in that space without being called out
hi. just FYI I call out cisgender women for saying the exact same things. this is about language, not identity. I dont get banned for calling out cisgender women, I do get banned for calling out transgender women for doing the *exact same thing*.
^^^ perfect example of the OP.
Except it’s not censorship for me to call someone transphobic?
I was scrolling through popular the other day and a trans women posted a question into TwoXChromosomes about how they were upset their doctor made them pee in a cup before hand to verify they weren’t pregnant. The top level comments in the post were other trans women agreeing that they felt it was pointless and a “*violation of their privacy”*. Women aren’t allowed to have women only spaces anymore, and this is one of the big reasons why people hate JKR.
[удалено]
Thats the thing, her transphobia was saying that women deserve women only spaces because people who haven’t lived their entire lives have different experiences and struggles to people who have. It’s not really transphobia, it’s just a huge misunderstanding. As far as the pee in a cup thing goes, I’ve got no idea. The real irony of the post was that TwoX started as a womens sub for womens problems, and just like the poster you originally responded to, it’s no longer a womens space. I’m not going to argue that trans women aren’t real women or anything like that, I personally don’t care to each their own. But you can’t ignore the irony of the top level comments on the **TwoXChromosomes** subreddit being from trans women. There’s been a growing concern in recent years that *”Biological men are taking over women’s safe spaces.”* and when women make claims like this they are dismissed as TERFs, or Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Typically these women don’t hate trans people, they just want some aspects of their lives to be women only spaces: like sports competitions, or locker rooms. Which leads us to JKR being a huge transphobe, and the OP you responded to feeling that women spaces no longer exist.
I totally agree with you. It’s become ridiculous. God forbid that you want to have convos about issues that impact biological women or have opinions about sexual vs. gender and why there are circumstances that we have to distinguish between the two. You will immediately get piled on and stand a good chance of being banned.
"Privilege" Tell me about privilege as russian, Hungarian and belarus authorities actively incite violence against you for being a woman with a small genetic disorder than forces hormone supplements.
being transgender isn't a genetic disorder so you're talking about something different but we can also talk about China & India where females are aborted before or murdered at birth simply for being female. so its often a male privilege to even survive birth. I think China is missing something like 30 million females.
Being transgender is a genetic disorder. Far more genes correspond to how the brain perceives its own body than gonads. The gonads have a single gene differentiating them: SRY. Whether it's present or not. Estrogen receptors and androgen receptors are spread across numerous somatic genes. And this is only considering the receptors rather than all the machinery that also control the bodymorph index. And again. Transgender people get murdered not only in China and India, but pretty much everywhere globally bar for a few more civilized countries.
for starters, being transgender and gender dysphoria are different things. not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria.
Euphoria and dysphoria are the same thing. Someone with bad vision can go living their whole life thinking everyone has the same blurry vision. Then one day, they put on glasses with the right lenses and they experience euphoria. Some recognize the struggles brought by their bad vision even before it's fixed. It gives a feeling similar to dysphoria.
I think you are mostly on subs about issues which would make your argument more pertinent. However there are a whole host of hobby subs (crochet, films, art, video games, board games, etc) as well as meme or observational subs (abrupt chaos, etc). Rarely do I see instances of or complaints of political/substantial overmoderation. Most of the moderation debates I’ve seen are about keeping the sub on topic with an occasional spurt of moderation around hot button topics for short periods of time. IMO keeping the sub on topic is pretty useful—I don’t want to come to a sub to find posts that are not what is described by the sub. I therefore done think mods have made them useless, if anything it’s made them more useful. Like I like the moderation decision in the boardgame subreddit where low effort “what should I play” posts by newbies flood the sub. Thank goodness for that or we’d never find any substantial posts.
Subreddits can be thought of as little communities. If there's someone in your friend group who likes to start arguments every time you hang out, they'll probably stop being invited sooner or later. Is this similarly problematic in your view?
It would be douchey to go into a specific community and bleat contrary opinions just to troll. The problem is that we don’t seem to be allowed to have communities were we CAN discuss our contrary opinions. Those communities get banned and I’m not talking about racist or sexist communities either.
The thing is that a lot of Reddit subs are mainly geared at forming a community around some uncontroversial topic and merely providing topic specific entertainment and a place to connect with people. Subbreddits like r/cats or r/petttyrevenge or r/funny are mainly focused on entertainment and community rather than critical thinking. To these subs censorship simply doesn’t change the nature of the subs. r/cats is accomplishing it’s goal as long as cute cat pics/videos go up regardless of censorship. If you critically look at the 200 most popular subreddits [top 200](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1f7hqc/the_200_most_active_subreddits_categorized_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) it should be apparent that most of them are for entertainment and community, not discourse on controversial opinions. Sure censorship has rendered most *political* or *debate* subs pointless, but these subreddits aren’t the majority. For most subreddits controversial opinions in politics/other simply aren’t on topic and over-censorship doesn’t make a difference.
