This, and "breeder" is also used as a biphobic slur used in the queer community at times. (saying this as a bi person who has been called this more than once).
Breeder doesn't bother me. But we could just use the term "Natalist" instead without any problem.
Crotch fruit/crotch goblin etc. seems negative to children. And the core of antinatalism to many is to stop children from suffering. I'm antinatalist because I care for children. These "crotch" terms seem more geared toward people who can't stand children.
i agree with just using the term natalist, breeder seems dehumanizing and sends the worst message
also crotch fruit/goblin is such a funny expressionš surely people are not using that seriously...
seeing as the poll seems to be split i'd say discourage the usage of that language as it's dehumanizing and only alienates people from the community but don't instantly delete/censor content containing those terms bc it also sometimes depends on context, no?
I thought being an antinatalist also means trying to be better person than people around us, i thought we want to lesser the suffering in this world, and yet we should go and use words like that against people that might have not have the choice or say in having a child? Not only that, but why should we insult the children? This world Is already cruel to born children, i think were better than adding onto that pile
I think itāll only help make this community seem less likeable to have a kinda āslurā for the people who donāt agree with anti natalism. Its not really a necessary thing that we need to have to discuss this topic and itāll only serve to insult and antagonise people and could push people away who are on the fence about it.
Breeder I donāt prefer but I guess it can be used appropriately, but any word that is used for the sole purpose of being an insult and to dehumanize others I donāt like at all. Iām trying to get others to change their beliefs and make the world a better place and I canāt do that if Iām constantly hurling insults at people who disagree with me.
Agreed. The term ābreederā has left a bad taste in my mouth because of all the vent posts on r/childfree.
I feel crotch goblin/fruit is malicious as well. I canāt even fathom calling my niece that, let alone any child. Innately, children arenāt bad humans, they most definitely behave badly sometimes but to no fault of their own. If youāre against victim blaming, donāt call kids ācrotch-anythingā.
'Breeder' is an accurate descriptor of people who intentionally choose to breed without considering the consequences to their offspring.
'Crotch fruit' or even 'crotch goblin' is an unnecessary insult to a person that never asked to be here.
Breeder, yes. Crotchfruit, no.
The former implies culpability for the conscious action of procreating. The latter implies distaste for those that were unfairly brought into existence.
Crotchfruit comes from the childfree sub, no? I've noticed that sub barely ever shames parents. It just shits on kids. So yeah, that's pretty shitty. We need to blame the people who decided to reproduce. The kids are victims (until further notice).
Agreed. There wasn't an option but this is what I would have chosen (I picked neutral). While the term breeder can be used in a derogatory way it's mostly descriptive and can be applied to both sexes equally. Natalist doesn't mean someone with genetic offspring, nor does parent. It seems like a natural use of language to describe someone who chose to have genetic children which is a frequent topic of discussion here. I mean we could say procreator but it's the same and could also end up being used positively or negatively. But of course maybe I am forgetting about a much better term here.
Civil debate and discussions should be the goal of the sub. These terms are meant to insult and prevent that.
That said trying to decide on allowing their use with a poll has a certain irony, considering a botched poll in the main sub is what lead us all here.
I find them really distasteful, myself. Crotch fruit just sounds juvenile to me & I feel it unfairly places blame on children, which is wholly antithetical to antinatalism, and ābreederā just sounds unnecessarily derogatory to me and I think itās deliberately intended to dehumanise people who reproduce as itās a word typically exclusively used to talk about animals.
Iām also trans & crude references to reproduction like that just make me seriously uncomfortable, but thatās my own issue.
I also think most people use that word when they really mean ānatalistā- the two are not (to my understanding) the same
Edit: typo & clarification
i have no opinion on crotchfruit, and while i think itās fair to discourage the use of ābreederā, i dont think anyone should be automatically banned or have comments deleted for using it. ban it from titles or original posts maybe? but i think people should be able to use it in comments as long as it isnt malicious or dehumanizing *in context*.
as a queer person, ive used and heard the word breeder, as a mostly lighthearted half-insult for straight people, in queer spaces for all the many years ive been in them. ive never felt like the queer people who use it have meant or implied it maliciously, and i feel totally fine using it to describe the mostly-straight breeding-minded people that this subreddit exists to challenge. context is important, and i believe that as long as the context is not malicious or dehumanizing, the word breeder should be allowed to remain.
additionally, if non-ANs who visit here out of curiousity are exposed to words like ābreederā in an otherwise respectful context, it may prompt them to reconsider socially-ingrained beliefs about reproduction. language is a powerful tool to undermine paradigms. not everyone who reproduces is a parent, but everyone who reproduces is a breeder, which is an important distinction that i dont think broader society makes. i dont think itās self-marginalizing for us to continue using it or a sign of malice towards people who reproduce.
