r/GenuineFeminism

I didn't want to become someone who files reports. I wanted to write essays, make arguments, let the ideas do the work. But I've spent the last stretch of my life watching what happens when a woman makes a materialist, sex-based argument in a space that brands itself "uncensored" and "intersectional" and I've learned that the argument alone doesn't reach the people making the decisions. The removal notice does. The pattern does. The paper trail does.

So I started documenting. And now I'm reporting. Here's why.

This isn't about one bad moderator having a bad day. When I posted an essay defending the legitimacy of grounding personal womanhood in biological sex while explicitly, repeatedly, being inclusive of other forms of identity, it was removed twice, by two different and insulting rationales that contradicted each other. The first said my terminology was a slur. The second said the terminology didn't matter; the underlying claim itself was the violation. In between, my own words were rewritten back to me: a line where I explicitly said "my identity does not exclude yours" became evidence, somehow, that I was excluding people. A line where I named my own relationship to my own infertile body while explicitly including those without became, in a moderator's words, "essentialism wearing trauma."

That phrase is doing something specific. It's not a rebuttal. It's a reclassification taking a woman's disclosure about her own body and recasting it as a performance, a costume, a manipulation, and something to be excluded. It's the exact move my essay was naming: identity policing dressed as anti-oppression enforcement.

And it isn't new, and it isn't isolated. In 2020, Reddit's moderators replaced the moderation team of r/ PCOS a support community for a condition that only affects people with ovaries reportedly at the request of trans-activist mods, made the community private, and eventually banned it outright. When the original moderators tried to rebuild it, that got banned too. Reddit's own admins denied involvement, despite the replacement mod team's own pinned post crediting admin help. Women trying to talk about their own bodies, in a space built for exactly that, lost the space.

That's the category this belongs to. Not a rude comment. Not a disagreement about tone. A recurring institutional mechanism where sex-based female speech gets relabeled as hate, and the relabeling itself becomes the justification for removing it. Sex-based oppression.

Why reporting, and not just writing

Essays get read by the people who already agree, mostly. Removal notices get written by people with actual power over whether the argument gets to exist in a given room at all, or whether they even read it. If those people are misapplying a platform's own hate-speech and discrimination policies to punish sex-based speech specifically, inventing exclusion that isn't in the text, then removing the text for the exclusion they invented, that's not just bad moderation. On platforms with formal, sitewide protections against discrimination based on sex, it's arguably a policy violation the platform is obligated to actually look at, whether or not any individual moderator wants it looked at.

I'm not asking anyone to report people for disagreeing with them. I'm asking: if you have quotes in hand, the actual words you wrote, sitting next to the actual words used to punish you for writing them, and those two things don't match, send it up the chain. If you have faced sex-based oppression report it. Not because it feels good. Because it's the one channel that isn't optional for the platform to answer, the way an argument in a comments section is optional to engage with.

I'm not saying every removal is discrimination. I'm not saying every moderator acting badly is doing so because you're a woman. I'm saying: when the pattern repeats, sex-based speech relabeled as exclusionary without evidence of exclusion, personal disclosure relabeled as manipulation, and inclusive language quoted directly and still ignored, that repetition is itself the evidence. One incident is an incident. A shape that recurs across different subs, different moderators, and different years is a pattern. Name it as one.

If this has happened to you, if your own inclusive words got turned into an accusation, if a real disclosure about your own body got called a performance, save the notice. Save your original text next to it. And report it. Not because a report guarantees anything gets fixed. Because the paper trail is the only thing that outlasts the argument.

And I am tired of this sexism being institutionally sanctioned.

Feminism should be limited strictly to female liberation. Thats in and of itself intersectional because the female sex includes every race, sexuality, class, disability, and religion. We don’t need to include men to achieve this.

Modern liberal and "intersectional" feminists have diluted all of this. They expanded the definition of feminism to cater to men, complaining that because patriarchy damages men as well we HAVE to save them. It’s become another space where women are expected to do the physical and emotional labor for the very people who hold power over them.