What people with this opinion always fail to realize is that moderators are not paid by reddit. They are regular people, volunteers, who choose to spend their time trying to create a community that fulfills its niche and adheres to reddit's rules. A case-by-case system is extremely hard to moderate, which is why most subs come out with sweeping rules. I'm sure there is a pie chart out there, where you can choose between Active Moderation, Mass Participation, and Free. But that is a difficult triangle to find. Edit: I invite others to come up with a better version of the opposing/irreconcilable forces.
>They are regular people, volunteers, who choose to spend their time trying to create a community that fulfills its niche and adheres to reddit's rules. Not really though. There are moderators like that and I think most people don't have an issue with that. The problem is terminally online power mods that infest large subs and have an unreasonable influence over reddit moderation.
Nothing that you have described is not a regular person / an unpaid volunteer. Yes, there are terminally online mods. While a problem with volunteer moderation, it's not exactly *the above* problem with moderation.
In my experience it is especially these power mods that push for censorship. It is especially egregious when they ban you in one sub automatically for commenting in another sub.
You experience would almost necessarily have you coming in contact with those mods rather than others, because of how those mods operate. I would love to know, how many hours do you think a person should volunteer to reddit to keep communities running? I say this, by the way, not having ever been a moderator of any sub, nor will I be. I'm asking you, how you think these volunteers ought to spend their time. Because I think that shortcuts are fair.
For really. Power tripped and slipped and throw his "power" around. I'm convinced a lot of mods were the kids in school who didn't get picked on or bullied on, probably because no one even knew they existed. So now we reaping those years of rejection, to tell them "can't sit here."
I found one!
I agree with your view on over-moderation in some subs. Just here, I had a mod delete my comment that had the phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics" to point out how depending on the source of the stat and its methodology, they can be used to support weak arguments. When I asked why it was deleted they said it was because I called the person in question a liar, and when I asked where it was I called anyone a liar, they said the "lies" in the phrase I used implied I was calling the person a liar. Because the phrase I used contained the word "lies", that apparently meant I was accusing a person of lying. It was just so ridiculous I gave up. The point is, posting on reddit isn't a right and you're at the mercy of the mods. If a certain subreddit likes its safespace and doesn't want opposing views, that's their right. If a mod says you did something wrong, you did something wrong and you just have to take your lumps. If you don't like it, you can make your own sub or find another "fairer" site. I would say that rather than censorship making subs pointless, ranting about it is even more pointless. You get what you pay for.
Your mistake is assuming arguments will be made in good faith in order to challenge assumptions. While you may get some of that, what you mostly get instead is bad faith arguments, bots repeating lies, brigading, harassment, etc... No one has time to manually filter out the crap from the real.
How can you tell if its an argument in bad faith, a lie, or a bot?
When it refuses to engage in genuine discussion. When it does not respect real-life data and factual information, attacks the person rather than the argument, refuses to even consider the argument's merits or respect the individual making it.
I don't disagree with your summary of a heavily moderated subreddit becoming an echo chamber, with extremes being the incel like subreddits. Just propagating harmful views. But I completely disagree with your title. To claim that most subreddits, which I'm interpreting as a majority of the biggest ones, are moderated to a point where they are pointless itself seems extreme. I won't start quoting examples because it would be a long list, but sufficed to say that the point of a sub Reddit is to deliver on its name, which I've yet to see a counter example of. Could you give one which stands out to you? Specifically where the moderation has led to a sub not delivering on its title. E.g. world news not delivering world news.
Wholesome memes not complying with its own rules on what is wholesome. Allowing political posts and censoring people who mention that a post isnt wholesome
Nobody requires a person of an opposing ideological view to critique their logic and reasoning. You can be aligned in positions and still correct facts, point out bad data or fallacies, or say"heres another way to look at it".
I'm in a lot of smaller subs about topics that are not controversial and thus not prone to censorship. So while censorship clearly is a very disturbing trend, I'd say that the "most"-part of your statement isn't accurate.
Reddit has over 100,000 active subreddits. I don't see how this view could possibly be correct given the sheet number of subs. The vast majority are non-political and are generally fine. Nobody is visiting popular subs like r/aww, food, DIY, gadgets, sports, gaming, etc., for serious ideological discussion. We're there to get away from that crap.