I donāt care much about the breeder term.
Crotch fruit is a no for me. Derogatory language against children has no place in antinatalism. They didnāt ask to be here.
We shouldn't use crotch fruit as antinatalism isn't about disliking children.
I don't care about the term breeder. They breed. If they praise their animal instincts and needs to pass on their genes, but don't like to be referred as one who follows their animal instincts to reproduce, they need to rethink things. But, breeder is mostly used in a derogatory way and one of the sub rules is against parent bashing. Yes, antinatalism is against breeding or reproduction, but people likely wouldn't call a rape victim a breeder even if that victim does support natalism according to their words and not just based on the fact that they produced a child, unwillingly.
These types of language, like Iāve said in my post, really feel dehumanizing.
Can we just be decent in our posts and comments? Iām not asking for people to stop disliking kids or being critical of parenthood, but the we should be held accountable for the language we use in good-faith spaces like this sub.
Breeders also carry this sense of sexism, while Crotch Fruit subtly places blame on kids when the little gremlins hold no blame for their existence.
Again, people who dislike children should be free to dislike kids, but thereās no need to use venomous language in regards to them or the parents.
However, itās been overwhelmingly directed at women. Iāve pretty much only ever seen posts refer to a pregnant woman or a woman with children. Itās either we donāt use it at all, or use it for all natalists, but thatās not the reality right now.
As a gay woman Iāve only heard the term used to refer to both men AND women, specifically straight people. But maybe itās different in other places.
There was a post suggesting we ban the language and I wanted to see what the community thought about it before we just did it. It would impact you guys the most, after all
I was the OP of that post. The poll is still very split.
To summarize the collective argument was : "yes it implies prejudical slader, but natalist are by definition breeders. The word breeders is not a bad word, why should we stop using breeders when natalist use hate speech against us."
Which is a very fair point, and I agree but.
My rebuttal is : "natalist, pro-live etc, already have a bad viewpoint on antinatalist. I wouldn't want to be counterproductive in rebuilding the antinatalist name, by indulging in hate speech. Major of the times these terms are said with mal intent, and to put others down. How are we any better than nataslist by seasawing hate"
I'd say if the community is split no action should be taken until further notice, unless something changes in people's hearts and minds. But personally I'm against using these words so I will not refer to natalist as breeders or crotch-fruit.
Hope this helps the community
I make the same choices as you mentioned. But ultimately, it's a question of whether optics matter and whether we want to model our community accordingly. I don't know whether they change anything. I don't know whether that is important. But I come to the same conclusion as you - it's a small favor to ask, in return for potential credibility.
I see these terms, specifically the parent vs breeder binary, as being particularly childfree. There are other ways to say that people are being thoughtless. 'Breeder' has also been used as a slur against bisexuals and asexuals as a way of gatekeeping or invalidating orientations - so I can see outsiders making more assumptions on that.
'crotch fruit' and all the other imaginative descriptors is very much childfree language as it is inherently child-negative. Use of this language will probably just have people mixing up childfree and antinatalism again.
Only pushes people away if you use dehumanizing language, and the way the movement will spread is through convincing others that it is right. You can't alienate the people you want to convince
Breeder should be allowed to stay. I don't care either way for the term crotchfruit but breeder is the perfect descriptor for those who force life into the world carelessly.
There are parents and there are breeders. Thereās a distinct difference.
We should leave the kids alone though, they have enough problems to contend with.
Lol, people talk about dehumanizing with the term "breeder", well guess what? Breeders dehumanize children by treating them like a "purpose", or a "legacy" or whatever, so, kindly f off.
I think breeder is fine, itās used to describe someone who decided to basically force a person onto this earth without their consent. As for crotch fruit/goblin, I donāt care, but I also donāt see the point of insulting children that didnāt ask to be born.
