Aspidistra finds loophole in hate speech rules?

[puzzlegal]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

@Crane

Can cross dressing and gender impersonation be discussed within the bounds of existing forum rules? Can the language be used?

Okay. Assuming sincerity on your part:

• There are men who identify as men but who wear clothing traditionally associated with women–dresses, skirts, corsets, etc. When a person identifies as a man but chooses to wear clothing associated with women, in general that’s cross-dressing. (There are women-dressing-as-men as well, but in our society that’s rarer, given clothing mores).
• There are also people who identify as men who deliberately pretend to be women, and vice versa. If I, who identify as male, adopt the stage persona of Lucy Goosy Queen of Fowl Play, and I wear a giant feathered boa and a sequined gown and a lot of makeup, you might describe me as a female impersonator. If I just shave my beard and fake a driver’s license that says Elizabeth and wear a pantsuit in order to pull off a daring casino heist, you might describe me the same way.
• There are transgender people, who were assigned one gender at birth but do not identify as that gender. I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT IDENTIFY AS THAT GENDER. The gender they identify as comports with the gender they intend people to see them as. When they dress in clothing that other folks with the same gender dress in, they’re not cross-dressing. When they present as the gender they are, they’re not impersonating.
• The only way a transgender person may be described as a “female impersonator” would be if, for example, a man assigned female at birth puts on a skirt and lipstick. But I’d strongly recommend against using that description, because some grossly transphobic people have kind of commandeered the use of “impersonator” to describe transgender people, and at this point you’re just better off finding a different term.

This, and yes, of course it’s fine to talk about female impersonators on this board. And also non-gender-conforming men who dress as women, and …

( would quibble with " There are women-dressing-as-men as well, but in our society that’s rarer, given clothing mores", though, and rather say that it’s so common as to usually be unremarkable.)

@Crane

In my original mis-gendering transgression I referred to a character in a TV reality play who referred to his husband as being pregnant . I referred to that as a female impersonating a male. No slur was intended. It was simply sentential English.

This, however, is an intentional slur.

[Crane]

@puzzlegal

This, however, is an intentional slur.

No it is not. I know because I wrote it. Just an English description of an event.

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Crane

@puzzlegal

This, however, is an intentional slur.

No it is not. I know because I wrote it. Just an English description of an event. 

You intended to write what you wrote. It was a slur.

[Crane]

@GreysonCarlisle

It was a slur.

Slur, in this case, is a judgement of the reader. I know my intent as the writer.

[Johnny_Bravo]

@Crane

I know my intent as the writer.

Fine. It was an unintentional slur. People are unintentionally hurtful every day.

The test of character is in what they do once they’ve been helped to understand the impact of their words.

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Crane

Slur, in this case, is a judgement of the reader. I know my intent as the writer.

It’s really not. Misgendering is specifically disallowed under the rules of the board, yet you persisted despite there being countless other ways to use the English language to present your idea. You chose the slur.

[Babale]

I am shocked that misgendering is happening unremarked upon here in a thread about consequences for misgendering.

[Crane]

That is the core issue of the OP. Is this a subject that can be discussed objectively or is it always derailed by judgements?

[GreysonCarlisle]

If that’s your takeaway, you should reread the OP.

[Crane]

@Babale

I am shocked that misgendering is happening unremarked upon here in a thread about consequences for misgendering.

There is a difference between misgendering and talking about misgendering.

[MrDibble]

@puzzlegal

This, however, is an intentional slur.

So, is it going to modded?

[Crane]

The discussion referred to in the OP was whether or not persons who transitioned after male puberty should be allowed to participate in female sports categories. That is a discussion of human biology and need not offend anyone.

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Crane

The discussion referred to in the OP was whether or not persons who transitioned after male puberty should be allowed to participate in female sports categories. That is a discussion of human biology and need not offend anyone. 

If that was your takeaway for the thread referred to in the OP, then you should reread that thread.

[Crane]

I read the article and I was a participant in the thread. I accept Chronos evaluation of the article The point of the OP is that the article still raised an issue worthy of discussion.

[puzzlegal]

@MrDibble

@puzzlegal

This, however, is an intentional slur.

So, is it going to modded?

I am not an ATMB mod. I can speak to general board policy, but not to how a particular statement in this forum will be treated.

I’m sorry, I should have been explicit about that above.

[thorny_locust]

@Crane

Is this a subject that can be discussed objectively

Not in the sense in which you appear to mean that.

The subjective experience of the persons concerned is an essential part of the matter. Denying that is objectively false.

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Crane

I read the article and I was a participant in the thread. I accept Chronos evaluation of the article The point of the OP is that the article still raised an issue worthy of discussion.

Then feel free to start a thread to discuss it.

You can use the chain button to automatically create a link to the original thread.

[Crane]

@thorny_locust

The subjective experience of the persons concerned is an essential part of the matter.

It need not be a part of the objective discussion.

[thorny_locust]

Of course it needs to. Again, leaving it out is objectively false.

[Crane]

@GreysonCarlisle

Then feel free to start a thread to discuss it.

A thread discussing this OP? What are you talking about?