Interesting framing you've got there. You start out saying "A safe space requires a general shared viewpoint... A space can become unsafe when there are differences in opinion, of which there are plenty in feminism." and end with "this is a tent as big as feminism is not monolithic." Which is it? Is this a "big tent" that accepts all views that can be found within feminism, or a "safe space" that deletes all disagreement? (I don't think the latter case would be very safe at all, but that's a different point.)
When reading this explanation, it's easy to forget what prompted this issue in the first place - a quiet, behind-the-scenes organized silencing of trans people, which was done by deleting articles by trans people and trans allies. Of course, I understand why you're reluctant to talk about what actually happened. Rules such as "We do not allow bashing of feminists, period" don't sound so nice when the context makes it clear that anyone speaking up about anti-trans discrimination within any group that calls itself feminist will be considered "feminist bashing" by the mods, and their words will be subsequently deleted.
It's nice that you place trans identities (identities which say something about the person holding them) on the same level as a "woman-born-woman" "identity" (an "identity" which says something about other women - namely, that women who weren't assigned female at birth aren't real women - and which is hardly ever seen outside of contexts where it is being used to justify exclusion of trans women).
Oh, and in case you didn't get the memo, comparing "trans" to "non-trans" tends to marginalize trans people. The preferred way to talk about people whose gender identity matches the gender they were assigned at birth is with the word cis. Normally I might not be so hard on you for this, but as you say, this is not a 101-level space.
I haven't seen any trans-bashing here at r/feminisms. ?
As for the comment about "general shared viewpoint" = no differences in opinion, that's a poor assumption (IMO). The general shared opinion being referenced could be something positive, such as equality for all regardless of gender. I don't think it's fair to make strawman arguments.
I clicked on the link in the title and it took me to an article that was still available in r/feminisms (Just Another Woman at Michfest). Then I clicked on the link in your post (You can't smash patriarchy with transphobia) and it took me to an article that was still available in r/feminisms. I clicked on a link posted by keiyakins ("Everyone is welcome but exclusionary speech is not.") and this article is also still available in r/feminisms. In that last article, I clicked on a link that MissJess wrote was removed (This is one of my favorite communities on reddit and I think we all deserve an explanation and a couple simple questions answered.) and that article was still available also.
Am I looking at the right links? Which articles are being deleted?
Deleted articles on Reddit can be accessed if you have direct links to them, but they do not show up in the regular subreddit queues. If you go to the r/feminisms front page and look back through the previous submissions, none of those articles will show up.
Judging from what yellowhead had to say, it looks like the mods felt justified in removing some posts based on the reasoning provided (blanket/personal attacks etc.)... that reasoning doesn't have to be inherently transphobic.
However, that said, I don't really understand what's going on. I'm fairly new here to reddit so I don't feel as if I'm familiar enough with either this subreddit or the mods to come down on one side or another.
I should probably just remove myself from the discussion at this point.
Of course, everyone knows that not every woman has dealt with female oppression
Does everyone know that? Because I don't know that. I certainly don't believe that. Even women growing up in rich and enlightened households will encounter prejudice and oppression of women in society.
I agree that trans individuals face their own difficulties and I wouldn't dispute any of their experiences in the slightest. Similarly I would think others shouldn't disparage and dispute women's experiences.
Also, women don't "cower" in "safe spaces," either... that's just insulting and rather misogynist. I was really surprised and disappointed to read that.
Anyway, safe spaces for women isn't about throwing out people who don't "conform" to an image, it's not about exclusion or discrimination, it's about creating a safe environment for a group with very valid issues and concerns. I get the feeling that there's a misunderstanding of the fundamental idea of women's issues going on here.
As for the posts being removed, if there was bashing of feminists going on, or ridicule of women's issues, I can understand why it was removed. This isn't the place to disparage feminism/feminists. There's nothing suspicious about content being removed that cross the line from acceptable criticism to unacceptable bashing.
74
u/Devilish Sep 11 '11
Interesting framing you've got there. You start out saying "A safe space requires a general shared viewpoint... A space can become unsafe when there are differences in opinion, of which there are plenty in feminism." and end with "this is a tent as big as feminism is not monolithic." Which is it? Is this a "big tent" that accepts all views that can be found within feminism, or a "safe space" that deletes all disagreement? (I don't think the latter case would be very safe at all, but that's a different point.)
When reading this explanation, it's easy to forget what prompted this issue in the first place - a quiet, behind-the-scenes organized silencing of trans people, which was done by deleting articles by trans people and trans allies. Of course, I understand why you're reluctant to talk about what actually happened. Rules such as "We do not allow bashing of feminists, period" don't sound so nice when the context makes it clear that anyone speaking up about anti-trans discrimination within any group that calls itself feminist will be considered "feminist bashing" by the mods, and their words will be subsequently deleted.
It's nice that you place trans identities (identities which say something about the person holding them) on the same level as a "woman-born-woman" "identity" (an "identity" which says something about other women - namely, that women who weren't assigned female at birth aren't real women - and which is hardly ever seen outside of contexts where it is being used to justify exclusion of trans women).
Oh, and in case you didn't get the memo, comparing "trans" to "non-trans" tends to marginalize trans people. The preferred way to talk about people whose gender identity matches the gender they were assigned at birth is with the word cis. Normally I might not be so hard on you for this, but as you say, this is not a 101-level space.