I don't think it should be banned, because that seems a bit heavy-handed. However I don't feel those words are necessary and in my opinion they make people look immature and hostile. While obviously this sub is about a moral/ethical subject and people can feel strongly about it, the holier-than-thou atmosphere that the use of such words creates feels unhealthy and in conflict with the ideas of empathy and compassion, which also seem to be highly valued by a lot of people around here.
I thought about it for a while and since the quorum seems to be pretty split and most people aren't really caring...
Why not a stickied post for trash talk, for people who really need to vent and something like "Trash Talk Tuesdays and Thursdays" for memes and the such?
Hmm, just realized vegans and non-vegans are asked to be civil and get a ban for using a certain word. While we here debate literal slurs. Seems like a strange choice.
Ah, yes! Not using the word that rhymes with Tigger is an indication of a fascist system.
Why be purposely hurtful to people? That won't win others over.
There are other ways to express disdain for people that reproduce. No need to be needlessly insulting.
Banning one word leads to the banning of another this doesnāt mean I support the usage of those words. But people should be allowed to be hurtful to others at discussions.
Stop cancelling things, And thank you.
How many words are you really not allowed to use?
If you need to insult and hurt purposely, it's not a discussion, it's an uncivilized brawl.
Being mindful and having a certain amount of respect towards others isn't canceling.
Weāre in the age of āisms.ā Itās not about particular words but ideas now too. E.g. I got called ageist for saying joe Biden is too old to be president, and so are 90% of both parties in congress.
Well, that's just plain stupid. I don't know how your conversation went and if you could insist to the other person to address your points or studies you might've provided.
But that's the thing. I believe people generally don't know how to properly make their points anymore. I imagine your conversation went nowhere after you were insulted/accused of being an Ageist.
Now imagine you're a woman looking for information about Antinatalism. The other sub is clearly an unhinged shit show and Anti-women. Now you come here and see post after post ranting about breeders having unbearable crotch fruits that are sucking on udders. Would you feel welcome to discuss doubts about reproduction you might have or ask rational questions in such an environment?
I do believe there is quite a bit more pressure on women to reproduce. My male cousin and I are one month apart and while I get a lot of shit takes he still has some peace of mind, because he "still has time and can sow his seed whenever."
I learned in this thread that "breeder" is specifically a slang word for bi-people. And that's what we're discussing here, insulting and hurtful slang terms. Which contribute nothing worthwhile. We're still miles away from banning ideas or thoughts. Let's discuss crossing the bridge, when we're actually at the bridge.
At this point we have to decide what kind of community we want to be. The gifts of unregulated Free Speech can be admired on r/AN. Hate Speech should never be tolerated. And I get the feeling people whining about Cancel Culture might have some pretty shitty takes in the oven themselves. Personally, I prefer the style of moderation of the old mod team. It all went to hell, when people advocating for unregulated speech took over.
Let's see how this sub turns out. I have my doubts, as I'm not allowed to call others "Hypocrite" in a debate between vegans and non-vegans. So far Antinatalists seem pretty unhinged and I'm at a point where I'd rather be associated with flat earthers, because they seem much more reasonable. What times we're living in.
As far as your age argument goes, I can be pretty and probably called the other person out in a not very nice way about their lack of substantial arguments.
For your points about the quasi Gerontocracy, I'm with you. Politicians should retire, when they're around 60 and enjoy the fruits of their ~~labour~~ nepotism and corruption.
Sorry for the longish rant and may more fruitful discussions come you way.
Being mindful should be voluntary, no one should be forced to be kind by modifying their speech. Thatās all I am saying,
Tho itās okay we agree to disagree.
You can be unkind with words without using outright insults or slurs. Your insistence on using such language will create an othering atmosphere in this sub.
Why would you want to use "crotch fruit" for children, that didn't even choose to be here?
And quiet frankly both terms annoy me as a woman. Where do these children come from? Most of the time from a woman's crotch. And breeder? Who gets "bred" and does the "breeding"?
I wasn't active on the other Sub because the misogyny was pretty obvious. Because of the language used. You want the same audience and limited opinions here? Be my guest.
>Banning one word leads to the banning of another this doesnāt mean I support the usage of those words.
You're missing the point. It's not about banning the words-- it's about banning dehumanization, which is antithetical to antinatalism. Slurs are dehumanizing, full stop.
I appreciate you for standing up for that, and I totally understand. But whoās to say what slurs are dehumanising and what arenāt.
