Categories
antifeminism empathy deficit entitled babies gender policing MRA reddit transphobia

Men’s Rights Redditors agree: Trans, intersex and genderqueer folks are silly and annoying and hinder true equality

Men's Rights Activists agree: This room oppresses them
This sign oppresses Men’s Rights Activists

Men’s Rights Redditors agree: it’s tough to be a man. Well, a cis man, in any case. And those silly trans people are making it worse.

On the Men’s Rights subreddit, one concerned fellow has discovered a possibly insurmountable obstacle standing in the way of true gender equality: A “Women’s Room” at the University of Queensland that, as a sign on its door notes, is open to “trans*, intersex and genderqueer people as well as cis-females.” The horror! 

The title of his post: It’s hard to call for equality between genders when stuff like this is so openly accepted by places like Universities.

Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, his post received more than a thousand upvotes, and inspired more than 300 comments. This will give you some of the flavor of the discussion:

Does cis not mean straight? I can't keep up with the bullshit they make up. permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]lanternkeeper 40 points 1 day ago  It means a person who identifies as the sex they were born; i.e. a man who is biologically male or a women who is biologically female aka regular people. I kind of feel dirty writing that. permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]Endless_Summer 44 points 1 day ago  So I was born with a penis, but I can identify as a lesbian woman and be free to use this bathroom? permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]ThePunHunter 43 points 1 day ago  Sure you can, and if people tell you otherwise, just tell 'em to check their privileges (because you have it really bad)! This world, man. permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]AlphaBetaOmegaGamma 2 points 1 day ago  So what are you telling me is that SJWs and feminists make up shit to do whatever they want with no consequences? Damn, I'm impressed. permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]pepe_le_pewpewpewpew 30 points 1 day ago  Sure, up until you saw this room, your gender was a social construct forced upon you by society, once you saw this sign you realized you were actually a woman all along. As soon as you left, evil social conditioning got the better of you again and you were socially obligated to identify as a man again. Damn you patriarchy! permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]Odz2427 1 point 1 day ago  Fuckin' cissy permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]krudler5 6 points 1 day ago  Isn't "cis" a recently-coined term? I can't recall having heard anyone use the term "cis-gender" before the last 3 or 4 years... permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold [–]Elvick 11 points 1 day ago  As the "opposite" of transgendered, it certainly is. I learned about Transgendered people in my early teens, I'm 26 now and I only started to hear "cisgendered" because feminists were using it to dismiss and insult men with it. lol The term should die, it serves no purpose other than to shame people. cis2

The lovely DavidByron2 — one of the subreddit’s most, er, colorful commenters — gets nearly 300 upvotes for suggesting that the poor beleaguered cis man who posted the picture should sue the school for sexual harassment. Naturally, this brilliant legal mind doesn’t actually know what cis means; he thinks it means “straight.”

cisbyron

Elsewhere in the comments, one fellow suggests that a cis man should make a point of going into the room and telling anyone who wants him to leave that they’re not allowed to discriminate against their gender identity.

Naturally, others are enthusiastic about this idea.

jimmywiddle 13 points 2 days ago  Me too, I would real world troll the shit out of that room. I would turn up in an elf costume once and claim I identify as elf kind and therefore don't even qualify as human. permalinksaveparentgive gold [–]mariners77 -3 points 1 day ago  And that's why people like you shouldn't be allowed. Nothing wrong with what the parent comment suggested. Go in there, be quiet, and tell people not to assume gender. But trolling just creates more hostilities between sides and makes things worse.

Yes, that’s right: the person suggesting that it might not be such a good idea to put on an elf costume and crash a room intended as a “safer space” for women, trans, intersex and genderqueer folks is the one that’s voted down — though even he thinks that invading the safer space would be just peachy.

Yet another commenter tells someone who identifies as a “gender fluid male,” that he “should go and see a doctor if your genitals are leaking fluid.” The jokester gets upvotes; the gender fluid male, who says he goes to UQ and that he “understands why [the room] exists,” gets downvoted below zero.

And Men’s Rights activists wonder why so many people think of their little movement as a hate movement.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

231 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lisa
Lisa
5 years ago

I should repeat what I also said before, ‘cis’ is a problematic term for intersexed people.