We understand how insane this logic is in every other social or political circle. A labor union would NEVER invite corporate executives into their meetings just because the pressures of participating in capitalism cause high stress among CEOs. The purpose of the union is to protect the WORKERS. Even the civil rights movement had white allies, but the activists never changed a damn thing to focus on the consequences of racism that also affected white people.

It went from women being forced to fight for themselves because no one else would to it becoming an everyone club. And right when we started to see systematic changes too. Very convenient!

(A note to this sub. We have differences. I fully support trans rights and believe both gender and sex identities are valid within womanhood. We are not the same ideologically. But still, because of the state of the current extreme sexism towards females, this is one of the only places I can voice my knowledge. And so I will)

FEMs and SAMs sit at the volatile intersection of modern gender theory, materialist feminism, and online sociopolitical commentary. These terms describe extremist sex-abolitionist or identity-first frameworks that reinscribe misogyny under the banner of "progressivism."

FEMs (Female-Exclusionary Misogynists) describe perspectives that, in an effort to detach gender identity from biology entirely, minimize or invalidate female biological reality from the definition of womanhood, effectively erasing sex-based social analysis.

SAMs (Sex-Abolitionist Misogynists) refers to positions advocating for the total dissolution of sex categories in favor of gender-only identity, which ignores how patriarchy specifically targets and exploits biological female capacity (reproductive labor, femicide, female infanticide, etc.) and the lived womanhood of many women.

The challenge of dismantling rigid gender norms without erasing the material, sex-based realities that drive systemic oppression is live and real. And I have seen it fall into the latter category more and more.

We scream "intersectionality" and rightly include all forms of womanhood, gender identities included. But what happens in turn? The single most historically oppressed demographic is now denied even validity. Female identity is labeled invalid, vapid, shallow, and dangerous to others. That without capitulation to one's identity being centered on gender, on the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of women, your identity in womanhood is somehow more shallow and more patriarchal.

Let's break that down real fast. There is a belief that if a female does not ascribe to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expressions of "womanhood," she is supporting patriarchy. I'm sorry, but have we all lost our god damn minds? That is so patriarchal and SO MISOGYNISTIC AND SEXIST that it boggles the mind. And somehow it gets inverted into progressivism.

I never believed in "so far left you go right" until now.

Radical gender constructivism demands adherence to gendered performance for social validation, reinventing the very patriarchal logic feminism originally aimed to dismantle. It is the reemergence of gender essentialism. When "womanhood" is detached entirely from material reality and anchored solely in socially constructed roles, expressions, or internal feelings, it makes patriarchal gender stereotypes the baseline for legitimacy. The irony is stark: in trying to dismantle biological reductionism, hyper-constructivist frameworks often substitute it with performance reductionism. Under this framework, a female who rejects traditional feminine socialization or expression is framed not as a valid woman, but as a fundamentally flawed and empty one.

Materialist feminism focuses on how systems of power exploit physical realities, reproductive labor, maternal mortality, sex-selective abortion, sex-based violence, etc. Completely removing "female" as a distinct material category creates a severe structural blind spot. You cannot analyze or critique a system built on controlling females (patriarchy) if naming that biological reality is treated as inherently exclusionary or politically suspect.

Expanding inclusion for gender identity does not have to come at the cost of erasing the material, sex-based analysis required to dismantle misogyny.

The phrase "you are not your uterus" demonstrates a complete inversion: what began as a feminist defense against patriarchal objectification mutated into a tool for alienating women from their own material reality, identity, and choice. When that statement is turned against a woman who consciously chooses to ground her womanhood in her biological sex, the core feminist promise of self-determination gets inverted. What was designed as a shield against reproductive coercion becomes a weapon of ideological compliance to normative gender roles.

Feminism was built to expand a woman's choices, not narrow them. If liberation meant escaping the mandate that a female must be defined by her reproductive organs, it also meant protecting her right to decide how she relates to her own body. Telling a woman that her conscious, educated choice to center her female biological reality is "shallow" or "patriarchal" replaces old patriarchal rules with a new set of demands.