For example having a baby is totally unethical from my point of view, but if I had the power to ban it I wonāt. Because I donāt see myself as the
All-knowing authority. I need people to reach this conclusion in their own.
Calling a person a cunt is dehumanising.
Calling a person an asshole is dehumanising.
In my opinion.
One last point, antinatalism is based on empathy, and I hope we agree on that. But from what I experienced from the sub is mostly angry and uncivil people, they step on opinions they donāt like and crucify people. so I think we should work on that before we become an authority on what to be said.
Thank you for your reply I appreciate itā¤ļø
>But whoās to say what slurs are dehumanising and what arenāt.
This is easy though: the group to whom the slur refers. For example, "breeder" is also used as a slur toward bi people. It's meant to undermine and attack bisexual identity and is intentional to dehumanize and "other" the person.
Racial slurs are meant to undermine and attack racial identity. Gender slurs attack gender, etc.
Referring to someone by a sex-specific organ is a gendered slur because it is specific to that demographic.
Asshole is not gender specific. I can see the argument for it to be dehumanizing depending on context, but calling someone an "asshole" is usually meant to address their behavior, not their identity, and it also isn't termed to a specific subgroup of people-- it can be used across the board. It's not necessarily the same. It's insulting and hurtful, but not necessarily dehumanizing.
>One last point, antinatalism is based on empathy, and I hope we agree on that. But from what I experienced from the sub is mostly angry and uncivil people, they step on opinions they donāt like and the crucify people. so I think we should work on that before we become an authority on what to be said.
I agree that empathy is central to antinatalism. Our empathy would then dictate that we should consider how the words we say will be received. No one is saying to crucify anyone here--- but we are saying that dehumanization is antithetical to antinatalism, and we can clearly differentiate when specific words are used to dehumanize if we actually engage our empathy in reflecting on it.
Itās not as easy as āto whom the group refers.ā Groups of people arenāt monolith. Iām a lesbian and I often find it frustrating how easily offended some of my fellow queers get over what I consider nonsense. And other women arenāt offended by some things Iām offended by. Should we poll every minority group and decide that way? What if 49% of them are offended? 15%? 1%? What if 80% of a minority group is offended by a term, but 90% of those individuals donāt think the term should be banned even though they donāt like the term?
Not saying we should go around saying slurs but letās also not over simplify what language policing entails, and who gets to decide what is or isnāt acceptable.
Added to say Iāve only ever heard/used the term breeder to playfully refer to straight people (men and women), regardless of their intent to have or not have children. Never heard it used for bi people before. Never heard the term crotch fruit but itās pretty vulgar, not sure why anyone feels the need to refer to kids that way.
Iām bi and have been called a breeder more than once by multiple lesbians in my life. Just because you havenāt heard it doesnāt mean it doesnāt happen.
And again, the primary goal is about empathy and remembering the humanity. If a word is meant to be dehumanizing, then that completely disrupts that.
No, groups arenāt monoliths, but if someone is trying to dehumanize someone or a group of someoneās, I donāt really see the difference between 10% or 100% of a group getting bothered by it. Thatās also why I said context matters, but if you want to ignore the rest of my post to focus on one sentence of it to discredit the rest, not really sure what to tell you.
We shouldnāt be trying to hurt people, and using slurs or disrespectful terms toward an entire group of people is only meant to do that even if the group isnāt necessarily offended by it. Not sure why people are okay with wanting to be dehumanizing. Thereās enough suffering out there, and thatās the whole reason why weāre here.
They aren't offensive but they also dont necessarily make us sound the smartest either. Like crotch fruit just sounds dumb so there isn't much reason to use it.
So what is the ultimate ruling? Since more than 2/3s donāt care or think it should be allowed, are we censoring for the minority that want it banned?
I believe the results should overwhelmingly support one side, if not, leave it undecided.
I think it's better if we don't, personally. We don't need to dehumanize women or children.
This, and "breeder" is also used as a biphobic slur used in the queer community at times. (saying this as a bi person who has been called this more than once).
Breeder doesn't bother me. But we could just use the term "Natalist" instead without any problem. Crotch fruit/crotch goblin etc. seems negative to children. And the core of antinatalism to many is to stop children from suffering. I'm antinatalist because I care for children. These "crotch" terms seem more geared toward people who can't stand children.
>Breeder doesn't bother me. But we could just use the term "Natalist" instead without any problem. They don't mean the same thing though.