The reason is that the term ‘intersexed’ covers a very wide range of conditions and medical actions that were undertaken when they were born. So while ‘cis’ may be (sort of) appropriate for some intersexed people, it is not for others.

But again that is just misuse (or overuse) of a simple term. No term is going to be perfect and cover everyone and everything, that is just impossible. So it is important that people who use it do so appropriately and know its limitations and keep it to its specific meaning.

The term itself is not bad, misuse (or extending it beyond its definition) of it is though, but that is true for just about everything..

Lisa
Lisa
5 years ago

I will add that TG and intersexed people are natural allies, we share qute a few common issues. I personally know of none that don’t support intersexed people (I am sure there are some of course) and the ending of ‘early and often incorrect medical intervention’, plus easy access to corrective treatments for those damaged by that.

Basic empathy means that we TG people know what it is to ‘feel wrong’.
In our case it was we were born that way, in many intersexed people because of incorrect medical interventions as a child.

Note also that many intersexed people require corrective treatment and surgery later in life to fix what was wrongly done to them, which can be very similar (but not always of course) to what TG people require. So therefore we have a common cause making that readily (and cheaply) available, plus easily getting incorrect gender identification documents fixed.

So we have many common issues and causes. Sure there are significant differences, but I personaly think those are dwarfed by those commonalities we share.

Lisa
Lisa
5 years ago

On another note….The Duggers, MRA heaven.

Train men that sexual abuse is womens fault, train women that sexual abuse is womens fault…

“Holy Shit. This Is How the Duggars’ Homeschooling Curriculum Allegedly Dealt With Sexual Abuse.”
“All I can tell you about this tweet is that the Duggars are/were fans of Bill Gothard and that this sexual abuse “lesson” does appear to have been a part of his curriculum at one time.”

http://www.motherjones.com/contributor/2015/05/holy-shit-how-duggars-homeschooling-curriculum-allegedly-dealt-sexual-abuse

Love these bits:
“If Abused was not at fault”
“God compensated physical abuse by greater spiritual power”

“If you had to choose”
“If you had to choose between no physical abuse and being mighty in spirit. What would you choose?”

So, let me think about this… then men should always abuse women because it aids them spritually and women should seek out abuse because of the same reason? Interestng theory.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I’ll note that the repeated references to “bitterness” in Lisa’s link means a specific method of silencing abused women in certain fundamentalist Christian circles. Everyone is supposed to be “joyful” and any negative feelings of any kind are labeled rebellion or bitterness (or both) and censured. This is especially wielded against women, who are frequent victims of abuse in a society that puts women into the complete control of men. Women are supposed to forgive others (especially men, and most especially men in power, but everyone is included) for all transgressions, and if they continue to feel upset about the abuse they suffer, they are being “bitter” and subjected to more abuse until they successfully hide their feelings.

So: extremely toxic. In theory, the same silencing is leveled against men, but women suffer more from it because they are subjected to greater levels of abuse.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

The graph thingy confuses me. Like what exactly is it trying to say? It just seems so broken and out of order and not well written. According to the comments it’s trying to victim blame a shit, which is what I see under “Why did God let it happen?” but people are also saying that it says to forgive the abuser? I have no fucking clue what’s going on. It’s like reading a badly written Chick Track.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Forgive the abuser is under #10 – Prayer to Dedicate Body to God – near the end.

“Forgive offender – Turn over to God for His discipline or ask God to pardon.”

The grammar is kind of bad so it’s hard to understand in places, but everything that’s comprehensible is terrible.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

I really wish government would take a deeper interest in what religious people are teaching their children. Where does religious freedom stop?

Lisa
Lisa
5 years ago

I have a sad and cyncial feeling that some extreme Christians (especially in the US) look at the terrorist IS with its beheadings, gay killing and forced ‘marriage’ of 12 year old girls …with longing and a fond wish of “if only we could do that here”…. Or maybe I am being too cynical.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

(Spoilers for Fallout 3)

You know that family who was all bright and cheery and turned out to be inbred cannibals? That’s who the Duggars remind me of, but worse. So much worse.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@Jackie

That’s a simple question with a complicated answer.

