720
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
720 points (89.0% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19593 readers
4 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the issue is that there is no such thing as a "biological woman". Manhood/womanhood is an issue of gender, not sex, and gender is something that we collectively made up whose meaning varies from person to person and from culture to culture. The only person who is capable of saying "Person McFaceface is/is not a woman" is Person McFaceface.
Even if we were to interpret their comment to mean "sex", that isn't a simple binary yes/no kind of question. There is no single trait that determines maleness or femaleness, and lots of people have traits indicative of both sexes or of neither sex (or they were born that way then surgically altered shortly after birth), and sometimes those traits are so hidden and so internal that the person themself doesn't know about it.
But do you think it deserved to be removed? You could have answered that directly to the commenter
IMO, this is too strict.
I'm just enforcing the rules of this instance. Specifically hate towards any specific group (which includes rhetoric designed to oppress) is against the rules.
Sorry, not sorry. In fact, I took great joy in removing the transphobes from this comment section. I only removed egregious errors.
In a way you could say I'm maliciously complying with the instance rules.
I got that yesterday, why the encore?
use that tiny amount of power you say you enjoy so much and ban me. This good people circlejerk is of no interest
You've not said anything rule breaking, let alone transphobic enough to be banned. Saying unpopular things will not get you banned/comment removed.
Yes, I do. This is a space where trans rights and trans people are respected. That means that their existence is accepted as fact, not debated in the comment section.
There are numerous places and resources available for that person to educate themself, if they had chosen to do so before commenting. Instead, they chose to comment from a place of ignorance. We have no obligation to offer them that education here.
> if other people were forced to treat my every feeling with rubber gloves, I wouldn’t feel respected
It's a good thing that this isn't what's happening, then :) if people were treating trans people's every feeling with rubber gloves, then we wouldn't be four times as likely as a cisgender person to be the victim of a violent crime
We don't want the rubber glove treatment. All we want is to have the same right to bodily autonomy as straight white American men do-- free to go where we feel comfortable AND comfortable in our own skin wherever we go, with no one trying to legislate away our mastership over our own bodies.