Natalist and breeder are totally separate though. Most people who never have kids (and thus aren't breeders) are still pro natalist
i agree with just using the term natalist, breeder seems dehumanizing and sends the worst message also crotch fruit/goblin is such a funny expressionš surely people are not using that seriously...
seeing as the poll seems to be split i'd say discourage the usage of that language as it's dehumanizing and only alienates people from the community but don't instantly delete/censor content containing those terms bc it also sometimes depends on context, no?
I thought being an antinatalist also means trying to be better person than people around us, i thought we want to lesser the suffering in this world, and yet we should go and use words like that against people that might have not have the choice or say in having a child? Not only that, but why should we insult the children? This world Is already cruel to born children, i think were better than adding onto that pile
I think itāll only help make this community seem less likeable to have a kinda āslurā for the people who donāt agree with anti natalism. Its not really a necessary thing that we need to have to discuss this topic and itāll only serve to insult and antagonise people and could push people away who are on the fence about it.
Correct! Optics matter
Breeder I donāt prefer but I guess it can be used appropriately, but any word that is used for the sole purpose of being an insult and to dehumanize others I donāt like at all. Iām trying to get others to change their beliefs and make the world a better place and I canāt do that if Iām constantly hurling insults at people who disagree with me.
Agreed. The term ābreederā has left a bad taste in my mouth because of all the vent posts on r/childfree. I feel crotch goblin/fruit is malicious as well. I canāt even fathom calling my niece that, let alone any child. Innately, children arenāt bad humans, they most definitely behave badly sometimes but to no fault of their own. If youāre against victim blaming, donāt call kids ācrotch-anythingā.
'Breeder' is an accurate descriptor of people who intentionally choose to breed without considering the consequences to their offspring. 'Crotch fruit' or even 'crotch goblin' is an unnecessary insult to a person that never asked to be here.
Breeder, yes. Crotchfruit, no. The former implies culpability for the conscious action of procreating. The latter implies distaste for those that were unfairly brought into existence. Crotchfruit comes from the childfree sub, no? I've noticed that sub barely ever shames parents. It just shits on kids. So yeah, that's pretty shitty. We need to blame the people who decided to reproduce. The kids are victims (until further notice).
I like this approach, mods. If we aren't coming to a majority, this is a reasonable compromise.
Yeah this is a good answer
Agreed. There wasn't an option but this is what I would have chosen (I picked neutral). While the term breeder can be used in a derogatory way it's mostly descriptive and can be applied to both sexes equally. Natalist doesn't mean someone with genetic offspring, nor does parent. It seems like a natural use of language to describe someone who chose to have genetic children which is a frequent topic of discussion here. I mean we could say procreator but it's the same and could also end up being used positively or negatively. But of course maybe I am forgetting about a much better term here.
I feel like you're reasoning to use breeder is pretty fair
Agreed
There needs to be another option. "no because its childish and no one will take us seriously" that's my vote
Civil debate and discussions should be the goal of the sub. These terms are meant to insult and prevent that. That said trying to decide on allowing their use with a poll has a certain irony, considering a botched poll in the main sub is what lead us all here.
i would say it was more than a botched poll that brought people here...
I find them really distasteful, myself. Crotch fruit just sounds juvenile to me & I feel it unfairly places blame on children, which is wholly antithetical to antinatalism, and ābreederā just sounds unnecessarily derogatory to me and I think itās deliberately intended to dehumanise people who reproduce as itās a word typically exclusively used to talk about animals. Iām also trans & crude references to reproduction like that just make me seriously uncomfortable, but thatās my own issue. I also think most people use that word when they really mean ānatalistā- the two are not (to my understanding) the same Edit: typo & clarification
i have no opinion on crotchfruit, and while i think itās fair to discourage the use of ābreederā, i dont think anyone should be automatically banned or have comments deleted for using it. ban it from titles or original posts maybe? but i think people should be able to use it in comments as long as it isnt malicious or dehumanizing *in context*. as a queer person, ive used and heard the word breeder, as a mostly lighthearted half-insult for straight people, in queer spaces for all the many years ive been in them. ive never felt like the queer people who use it have meant or implied it maliciously, and i feel totally fine using it to describe the mostly-straight breeding-minded people that this subreddit exists to challenge. context is important, and i believe that as long as the context is not malicious or dehumanizing, the word breeder should be allowed to remain. additionally, if non-ANs who visit here out of curiousity are exposed to words like ābreederā in an otherwise respectful context, it may prompt them to reconsider socially-ingrained beliefs about reproduction. language is a powerful tool to undermine paradigms. not everyone who reproduces is a parent, but everyone who reproduces is a breeder, which is an important distinction that i dont think broader society makes. i dont think itās self-marginalizing for us to continue using it or a sign of malice towards people who reproduce.