The government does take an interest, but there’s nothing the federal government can do in the United States. Education falls under what’s called the “police power,” which is the power to regulate in order to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the public. The federal government is granted no police power in the Constitution, and so this falls to the states. The federal government can sort of indirectly influence the exercise of the police power by predicating the receipt of federal funds on states adopting particular standards, but it cannot, by fiat, issue orders as to how states must regulate.

State governments are much easier for local groups to influence. Few people, after all, hold that the state should prevent parents from raising their kids within whatever religious framework they believe. Once homeschooling is legal (which it is, AFAIK, everywhere in the US), so long as religious homeschoolers teach their kids the core curriculum required by the state, they can include whatever else they like to go along with it, and they often have legal support to include stuff exactly like what the Duggars use.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

Maybe standards should include that teachings should not harm the child in anyway, which includes teaching children to not report things to the police, like not reporting abuse to the police (not just an authority person, but an actual police officer), or things that could harm the children mentally, like telling them that abuse they get is their fault.

Hell, teaching them that somehow abuse is their fault should at least fall under some sort of child endangerment/abusement law since that’s how abusers silence their victims!

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Maybe standards should include that teachings should not harm the child in anyway,

You’ll have a long row to hoe to convince the justice system that teaching kids religion – even the extreme version the Duggars use – constitutes harm. Because that’s what you’re saying here. The module in question is clearly a religious indoctrination document. The American courts have repeatedly said that parents have a right to raise their kids into their religious beliefs, and indeed it would be extremely problematic to try to regulate that.

which includes teaching children to not report things to the police, like not reporting abuse to the police (not just an authority person, but an actual police officer), or things that could harm the children mentally, like telling them that abuse they get is their fault.

Let’s say you got a law passed that said these things. How would you enforce it?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

I didn’t say they shouldn’t teach their religion, I just don’t think they should teach things that harm people under the guise of religion, like the abuse graph thingy that was being taught to their kids. Teaching kids that abuse is their fault is wrong even if it’s part of someone’s religion, and considering that abusing kids is not protected under the law even if it’s done within a religious concept or by religious officials, it makes sense to ban teaching it.

And they could enforce it like they would any other place of teaching. The government would review the curriculum every semester or grade year and there could be surprise visits to homes to make sure that they are keeping with the approved curriculum. Interview the kids or something, too.

I don’t know how they handle homeschooling now but it should be handled just as regular schooling would be handled.

Or, if that can’t be handled, outlaw homeschooling and make sure any private schools are reviewed just like any other school, too.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I didn’t say they shouldn’t teach their religion,

Except that that is clearly a religious document, and it is, indeed, part of these people’s (odious) religious beliefs that women are subservient to men and need to forgive their abusers.

And they could enforce it like they would any other place of teaching. The government would review the curriculum every semester or grade year and there could be surprise visits to homes to make sure that they are keeping with the approved curriculum. Interview the kids or something, too.

That has problems on both the practical and moral levels. Practically, it would require a whole lot of money. Case workers already don’t have enough resources to keep track of all the kids in the foster system. Adding a bunch of kids who aren’t in the foster system to their caseloads would just not work. If we can’t get governments to fund social work to take care of the wards of the state, we definitely wouldn’t be able to get government to fund poking the government’s nose into everyone’s personal business.

It would also be extremely invasive, and treat every homeschooler like a felon on parole. I don’t think that would go over well, and it also has moral problems. There are plenty of homeschoolers who don’t teach this kind of thing, but you’d have to frisk them and their kids periodically just to make sure. That’s just as problematic as frisking every black man in New York three times a year to make sure he hasn’t bought a folding pocket knife.

I don’t know how they handle homeschooling now but it should be handled just as regular schooling would be handled.

Homeschoolers have to teach the same curriculum as public schools, but of course they can add anything additional that they like. Kids periodically have to pass GED-style tests to ensure they are actually being taught things, and the parents need to teach from approved curriculum packages.

