Aspidistra finds loophole in hate speech rules?

Well, assuming the article’s author is quoting the mother accurately, she also routinely misgendered Ms. Thomas and describes herself as having been “educated” by J.K. Rowling, so I’m comfortable calling her a bigot, too.

Linking to hate speech should be actionable. The OP is correct in that it’s an apparent loophole to say, “I didn’t say any of that, I just agree with the content.”

As always, I’m content to avoid bright lines and let the mods make contextual judgement calls on a case by case basis.

This is actually an example of a terrible bright line rule that should be repealed. I’m pretty sure I know why this bright line rule was allowed while almost every other bright line rule suggested is always met by “no, we don’t want to do bright line rules.” When you are allowed to call offboard figures cock suckers, baby killers, cunts, pedophiles, and motherfuckers, mis-gendering someone seems pretty small stuff.

It’s not.

I don’t see how someone can express support for transphobia openly and not run afoul of the rule against misgendering someone. Especially if the way they are supporting transphobia, is by expressing agreement with the idea that a specific person should be treated as a gender other than their self-identified gender. That does seem like pretty blatant misgendering.

Just a reminder: the stated guidelines:

But it would at least be possible to refer to the person you’re targeting as a “trans woman” rather than as a “man”. If you were trying to indicate that you considered them to be a human being deserving of the slightest shred of respect or dignity, I mean.

When deliberate, it very much is not. It’s about the equivalent of calling a black person the n-word or a gay person the f-word. It indicates the person hates trans people and supports trying to take away their rights. Heck, it means they see them as delusional.

Those other insults you mention are mean, but they do not attack someone for being part of a minority group. Well, except “cunt,” but a recent ruling says that it can’t be used in a misogynistic way.

In short, misgendering one trans person attacks all trans people. Same as the other words I’ve mentioned.

The article was clearly hate speech and should have warranted moderator action.

I’m sure there’s a discussion here about where exactly the line should be drawn in approximately similar situations. But there’s no reasonable place to draw the the line where that article doesn’t wind up way, way, way on the wrong side of it.

Add me to those asking “How is posting a link to hate speech and saying you agree with it, not hate speech?”

I just had a thought- does this apply to other rules? What else is acceptable if I just post a link and say “I agree with this” that is not acceptable if I post it?

I disagree. None of these offboard people being mis-gendered are ever going to know about a thread on the SDMB. Just like the ones being called pedos or cunts. Other posters, go ahead and mod them. People eleventy seven times removed from the board, not so much.

We recently had an elderly poster draw a warning for mis-gendering the spouse of someone on a reality show. So this was someone that wasn’t even on the show. Even people who were watching the show weren’t sure who was being talked about because there was more than one transgendered spouse. That was a ridiculous warning.

No, it is not and I wish people would stop trying to compare the n-word to every new thing that comes along.

No it absolutely doesn’t. Laws that discriminate against transgender people are against all transgender people. One person mis-gendering one person is not mis-gendering all transgendered people.

I was surprised that it even had to be thought over, given the current rules.

With no ruling other than what @Chronos gave, people could start a hundred threads on similar subjects until it got narrowed down to what was allowed. Thumbs up to the warnings he handed out, those were well earned.

You’re simply wrong on every count. Yes, intentionally misgendering an offboard person hurts every transperson who reads it. Full stop.

If we allow slurs against transgender people, we’re not going to have transgender people feel welcome on the boards. Most people here don’t want that situation.

Okay. Can I use the N word to describe folks who don’t post here then? If the answer is no, how is this different?

I started this thread to discuss a case of a clear-cut violation of existing SDMB guidelines. The rule is that you can’t deliberately misgender people here, including non-posters.

Would mordecai and those who wish to participate in his hijack about whether this rule should be repealed start their own thread? TIA.

Here is an example, let’s say there is an article that promotes illegal activity. It also has advice on how to commit crimes and get away with it. Can we link to it? The rules just say we can’t post that info, they say nothing about linking to an article with that info. I would hope that would be disallowed, but it isn’t explicitly.

How about linking to a site that is advocating political action. Or advocates assassinating a public figure. I’d hope that such things are disallowed, but the rules aren’t explicit.

Then tell me. Why is the n-word wrong? Is it some magical combination of sounds that is inherently evil?

Of course not. It is wrong because it is a term that has been used historically to discriminate and attack black people, and is even still used to this day in some places. Black people have told us how much it hurts and asked us not to use it.

Now let’s look at the f-word for gay people. It is wrong because it has been historically used to discriminate and attack gay people, and is still used to this day sometimes. Gay people have told us how much it hurts, and asked us not to use it.

Now compare that to misgendering. It is a practice that ahs been historically used to discriminate and attack trans folk, and is still used to this day in many places. Trans people have told us how much it hurts and directly asked us not to use it.

It’s the same thing. It doesn’t become okay because the minority changes. It’s not up to you to decide which minorities matter and which ones don’t.

No it absolutely doesn’t. Laws that discriminate against transgender people are against all transgender people. One person mis-gendering one person is not mis-gendering all transgendered people.

So then, why is it wrong to call Bill Cosby the n-word? Why is it wrong to call Milo Yiannopoulos the (gay) f-word? Why is it wrong to call Xi Jinping a chink? Surely all of those are just attacking a particular bad person, right?

The reason why is that it attacks all people of those minorities. Someone who would use that word for one will use it for all. People know those term are racist, so to use them means they don’t care about being racist. They aren’t just bigoted against one person, but all people of that minority.

Now look at misgendering. And remember I said “intentionally misgendering.” So you can’t argue it’s an accident. So why is that person saying that? Because they don’t see trans people as legitimate. They are bigoted towards them. They aren’t just bigoted towards one trans person.

Nothing I’m saying here is controversial. It’s the basic concepts of bigotry, plus the basics of trans advocacy. As an ally, I’m echoing what actual trans people believe and are fighting for.

You can be the person in the majority who tells the minority that they’re wrong about what is oppression—that the majority decides what is oppressive. I sure wouldn’t want to be in that position.

There’s a reason we fought so hard for the rules against misgendering. Several trans people (over a dozen at least) have left because we wouldn’t deal with it. People who had been here since the beginning. People who have told us time and time again about how big a deal intentional misgendering is.

There are plenty of message boards where one can misgender people to their heart’s delight. I don’t see why it’s so crucial this one needs to be one as well.

I took a few minutes to go back and read the OP in question, and while I could argue back and forth for whether linking it does or does not constitute hate speech in it’s own right, I feel no desire to defend the quoted statements, even for some minimalistic joy of playing devil’s advocate. Nope.

I would say though, at a minimum, such things should have had a major disclaimer attached that it DID include material explicitly against the board’s rules for misgendering - very much like you’d want to put a clear NSFW warning on a link. And I’d also probably strongly suggest putting it in hide details dropdown for similar reasons.

I do think that @Thing.Fish 's heart is in the right place, but their description of the thread in question suffered from oversimplifying it. Because if it had been literally as described (one sentence plus a link to an attack) I would absolutely have seen it as trying to sneak past the rules. Again, T.F is absolutely fair in flagging it for review as a possible exploit.

As it stands, I think this is one of the reasons we have mods, and that the call that the thread wasn’t appropriate for, or really arguing a point suitable for the Game Room, was correct.