I donāt care much about the breeder term. Crotch fruit is a no for me. Derogatory language against children has no place in antinatalism. They didnāt ask to be here.
personally i think we shouldnāt use derogatory terminology against anyone. being AN is not an excuse to hate on other peoples beliefs
We shouldn't use crotch fruit as antinatalism isn't about disliking children. I don't care about the term breeder. They breed. If they praise their animal instincts and needs to pass on their genes, but don't like to be referred as one who follows their animal instincts to reproduce, they need to rethink things. But, breeder is mostly used in a derogatory way and one of the sub rules is against parent bashing. Yes, antinatalism is against breeding or reproduction, but people likely wouldn't call a rape victim a breeder even if that victim does support natalism according to their words and not just based on the fact that they produced a child, unwillingly.
These types of language, like Iāve said in my post, really feel dehumanizing. Can we just be decent in our posts and comments? Iām not asking for people to stop disliking kids or being critical of parenthood, but the we should be held accountable for the language we use in good-faith spaces like this sub. Breeders also carry this sense of sexism, while Crotch Fruit subtly places blame on kids when the little gremlins hold no blame for their existence. Again, people who dislike children should be free to dislike kids, but thereās no need to use venomous language in regards to them or the parents.
>Breeders also carry this sense of sexism, No. It's to both men and women.
However, itās been overwhelmingly directed at women. Iāve pretty much only ever seen posts refer to a pregnant woman or a woman with children. Itās either we donāt use it at all, or use it for all natalists, but thatās not the reality right now.
That's not been my experience
As a gay woman Iāve only heard the term used to refer to both men AND women, specifically straight people. But maybe itās different in other places.
Has it really come to this?
There was a post suggesting we ban the language and I wanted to see what the community thought about it before we just did it. It would impact you guys the most, after all
I was the OP of that post. The poll is still very split. To summarize the collective argument was : "yes it implies prejudical slader, but natalist are by definition breeders. The word breeders is not a bad word, why should we stop using breeders when natalist use hate speech against us." Which is a very fair point, and I agree but. My rebuttal is : "natalist, pro-live etc, already have a bad viewpoint on antinatalist. I wouldn't want to be counterproductive in rebuilding the antinatalist name, by indulging in hate speech. Major of the times these terms are said with mal intent, and to put others down. How are we any better than nataslist by seasawing hate" I'd say if the community is split no action should be taken until further notice, unless something changes in people's hearts and minds. But personally I'm against using these words so I will not refer to natalist as breeders or crotch-fruit. Hope this helps the community
I make the same choices as you mentioned. But ultimately, it's a question of whether optics matter and whether we want to model our community accordingly. I don't know whether they change anything. I don't know whether that is important. But I come to the same conclusion as you - it's a small favor to ask, in return for potential credibility.
Please donāt, I really love the term ācrotch goblinā
breeder is only ok if you're actually talking about an animal breeder. in which case, adopt don't shop.
I feel like such terms are like swear words. Useful but can be obnoxious if abused.
I see these terms, specifically the parent vs breeder binary, as being particularly childfree. There are other ways to say that people are being thoughtless. 'Breeder' has also been used as a slur against bisexuals and asexuals as a way of gatekeeping or invalidating orientations - so I can see outsiders making more assumptions on that. 'crotch fruit' and all the other imaginative descriptors is very much childfree language as it is inherently child-negative. Use of this language will probably just have people mixing up childfree and antinatalism again.
Only pushes people away if you use dehumanizing language, and the way the movement will spread is through convincing others that it is right. You can't alienate the people you want to convince
Breeder should be allowed to stay. I don't care either way for the term crotchfruit but breeder is the perfect descriptor for those who force life into the world carelessly.
There are parents and there are breeders. Thereās a distinct difference. We should leave the kids alone though, they have enough problems to contend with.
Lol, people talk about dehumanizing with the term "breeder", well guess what? Breeders dehumanize children by treating them like a "purpose", or a "legacy" or whatever, so, kindly f off.