However, if you forced these kids to go to public school, that would hardly stop the parents from teaching these things. You can’t stop parents from teaching their kids, except by seizing the kids and putting them into the foster system.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

A clearly religious document that normalizes abuse. That is clearly the problem. Freedom of religion shouldn’t excuse this. If they are teaching things that would enable people to break the law, the law should be above their religious right to do so. Otherwise you’ll be catching abuser after they abuse instead of preventing abuse. It’s like excusing teaching people to make pipe bombs and make them inconspicuous because of their religious freedom and then arresting them after they blow up a building.

The whole system should be reevaluated. Obviously there’s too many loopholes for assholes to get through.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Consequently, religions that teach, normalize or encourage abuse shouldn’t be protected under the law.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

A clearly religious document that normalizes abuse. That is clearly the problem. Freedom of religion shouldn’t excuse this.

And yet it does. I’m not saying that’s right, but that’s how American society is organized.

It’s like excusing teaching people to make pipe bombs and make them inconspicuous because of their religious freedom and then arresting them after they blow up a building.

We take mass murder more seriously than emotional abuse. You don’t even have to blow up a building to be arrested. All you need to do is have pipe bomb components in your possession.

The whole system should be reevaluated. Obviously there’s too many loopholes for assholes to get through.

You’re describing the tension between civil liberty and civil safety. In order for me to be able to go about my life unmolested, all citizens need a certain basic level of freedom. Any degree of freedom can be abused. Any degree of freedom. Even the freedom to leave the house can be abused, because I might use that freedom to go break into someone else’s house or beat up someone on the street.

The only way to eliminate all “loopholes” is to essentially put everyone in jail. That’s not only impractical, it is immoral.

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

3 What did the offender damage?
What parts do we damage with bitterness and guilt?

4 Why did God Let it Happen?
Result of defrauding by:
-Immodest dress
-Indecent behavior
-Being out of protection of our parents
-Being with evil friends?

6 If abused was not at fault

This is even worse then I would have thought it would be and I knew it would be fucking awful.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

The thing is is that this isn’t about an individual but a whole religion. Thousands, perhaps hundred of thousands of people, are teaching this shit to their kids. Not only are they harming their kids, they’re harming everyone else outside of the movement, as these kids, most likely the boys, will go out and practice what they were taught. They will go on to teach their children to ignore, take and continue abusing children and adults.

Plus, taking what I have heard about the Quiverfull movement, not only are they practically brainwashing their followers, they are trying to pop out as many kids as they can to take over the USA, like some cartoonish villains.

If anything, the government should reevaluate the whole bowel movement of cult on the fact that many of its followers need to seek psychiatric care once they are able to escape the movement. Obviously if they are harming people so much that they need therapy, they aren’t a fucking religion that should be around or tolerated.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Stupid italics. THOSE BRACKETS WERE CLOSED probably.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Thousands, perhaps hundred of thousands of people, are teaching this shit to their kids.

It’s not hundreds of thousands. The fundamentalist cult version of Christianity is extremely limited. It’s thousands, but not hundreds of thousands by a long shot. Obviously that doesn’t help the (mere) thousands of kids subjected to this stuff.

Obviously if they are harming people so much that they need therapy, they aren’t a fucking religion that should be around or tolerated.

There are a good many people in the US who would view an atheist bringing up an atheist kid as abusing the kid. Or a Muslim bringing up a Muslim kid. Many more than would condemn a fringe Christian group. Atheists are in much greater danger than Christians.

And, again, you can’t actually stop this. Even if you put the kids into public school, the parents can still teach the extra curriculum at home, and the only way to stop it would be extremely invasive, like taking the kids away. There’s no easy way to separate liberal Christianity from fundamentalist Christianity, and important moral reasons not to try.

I understand your point of view, and the curriculum is horrible. However, putting the government into people’s living rooms, literally, by mandating government agents to riffle through someone’s religious beliefs, is not the answer.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

Well, good it’s not hundreds of thousand. I thought I might have been going overboard but I wasn’t sure.

And, the thing is, that unlike many other sects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever they aren’t teaching their kids that abuse is alright. And, unlike those other religions, they don’t need therapy afterwards.

I mean, fucking literally, they need years of counseling to get over the shit they’ve learned, to get over their self esteem issues along with a host of other problems. Other than Scientology and Mormonism, I have never heard of any mainstream religion having that effect on people.