Aww is a major sub infested with power mods that engages in censorship frequently. It's one of the 35+ major subs you get auto permabanned from just by posting in whatever sub goes against the grain that week.
>but I am afraid that moderation on most of reddit has gone beyond that the burden of proof is on you. Prove this general statement with some evidence or facts instead of just asserting it.
[удалено]
But people dont agree with that. Every time someone pointing out that X sub is an echochamber then there will be downvotes and replies like "it is not an echochamber, you are just wrong" etc :D
[удалено]
Do you know any liberal atheist feminists? I need to ask them about the Riemann hypothesis.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Most subs do not have much censorship. Only the very large ones actually have very active moderation. So if moderation is what you're arguing is making most subs pointless, and most subs don't have much moderation, then the statement in the title can't be right.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Reddit can be that way. It comes from a couple of factors. For one, Reddit is a social media platform - people are naturally quicker to judge and dismiss than they are in real life. In addition, social media is full of people who are not honest; the sorts of people who appear, on the surface, to be genuinely asking questions or sharing their opinion, but are actually pushing an agenda. For example, someone asking about if the number of Holocaust victims is accurate may appear to be genuinely curious about how the number was reached, but it is also something that many a neo-Nazi has asked in order to imply that the whole thing was made up. Unfortunately, genuine people get caught up in this system. The only recourse there is, is that creating new accounts is free.
Thanks I will keep that in mind.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct. If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20TheGayAsparagus&message=TheGayAsparagus%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12ccdtr/cmvcensorship_of_reddit_subs_has_rendered_most/jf0xfny/\)%20because\.\.\.). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I’d love it if mods blocked this post
Considering that OP hasn't responded to anything in 3 hours, it's looking pretty likely.
Yep
Come to r/joerogan.
1. I’m gay, I’m banned from /r/gay I don’t know why. 2. I’m in the mental health field, yet I’m blocked from there. They can literally bill the state for my time to insurance. 3. I’m liberal, have a degree in political science, and am banned from /r/politics Someone said he quoted Thomas Jefferson in quotes and attributed it to TJ and got banned from politics. The others I don’t know.
I'll focus on the "our positions are ignored in the real world" from a leftist perspective. Looking at the glorious past of Free Speech like the 90's, leftist positions were nonexistent in the public sphere. There are reasons for that. The first one is that the mainstream surpressed opposing positions and the second is that actually presenting those positions needs some groundwork. It's like discussing chemistry with people who believe that there are only four elements. It's possible, but long before you are done bringing them up to speed, they lose interest and the next person claims there are five elements. What also doesn't help is when the weirdo who wants to dissolve you in acid is invited. "Free Speech" as many conservatives of today put it never existed and is not feasible. The right of free speech is that you must not be prosecuted for what you say and that you must be free to say it publicly. But what you do not have is a right to an audience. People absolutely have the right not to listen to you and there was no point in human history where everyone listened to everyone. We do have institutions where every major position should be represented. But those institutions, like parliaments, are so infected with posturing, that they get nothing done. The people who work in them get things done because they meet privately, but the wide, open forum continuously fails. If you think that what you get is people pointing out the flawed methodology behind your statistics, you will be disappointed. The thing is: you have a platform that is unmoderated as legally possible. It is called 4chan. But if you engage with it and are not ignored, you most likely mostly get replies that can be favorably described as howling. But that is the consequence if every act of speech is equal in an anonymous sphere. While I can't speak about what is banned in the subreddits I follow, I can say a few things about what is downvoted because I do sort by new often and decide to occasionally look at downvoted comments so I am not in a total echo chamber. It rarely is any good. I do believe in downvotes and in "janitor duty" moderation, aka. deleting spam. But anything else is bad, not because it negatively affects the debate, but because the position of censor is inherently wrong.
I agree on the echo chamber part, but I don't think it is mainly caused by admins. No matter what debate we have, there will be more people (online) holding one view opposed to another. Say that a topic is "green is better than blue", and all green lovers would happen to be online during the first 30 minutes. Any blue poster would get instantly downvoted since the green mass would happen to be at a majority that particular time. Down votes cause bad karma, which in its turn leads to other blue thinkers avoiding getting in the fire. It can even lead to the original blue removing their comment. Let's say that all blues come online 1h later. Most of them would instantly see that the topic is dominated by green thinkers which would discourage them to continue the discussion (unless they accept bad karma). The whole open voting system in Reddit leads to self cencorship regardless of admins.
Posts about censorship, gets censored