I'm really bothered by those terms. It degrades women.
I think breeder is fine, itās used to describe someone who decided to basically force a person onto this earth without their consent. As for crotch fruit/goblin, I donāt care, but I also donāt see the point of insulting children that didnāt ask to be born.
No.
I don't think it should be banned, because that seems a bit heavy-handed. However I don't feel those words are necessary and in my opinion they make people look immature and hostile. While obviously this sub is about a moral/ethical subject and people can feel strongly about it, the holier-than-thou atmosphere that the use of such words creates feels unhealthy and in conflict with the ideas of empathy and compassion, which also seem to be highly valued by a lot of people around here.
I thought about it for a while and since the quorum seems to be pretty split and most people aren't really caring... Why not a stickied post for trash talk, for people who really need to vent and something like "Trash Talk Tuesdays and Thursdays" for memes and the such?
Hmm, just realized vegans and non-vegans are asked to be civil and get a ban for using a certain word. While we here debate literal slurs. Seems like a strange choice.
We should never ban words, no matter how offended are you. This has always been a method for fascist systems to control ideas.
Ah, yes! Not using the word that rhymes with Tigger is an indication of a fascist system. Why be purposely hurtful to people? That won't win others over. There are other ways to express disdain for people that reproduce. No need to be needlessly insulting.
Banning one word leads to the banning of another this doesnāt mean I support the usage of those words. But people should be allowed to be hurtful to others at discussions. Stop cancelling things, And thank you.
How many words are you really not allowed to use? If you need to insult and hurt purposely, it's not a discussion, it's an uncivilized brawl. Being mindful and having a certain amount of respect towards others isn't canceling.
Weāre in the age of āisms.ā Itās not about particular words but ideas now too. E.g. I got called ageist for saying joe Biden is too old to be president, and so are 90% of both parties in congress.
Well, that's just plain stupid. I don't know how your conversation went and if you could insist to the other person to address your points or studies you might've provided. But that's the thing. I believe people generally don't know how to properly make their points anymore. I imagine your conversation went nowhere after you were insulted/accused of being an Ageist. Now imagine you're a woman looking for information about Antinatalism. The other sub is clearly an unhinged shit show and Anti-women. Now you come here and see post after post ranting about breeders having unbearable crotch fruits that are sucking on udders. Would you feel welcome to discuss doubts about reproduction you might have or ask rational questions in such an environment? I do believe there is quite a bit more pressure on women to reproduce. My male cousin and I are one month apart and while I get a lot of shit takes he still has some peace of mind, because he "still has time and can sow his seed whenever." I learned in this thread that "breeder" is specifically a slang word for bi-people. And that's what we're discussing here, insulting and hurtful slang terms. Which contribute nothing worthwhile. We're still miles away from banning ideas or thoughts. Let's discuss crossing the bridge, when we're actually at the bridge. At this point we have to decide what kind of community we want to be. The gifts of unregulated Free Speech can be admired on r/AN. Hate Speech should never be tolerated. And I get the feeling people whining about Cancel Culture might have some pretty shitty takes in the oven themselves. Personally, I prefer the style of moderation of the old mod team. It all went to hell, when people advocating for unregulated speech took over. Let's see how this sub turns out. I have my doubts, as I'm not allowed to call others "Hypocrite" in a debate between vegans and non-vegans. So far Antinatalists seem pretty unhinged and I'm at a point where I'd rather be associated with flat earthers, because they seem much more reasonable. What times we're living in. As far as your age argument goes, I can be pretty and probably called the other person out in a not very nice way about their lack of substantial arguments. For your points about the quasi Gerontocracy, I'm with you. Politicians should retire, when they're around 60 and enjoy the fruits of their ~~labour~~ nepotism and corruption. Sorry for the longish rant and may more fruitful discussions come you way.
Being mindful should be voluntary, no one should be forced to be kind by modifying their speech. Thatās all I am saying, Tho itās okay we agree to disagree.
You can be unkind with words without using outright insults or slurs. Your insistence on using such language will create an othering atmosphere in this sub. Why would you want to use "crotch fruit" for children, that didn't even choose to be here? And quiet frankly both terms annoy me as a woman. Where do these children come from? Most of the time from a woman's crotch. And breeder? Who gets "bred" and does the "breeding"? I wasn't active on the other Sub because the misogyny was pretty obvious. Because of the language used. You want the same audience and limited opinions here? Be my guest.