I am not talking about teaching people about Jesus, I am not talking teaching people about the bible or torah or quran, I am taking about people who are teaching their children to accept abuse as a part of their religion. I don’t know why you’re equating people saying raising kids as atheist or Muslims is abuse with actually teaching sexual abuse is the fault of the person being abused. I’m sure even people who think atheism and Islam are the devil’s work would at least equally condemn systematic sexual abuse, at least in the obvious way the Quiverfull movement goes about it.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I don’t know why you’re equating people saying raising kids as atheist or Muslims is abuse with actually teaching sexual abuse is the fault of the person being abused.

I’m not. The justice system would.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

The justice system is wrong then. And biased as fuck.

How the hell does any sort of religion or place of religion get deemed harmful enough to have it deemed hazardous to society? Or is that even possible?

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@Jackie

Is it wrong? There are more than enough people who need therapy upon leaving mainstream Christianity. Gay folks have it particularly bad, but, for anyone, going from a religion that gives you a gift-wrapped purpose in life to having to find your own meaning can be traumatic. People sometimes need therapy upon leaving Islam. If we condemn a religion based on people sometimes needing therapy upon leaving it, a lot of big religions are in trouble.

Additionally, there are hundreds or thousands of variations on Christianity. It may seem like there is a bright line here, but there isn’t. What do you do about sects that fall halfway between liberal Christianity and the Duggar version? What about those that go three-quarters of the way? Once the state begins to decide what is acceptable religious dogma and what isn’t, you open the door for some truly hideous state involvement in people’s personal lives.

Making this about religion is something of a red herring. The state generally draws the line at documented abuse, of people or of animals, regardless of whether it is done in the name of religion or not, but it has to fall within the usual areas that the state prosecutes. Saying abuse is great is not something the state cares about, and trying to make the state care about it in the case of religion, when it doesn’t care when religion is not involved, is not only hopeless, it’s a distortion of the problem.

The state is usually not interested in emotional abuse, for instance. It is unusual for the state to care about emotional abuse of even children, and the only involvement typically comes when a separating couple goes before a court to decide custody. It would be bizarre for the state to get all up in someone’s religion to determine of emotional abuse is taking place because they belong to a particular sect, and not give a rat’s ass about some other situation because the family belongs to a different sect.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@PoM

It is utterly wrong if it hurts people. I know that it’s not just the religion, but the way people interpret and teach it. I know what one Protestant church says somewhere is not the same as a Protestant church says elsewhere.

Maybe instead of religion as a whole, we should evaluate how each church/mosque/temple practices? Do they preach hate speech? Do they cover up abuse? Have the followers of this church been perpetrating crimes against certain people? If so, maybe that is something to investigate.

People will likely think of it as attack on the whole religion (coffFoxNewscoff), but it’s not, just confronting the people that are abusing people through religion. Certainly that would be manageable and reasonable response, right?

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

POM,
Thanks for having my back. As a secular homeschooler I can’t handle these sorts of threads anymore. This one hasn’t gotten bad, but I’m out just in case.

*pirouettes away*

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Maybe instead of religion as a whole, we should evaluate how each church/mosque/temple practices? Do they preach hate speech? Do they cover up abuse? Have the followers of this church been perpetrating crimes against certain people? If so, maybe that is something to investigate.

Again you have both a moral and a Constitutional issue of singling out specific groups for enforcement and not making enforcement uniform. It’s not like these problems are limited to religions. Terrible people exist everywhere, in every group. Additionally, because religion is privileged for Constitutional protection, by singling out religion for extra scrutiny, you’re going the wrong direction from a Constitutional standpoint.

Actually facilitating abuse is not legal, but most of the prosecution against those who cover up abuse is civil in nature, not criminal. You can get the abusers themselves criminally (sometimes), but the organization that covered it up can usually only be prosecuted in civil court, not criminal court. There are evidential and procedural reasons for this.

So you’re talking about something that has practical problems, Constitutional problems, and moral problems. It’s not feasible.

KL
KL
5 years ago

…aaand THIS is why cis males ARE the only gender group we dont want in ouf safe spaces. This is why.

Marchofdays
Marchofdays
5 years ago

word press has horrible comment configuration…

1 3 4 5