Among the Guidelines for discussion of transgender issues on the SDMB is: “We do not mod posts based on inaccuracy, illogic, lack of cites, etc. We leave it to other posters to point out such defects.”
The question is, when is something like using incorrect terminology to refer to trans people considered “inaccuracy” in this sense, and when is it a more serious, moddable offense?
Yeah it stopped when he retired.
Randi was awesome.
Sorry all for the hijack. I was a big fan of his work.
I don’t really see a problem with the ‘boy → girl’ terminology or with ‘converted’. How is that worse than the standard ‘MtF’ and ‘transitioned’? Also, I think the mods already lock too many OPs for being badly expressed when they could have developed into interesting threads. Particularly with new posters it seems almost inevitable that they will break some rule or other; I’d like to see a better solution.
In this case, I think messaging the OP and getting their agreement to edit the post to use the correct terminology would be the best way to deal with it.
The problem is that using your idea of respectful language on this topic basically forces other people to endorse one side on those controversial issues; a position that may be exactly what they wanted to argue against.
To give an example, I think the phraseology of ‘sex assigned at birth’ is not only wrong but intentionally deceptive, and yet using this phrase is the only option considered respectful by the progressive posters on the board.
Converted means changed/altered. Being transgender does not require surgery or hormone treatment, it’s a declaration of identity.
No.
The controversial issue is trans girls competing in high school sports. That’s a welcome debate.
But if you think that being respectful of people’s human dignity is a similarly “controversial issue”, then I don’t think you should be welcome here. That’s not a “problem”, it’s should be a fundamental standard that the board requires of everyone here.
A topic like this will have a lot of expected confusion for people new to the concept. Someone who is ignorant of the preferred terms or underlying concepts is very likely going to phrase things in ways which are going to seem insensitive. There’s even controversy by experienced people in things like whether the space is necessary in “transwoman” vs “trans woman” and whether one is offensive or not. If someone is using offensive terms with the deliberate intent to be offensive, then that is problematic. But if someone is coming from a place of ignorance and expresses things in a way that seems offensive, I think we just need to realize that’s going to come with the territory in topics like these and try to educate as best as possible.
Well then, you absolutely are advocating for a restriction on discussing controversial issues, on the pretext that those who disagree with you are not ‘respecting people’s human dignity’.
That’s why I think having the mods message the OP and ask for their agreement to modify the offending language would be the best solution. If the OP thinks the suggested edit would change the intended meaning, they could work out a solution together.
At the same time the mods can point them to resources to educate themself, to avoid it happening again.
Oh, nevermind
But the prefix “trans” implies a transformation or change. I can see why someone unfamiliar with the concept might think that being transgender simply meant changing from one gender to the other.
And even if there’s no surgery etc involved, they’re still “changing” how they present/would like to be perceived by the world.
I do agree “Converted” isn’t an optimal word, though.
Sure, so can I. I can also see how, if they had any good faith interest in the issue, that they could educate themselves with 10 minutes googling.
How many years do we plan to continue to allow people to use offensive language about trans people with this justification, when the collateral damage is to make this board intolerably hostile for trans people?
Again, I’m not suggesting anyone be banned, or even warned. I’m just suggesting that it’s about time that the mods act more decisively to eliminate pleas of ignorance as an excuse, and to place the clear burden on posters who wish to post about trans issues to educate themselves on how to do so respectfully.
If there’s a good, quick and simple resource, something like a FAQ on how to refer to trans people and trans issues without being offensive, perhaps you could link to it?
I don’t moderate great debates, so i only just noticed this thread. And i agree with DemonTree
i think the title of the thread is offensive, and titles are much more visible than posts, and in some sense represent the board. I think the title should be edited. Ideally, the mod who edits it would mention that they are changing it to the op, say why, and give the op a chance to refine the edit so it still reflects what they intended to say. But it should be changed.
That’s not the meaning, actually. It’s the same use of “trans” as in “trans fats”, and it means “across” or “opposite”
To quote WebMD, which actually has a very decent description
What Is Cisgender?
Cisgender, or cis, means that the gender you identify with matches the sex assigned to you at birth. Transgender is when your gender identity differs from the sex on your birth certificate. In Latin, “cis” means “on this side,” while “trans” means “on the other side.”
A transgender woman had male genitals at birth but identifies as female. A transgender man had female genitals at birth but identifies as male.
I first learned words “trans” and “cis” when studying biochemistry. Fats may be fully saturated (having single bonds) or unsaturated (having double bonds). Unsaturated fats may be cis (hydrogens in same plane) or trans (hydrogens in two different planes). The words mean pretty much the same with regards to gender. If your sex and gender match (are in the same plane) you are cis. If they don’t match you are trans.
But… I agree that the language is somewhat new and can be confusing. Rather than slamming the poster, I think it’s better to edit the language and explain why.
The misgendering of trans boys/trans girls in that OP was obviously mod-able under the rules, though I’m willing to believe it was a mistake and not intentional (I haven’t read through the thread - if the OP persisted after the correction, obviously, I’d change my mind on that.) I’m not sure I could tell you exactly when I was able to use transwoman/transman correctly, but I’m pretty sure it was within the past five years, and have live in a major, left-leaning urban area, donate to NCTE, and have transfolks in my family. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that there are a lot of people in the country and in the world who might still be coming up-to-speed here.
Personally, I think that warranted a little more specific direction in the first mod-reply to make clear that intentional mis-gendering is not permitted here. @Riemann’s suggestion - to shut down the thread and order the OP to go educate himself before posting on the topic again - doesn’t strike me as something that would actually help with fighting ignorance on this topic.
The objections to “boys -------> girls” and “converting” I am having trouble seeing as objectively offensive. The former just looks like a tongue-in-cheek way of restating M2F and the latter strikes me as pretty close to a synonym to ‘transitioning.’ Neither is the standard, clinical language, of course, but that’s never been the bar for being respectful.
The example was medical, but could been anything from Astrophysics to Zymurgy – Try not to be insulted by people asking well-meant questions who are not conversant with the current but constantly-changing nomenclature of your own specialty…
There aren’t enough roll eyed smilies on this board. So if someone came in arguing that we should restore slavery in the US, you’d be cool with it, and against “censoring controversial issues”?
The problem with taking “fighting ignorance” as a motto is that ignorance always fights back.
That’s a non-sequitur. @Riemann claimed he is not advocating for a restriction on discussing controversial issues, but in effect he is. Anything you don’t want to discuss can be declared not respectful of human dignity, and voila, the topic is banned.
If it’s disrespectful of human dignity to point out that sex is no more ‘assigned at birth’ than your height is ‘assigned’ to you by the doctor carrying out your medical checkup, the bar has been set very low indeed.