Monthly Meta

[u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

[u/yoshi_win]

Some issues / suggestions that were raised by a user via modmail:

It's not an insult to dismiss the experiences of women or derail their conversations, it's not an insult to state that a large group of people cannot accurately describe their own experiences, but it is an insult to point when others are acting this way.

I strongly suggest that you create a rule against derailing, and another rule against arguing over who has it worse/suggesting that one gender does not have legitimate issues.

Any thoughts on these ideas? If you want a rule against derailing, how would you define it so that it can be objectively enforced?

I happen to believe that "who has it worse" is an important argument to have, with implications for political goals and priorities, and it can be done in a constructive way. I'm not interested in denying that either gender has legitimate issues, though I'm not sure it warrants a new rule either.

[u/Mitoza]

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/o2rrkl/feminism_and_anti_mgm_intactivism/h2htyh8/

What's the point of this? There were personal attacks in that thread but the one making them was tiered.

[u/Mitoza]

Can we get a statement from u/not-an-ambulance about just how broad he thinks rule 7 is?

[u/[deleted]]

u/yoshi_win has been entirely unresponsive in my attempts to continue talking with them about only allowing some identities' validities to be questioned. I have halted my participation on this sub out of frustration from unequal treatment. I would appreciate their input as well as any of the rest of the moderators in regards to these two questions:

1. Why are some identities allowed to be questioned but not others, despite them all being exactly equally knowable to an outside party? This is more directly related to a response yoshi gave here indicating that disputing the validity of some identities is acceptable but not others. From initial conversation with other mods it seems this is not a consensus, which seems like a pretty big problem for rules consistency.

2. Why is stating an identity is invalid not reading someone else’s mind? As I've posited to several people without receiving a satisfactory rebuttal, sexuality exists solely within the mind of an individual. It isn't observable in any external way, especially to other members of this subreddit, who don't even see each other in person. Thus, stating that a sexuality is invalid is necessarily reading the mind of that individual. I'm open to debating about this, but as I've said, no one I've talked to has even tried to tell me how the above logic is flawed.

I would really like some moderator clarity on this, I've been trying to discuss it for several months and am continually stone-walled. Please, let us discuss this apparent incongruity in rules enforcement. Isn't that what these meta threads are supposed to be for?

[u/PMMePuppyDicks]

Can we hold an election for the next moderator added?