This dynamic creates a rigid ideological boundary. To be politically validated, a female is expected to treat her biological sex as irrelevant, unmentionable, or secondary. If she instead finds solidarity, meaning, or political relevance in her female body, her agency is dismissed as "internalized misogyny." It asserts that third parties know better than the woman herself what her relationship to her own body should be, a classic hallmark of patriarchal control disguised as enlightened discourse.

True bodily autonomy includes the right to embrace one's physical reality without needing permission or approval. When progressivism demands that women disavow their biological sex to qualify as liberated, it stops offering freedom from rigid norms and starts enforcing a new standard of female self-effacement.

Swapping forced subordination for forced disembodiment is not liberation. It simply changes who gets to tell women how they are allowed to feel about their own bodies.

FEMs and SAMs are an exclusionary danger to feminism.

To the FEMs and SAMs: as an infertile woman, I am my womb and my womb is me, and my identity does not exclude yours. Don't exclude mine.

Here's the post that was removed twice even with a lot of support and agreements:

>First off, I hate that I have to do this to not get harassed but I do. I fully believe what I am about to say but I shouldn't have to hedge my belief in sexes but I do:

>I fully support Trans Rights. I believe Transwomen are Women And Transmen are Men. I believe they should have equal rights and the forces that oppress them contested. I respect their gender identity and their chosen gender.

>Now.

>The female and male sexes exist. Plus some relatively rare intersex identities. They exist. They are material biological conditions/expressions and they have systemic implications.

>It is perfectly alright if someone personally does not identify with their sex, and does not want to engage in a feminism that uses sex in theory. That's a personal choice and philosophy.

>What is not, is throwing a harassment campaign and bullying women into submission for discussing sex based theory.

>That is not acceptable behavior. Full stop.

>It is not acceptable to try to forcibly deny an aspect of someone's personhood, especially an oppressed class because it personally makes you uncomfortable or is not something you identify with.

That's it. That's the post that was removed twice despite broad support.

And here is the reason given:

>FeminismUncensored-ModTeam

>Neutral

>Removed under Pro-Feminism and Love, not Hate.

>This post repeats a gender-critical framing that treats trans-inclusive feminism as harassment of cis women and centers sex-based theory as the line feminists must not be “bullied” away from. Even with stated support for trans rights, that narrative misrepresents trans people and trans-inclusive feminists, reinforces exclusionary sex-essentialism, and obstructs this sub’s anti-sexist, feminist mission.

>Since we are having a TERF infestation in the sub, we will need to remove even every single dog-whistle until the sub is functional again.

I am not a TERF.

I know what this is. And that's the oldest oppression know to humanity. And that is the oppression of the female sex, and body. This is sexism

Feminism has been co-opted to the point where a place designated as uncensored feminism censors the female existing at all.

The mods excuse doesn't identify a factual error in my post. It doesn't quote a specific line and say "this misrepresents trans people." It asserts that the framing itself stating that sex exists and that harassment over saying so is a problem, constitutes "sex-essentialism" and "misrepresentation," full stop. That's a definitional move. It redefines "sex exists as a material category" as inherently exclusionary, which means no version of my argument could pass, regardless of how it's hedged. I gave explicit trans-rights affirmation, explicit respect for gender identity, explicit statement that this is about material biology not gender- all things I very much believe in, and it was removed anyway.

Edit: r/FeminismUncensored * woops.

Edit 2: Every single one of my post needs preauthorized mod approval by the mod team now.

Edit 3: :( It seems I have not found the right place to speak what I believe. And I would like to reiterate what I believe:

• Sex is material and produces distinct patterns of embodiment, vulnerability, and historical oppression.
• Gender identity can be freely expressed and should not be met with discrimination, violence, or denial of ordinary civil rights.
• A trans woman does not share the same sex-based material conditions or the same historical sex-class oppression as a female person, and it is legitimate to say so.
• Holding both of the above does not require hostility, exclusion from society, or the claim that trans people are “evil.”

Trans people are people and deserve equal rights and they are not a negative monolith :(

Somalia has one of the highest rates of FGM in the world, but there are many different charities led by local women and/or survivors in general that are doing incredible work to change that. I wanted to boost this donation page to help get the word out. The Ifrah Foundation is run by a survivor as well. Even if you can’t donate please send this around.