Your ability to express your opinions ends when expressing those opinions are a direct attack discriminating against an intrinsic quality of another person. That means you aren’t free to misgender a person. Or if a poster mocks someone for being white you could be moderated. (That happened recently in the Pit of all places.)
I thought the rule was that you could attack anyone off the board, just not another poster. If this is a change in the rules then there has to be a major change in GD or Politics&Elections about Trump voters.
You can attack people off the board, but you can’t call Bill Cosby a nigger. This is the same thing, use respectful terminology, but still feel free to lambast them about their actions.
Of course you can’t use racial slurs, but I don’t remember the SDMB requiring that all woke terminology be used regarding transgender status–especially to people off the board.
I was just replying to the idea you said that you can’t “attack anyone” You can still attack anyone, but using approved terminology.
I agree with everything @Riemann has posted in the OP and afterwards. Including that that thread title should have been modded from the start.
You thought wrong about this specific issue (my emphasis):
- Do not deliberately misgender another poster – that is, refer to them by a pronoun or other sex-specific term indicating a gender other than the one they identify as. This applies only in cases where a poster’s gender identity is reasonably clear. Likewise, do not deliberately misgender off-board figures. This is a more rigorous standard than we apply in other contexts; we do not normally mod posters for merely insulting off-board figures. Deal with it.
I just read the first post. I certainly would not think it insulting if a lay poster, in a thread about a medical issue, referred to a medical procedure by a general, well-understood term…
Me neither, however that example does not bear in any way on the subject of the thread.
Although it’s not addressed to a specific person, referring to trans girls as trans boys is either deliberate transphobic antagonism or unacceptable ignorance about your fellow human beings. It’s hostile to all trans people to allow people to get away with this nonsense with the excuse that they are “confused” about the fundamental idea of what it means to be trans. I really don’t think it’s a restriction on freedom of expression or stifling debate to suggest that people who have an urge to debate trans issues should spend 30 minutes educating themselves on how to do so respectfully.
Is this really such an outrageous imposition? Again, to draw the parallel with race, should we allow people to debate race issues using deplorable racial epithets on the grounds that they find it “confusing” to grasp why these words are offensive and hostile?
Me neither. The rule is no misgendering, including people off the board, not that you have to sign up to some particular definition of man- and womanhood.
IMO the former is about courtesy and is an appropriate rule, the latter would verge on legislating thought crime.
The difference is we’ve had decades (centuries, even) of understanding that racial epithets aren’t OK, as well as the obvious fact that people of different races can’t not look like someone of that race without going full Michael Jackson.
The whole transgender thing is really, really recent (probably the past five years or so in popular consciousness). It took decades for it to be unacceptable to the average person to make homophobic slurs in mixed company and even now there’s still a lot of people who haven’t got the memo.
Going from “Five years ago this basically didn’t exist as far as most people were concerned” to “Not immediately and wholeheartedly embracing this idea and thinking it’s wonderful is a literal hate crime” is a massive, and frankly IMO unreasonable ask.
And there’s the inconvenient truth that the whole “Gender is a made-up construct thing” is confusing and undesirable to huge number of people, especially when you’ve got people who (for example) are biologically female, look like a woman, sound like a woman, wear women’s clothes etc, yet insist they aren’t a woman but instead are a non-binary “They/them”.
It’s basically trying to unilaterally rewrite one of the absolute fundamental foundation/building blocks of how most people understand the world to work, and then accusing anyone who objects of being a horrible monster.
That’s obviously a straw man.
Nope, it’s suggesting that anyone who feels a compelling urge to debate trans issues could spend 30 minutes doing some minimal due diligence on how to discuss the issues without being gratuitously hostile and offensive to their fellow human beings.
Do you have an approved list of people who will instruct me how to speak?
Do you have any genuine desire to learn?
Could you flesh this out more or maybe provide this resource?
In this case, a mod intervened early in the process. If the right action is bleedingly obvious, your issue should have been taken care of at that time. He seems confused about what you’re asking for. It seems fair for some other people to be genuinely confused as well.
You are demanding people accept your circular logic as fact and as the sole perception of reality. Furthermore, there’s a censorious component that forbids discussion of underlying reality such as brain state. This creates a dishonest asymmetry.
Learn? No, I probably was too sarcastic in my reply, but I vehemently deny that “they” (whoever that is) are in a position of authority over me to instruct me on how I speak. They weren’t elected and have simply assumed some false place of authority. They no more recommend how I speak than I do them.
Many people have lost jobs or other opportunities for publicly disagreeing with this idea, on the basis that they are being ‘hateful’.
Since being convicted of a literal hate crime results in jail time, it remains a straw man. Yes, people can lose their jobs over public displays of bigotry. I am okay with that.
This seems to be the new way of doing things. You (the general you) take a position, and then declare opposition to that position to be “bigotry” which places it outside the realm of discussion such that people fear a loss of a job for holding it, and then you win by default.