this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
863 points (98.0% liked)

196

3087 readers
1949 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 89 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Yeah, honestly, screw the meme reply, what the absolute holy hell is "the intention of holding eggs" in your body?

I mean, pretty sure that covers a whole bunch of trans women and decidedly not a whole bunch of cis women, but that's besides the point. What did she mean?

I fear there is a whole pseudoscientific terfy rabbit hole behind this and I don't want to fall down that hole, but I kinda need to know if it's a slip of the tongue or what.

[–] Godort@lemm.ee 53 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's just regular misogyny this time, in that they only see "real" women as capable of giving birth, and then tried to cover up medical problems that would get in the way of that with the word "intention".

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

There are fights where wonen say you are a "real" mother only if you popped it out through the vagina, so no c-section.

Some people have so little to be proud about I guess 🤷🏼‍♀️

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I intentionally ate an egg sandwich this morning, guess I’m a woman now

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago
[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To me, it seems like she was going to only say "capability of holding eggs," then thought about it and actually realized it would exclude some cis women, so she added "intention" as if it meant "would usually be capable of" but just used a bad word to imply that. I could be reading into it a bit much though.

Of course, that wouldn't work either, since that could then include or exclude people with various assortments of chromosomes in which it's undetermined as to if they would or would not typically have eggs, and would also just open a whole meta argument about how early in the developmental process there would or wouldn't be "intention" for that to happen, which is entirely subjective.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ew. Yeah. The implication for a normal person is that the woman would be doing the intenting.

That's probably not the meaning or the implication. It's probably some religious/iusnaturalist nonsense where the intent is God's or nature's or somesuch. Gross.

Like, "oh, you can't have kids, but I meant you to, it's just an accident. You're just God's little mistake, you".

It really gets worse the more you think about it.

TERFS claim to be feminists, but they're really misogynistic and genital obsessed to the point where they consider women to basically be floating uteruses meant to be spitting out babies. Easily up there with the trad wives.

This "define a woman" thing has been going on for at least a decade and began with TERFs saying that it's easy to define a woman and exclude trans women from that definition - and then they defined a woman as an adult human capable of giving birth and were promptly informed that they just said that any women with menopause or fertility issues are not women. They've been struggling to prove everybody else wrong ever since, and they always come back to the ability to have babies.

What did she mean?

She meant god.

If you listen to some people talk about evolution or ancient mysteries of the body, they love describing things by their supposed purpose.

I had a long argument with somebody once, trying to convince them that sex wasn't for babies, even though that's what it often results in.

So like, evolutionarily, sex produces babies, that's why "it" "cares." But, a bird doesn't need to know what sex is or why it should want a baby to be motivated to do the thing that makes one. Similarly, a bee doesn't need to know that it's spreading pollen around, it just wants that sweet little flower juice.

I don't remember why this argument was important to have, but I do remember them just not getting the distinction between "does" and "meant to."

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’m very confused, isn’t the reply in support of trans people while the OP is clearly against them? Like why bother replying with that if you agree with the OP?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because I thought there was more than one interesting thing about this so I pointed a different one out?

I mean, I know the Internet rewards polarization, but I didn't realize it had gotten to the point where more than one concurrent observation was seen as controversial.

I guess you are misunderstanding "screw the meme" as implying I find the meme objectionable, maybe? I don't, I mean "ignore the meme for a moment, what's up with that other part of the response?"

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’m not asking why you replied. I’m saying why would the second person bother replying unless they disagreed with the OP. They sound like they’re in support of trans people, which would mean you’re disagreeing with that. But your comment doesn’t sound like you’re disagreeing with it, it sounds like you agree with them.

Your comment is very very confusing if you read the post as commenter number 1 saying something very transphobic, commenter number 2 giving a definition that disproves commenter number 1, and then commenter number 3 making a meme.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

if you mean the post in the image, only the second post is transphobic. the first says you can't "define a woman" without excluding people who are afab.

if you mean this thread, i just see discussion.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

You’re reading this completely backwards from me.

OP in the image sounds transphobic and the second poster sounds to be stating a definition of women that clearly includes trans people. What trans woman doesn’t have an intention to have eggs?