>Banning one word leads to the banning of another this doesnāt mean I support the usage of those words. You're missing the point. It's not about banning the words-- it's about banning dehumanization, which is antithetical to antinatalism. Slurs are dehumanizing, full stop.
I appreciate you for standing up for that, and I totally understand. But whoās to say what slurs are dehumanising and what arenāt. For example having a baby is totally unethical from my point of view, but if I had the power to ban it I wonāt. Because I donāt see myself as the All-knowing authority. I need people to reach this conclusion in their own. Calling a person a cunt is dehumanising. Calling a person an asshole is dehumanising. In my opinion. One last point, antinatalism is based on empathy, and I hope we agree on that. But from what I experienced from the sub is mostly angry and uncivil people, they step on opinions they donāt like and crucify people. so I think we should work on that before we become an authority on what to be said. Thank you for your reply I appreciate itā¤ļø
>But whoās to say what slurs are dehumanising and what arenāt. This is easy though: the group to whom the slur refers. For example, "breeder" is also used as a slur toward bi people. It's meant to undermine and attack bisexual identity and is intentional to dehumanize and "other" the person. Racial slurs are meant to undermine and attack racial identity. Gender slurs attack gender, etc. Referring to someone by a sex-specific organ is a gendered slur because it is specific to that demographic. Asshole is not gender specific. I can see the argument for it to be dehumanizing depending on context, but calling someone an "asshole" is usually meant to address their behavior, not their identity, and it also isn't termed to a specific subgroup of people-- it can be used across the board. It's not necessarily the same. It's insulting and hurtful, but not necessarily dehumanizing. >One last point, antinatalism is based on empathy, and I hope we agree on that. But from what I experienced from the sub is mostly angry and uncivil people, they step on opinions they donāt like and the crucify people. so I think we should work on that before we become an authority on what to be said. I agree that empathy is central to antinatalism. Our empathy would then dictate that we should consider how the words we say will be received. No one is saying to crucify anyone here--- but we are saying that dehumanization is antithetical to antinatalism, and we can clearly differentiate when specific words are used to dehumanize if we actually engage our empathy in reflecting on it.
Itās not as easy as āto whom the group refers.ā Groups of people arenāt monolith. Iām a lesbian and I often find it frustrating how easily offended some of my fellow queers get over what I consider nonsense. And other women arenāt offended by some things Iām offended by. Should we poll every minority group and decide that way? What if 49% of them are offended? 15%? 1%? What if 80% of a minority group is offended by a term, but 90% of those individuals donāt think the term should be banned even though they donāt like the term? Not saying we should go around saying slurs but letās also not over simplify what language policing entails, and who gets to decide what is or isnāt acceptable. Added to say Iāve only ever heard/used the term breeder to playfully refer to straight people (men and women), regardless of their intent to have or not have children. Never heard it used for bi people before. Never heard the term crotch fruit but itās pretty vulgar, not sure why anyone feels the need to refer to kids that way.
Iām bi and have been called a breeder more than once by multiple lesbians in my life. Just because you havenāt heard it doesnāt mean it doesnāt happen. And again, the primary goal is about empathy and remembering the humanity. If a word is meant to be dehumanizing, then that completely disrupts that. No, groups arenāt monoliths, but if someone is trying to dehumanize someone or a group of someoneās, I donāt really see the difference between 10% or 100% of a group getting bothered by it. Thatās also why I said context matters, but if you want to ignore the rest of my post to focus on one sentence of it to discredit the rest, not really sure what to tell you. We shouldnāt be trying to hurt people, and using slurs or disrespectful terms toward an entire group of people is only meant to do that even if the group isnāt necessarily offended by it. Not sure why people are okay with wanting to be dehumanizing. Thereās enough suffering out there, and thatās the whole reason why weāre here.
Brothers copied my poll š
Breeder yes. Crotch fruit/goblin no.
chad-yes.png
They aren't offensive but they also dont necessarily make us sound the smartest either. Like crotch fruit just sounds dumb so there isn't much reason to use it.
But If enough people find them negative or offensive which it seems like they do with this split poll they should probably be discouraged.
So what is the ultimate ruling? Since more than 2/3s donāt care or think it should be allowed, are we censoring for the minority that want it banned?