Feministing

> Can you name a example? Genuinly interested.

I'm not the right person to ask about this, but there's a list on the Nonbinary wiki[0]. (Remember to check the Further reading and References sections; Nonbinary wiki articles can be a bit hit-or-miss.)

Some of them "don't count" from a "sexuality/gender distinction" perspective, but that philosophy isn't universal in cultural studies, and I think it's starting to become less universal in mainstream feminism.

> And so here my initial comment is flagged as well, apparently from the other side.

So was mine – and a really trollish one's been vouched for, too. *shrug* That's just how these things go.

> Is there really no more middle ground?

Sure there is.

• Be slightly kinder than you have to.

• Don't get famous, and especially don't get internet famous.

You're doing it right already. I like to think I'm doing it right (but I think I'm getting into too many internet arguments for that).

> This is my problem with this whole debate, it polarizes and increases the rifts in society.

The whole "debate" is recent, and artificial; I suspect it only exists to create justification for the claim that trans rights are "controversial" (despite widespread public support in places like the UK).

Don't let yourself get sucked in. So long as you're not insisting when people say they don't want to engage[1] (even when they're being rude and you're being polite – remember, you might be the fifth person this week, and the other four…

Thank you for your honesty and self reflection. I really appreciate it.

> frankly, I don't know how I can help it.

Two things you can do are practice and self-education. Subscribe to http://geekfeminism.org and http://feministing.com. Reading those posts will give you the stories and information you need to understand the effects of your actions.

Then practice. You won't immediately be able to catch everything, so just focus on the things that make you hesitate. Those moments when I think "maybe I shouldn't say this", I almost always learn later that I was right. Use at hesitation to do a little analysis of what the effect of your words might be.

You can also practice in your head, or in conversation. When you're on the bus, think about things you said recently, and analyze them. Look for things that might've hurt people. When you're having conversations with people, think about what you would've said in that situation. Practice the analysis, and practice saying the right things.

You'll never be perfect, but you can TOTALLY get to the point where you're mostly not harming people. Which is an awesome place to get from the default for men, which is harming people over all day without having any clue.

If you look at wikipedia's contributor stats it's like 70% white†, college aged males. (Actually wikipedians are like 87% male. http://feministing.com/2011/02/02/why-are-only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-women/ )

they're working on improving the gender balance, but i suspect that the format will still retain this skew simply due to societal/demographic reasons.

I don't know that that means that there was any overt or covert racism, but there is definitely a contributor bias :P

† upon further investigation i have not been able to find references to racial demographics for wikipedia. Consider this hearsay.

If there are things that harm people, they should get banned.

Draw a clear line. But be careful where you draw the line. In the 50s, a reddit about interracial marriage might have been considered harmful and in some places illegal.

Wherever you draw it, remember the right is going to use it to say any subreddit about gays is actually about pedophiles.

And mob justice against people who violate your social norms goes both ways. In many countries that serves to further victimize victims of oppression, e.g. http://feministing.com/2012/10/18/well-you-did-dare-to-speak-in-public-so-i-guess-you-deserve-this/

> If you look at wikipedia's contributor stats it's like 70% white†, college aged males. (Actually wikipedians are like 87% male. http://feministing.com/2011/02/02/why-are-only-13-of-wikiped... )

When an all/mostly black country invents something like the Internet, and then creates a website like Wikipedia, and then most of the nerds it attracts to administrate it happen to be black male nerds, then, yes, you'll see a different demographic mix. But until that happens, you'll see demographic trends that are likely (and reasonably) going to be heavily influenced by their starting conditions.

I think you misunderstand the dynamics of, for example, host clubs. Women don't generally go to hosts seeking primarily sex - they tend to go seeking fantasy love & engagement-based interactions. Articles like [1] shine a bit of light on it.

I'm genuinely having trouble following your logic on this issue - it seems fairly obvious that heterosexual males are highly desirous of sex with attractive women, which creates a power dynamic based on that desire.

[1] http://feministing.com/2009/08/09/japan-male-hosts-and-female-customers-who-love-them/