…the site bans discussion of scientific racism. Is that ban wrong?
I don’t recall the rationale behind that ban. Do you have a link to where this is officially explained?
Except it falls much more on actual trans people than on their allies. Because the allies can always be dismissed as not informed enough.
To paraphrase from that one link:
It’s a classic tool of derailing, this feigned helplessness and subtly accusatory question of, “If you don’t teach me, how can I learn?” (Implied answer: “I won’t, and it’ll be all your fault!”) The idea is lazy, circuitous and tantamount to accusing trans people who don’t want to have the same tiresome, not infrequently pointless, conversation about transgender issues of being complicit in transphobia. The failure to erase transphobia doesn’t result from trans people’s failure to be patient with uninformed ideas and questions.
No, that’s what it has been for as long as I’ve been a member.
Thrice Told Tales are off limits. Over the last 20 years, posters in Great Debates and Politics and Elections have debated pretty much everything. As such, there are some contentious issues about which we are tired of hearing. We just don’t want to go around and around about these things any more. In general, we’re just tired of these subjects. It may, however, be that there’s something new under the sun. Posters may start threads on these subjects only with prior approval of a Great Debates or Politics and Elections moderator. If you think you’ve got a new angle on something we’ve discussed a million times and found unpleasant, please feel free to make your case. Getting one approved is a very heavy lift, however.
Scientific racism or any particular argument about why any particular group of humans is inherently better than any other group
Thanks for that. Looks like a content-neutral ban—that is, it’s not that the topic itself is somehow taboo, or that the Board administration considers it a settled issue, but rather that the sheer volume of posts has exhausted the ability of the mods to effectively police it.
…is the ban, in your opinion, wrong?
Pragmatically speaking, no. If there aren’t enough administrative resources to maintain a healthy and civil debate on a given topic, then I accept that the only solutions are either to increase the amount of resources, or limit or ban discussion of it. Do you think we’re at that point yet with transgender issues?
…there are other reasons why topics are banned though. Consider the other banned topics:
I disagree that discussion on scientific racism was banned solely because it had “gotten out of hand.” They said nothing about “sheer volume” and there wasn’t that many threads on scientific racism that needed to be dealt with. It seems clear to me that there are topics that simply aren’t up for debate. We won’t tolerate climate change denialism. We won’t tolerate truthers, or race realists, mens rights activists or encouraging discrimination.
So why shouldn’t we add another one to the list? How would that go against the mission to “fight ignorance” than any of the other topic bans?
I think that we are at the same point with transgender issues are we are with discrimination and truthers and climate change denial. I believe it falls under " Encouraging discrimination" Simply adding gender identity to “race, gender, sexual orientation” may well be enough of a policy shift.
No, the rules are not fine. Often, they do not cover new social issues. Rules are not set in granite and absolutely they need to be reviewed and modified in an effort to make them better.
Worse, they often have not been enforced.
I do recall a time when a trans woman, having explicitly stated she would in no way discuss whether or not she had had bottom surgery was repeatedly asked whether or not she had a penis or a vagina. And nothing was done about that. That wasn’t just jerkish, that was horribly, horribly painful. It was harassment, it was bullying, and nothing was done. No wonder she left.
For a slight tangent - we have had a cyberbullying problem on this forum for decades. From a Doper taking about about a recent attempt to kill herself being urged to finish the job that still haunts me (said thread now in the cornfield but if any newer mod wants to go into said field I can tell you the name of the poster so you can look it up yourself), to my receipt of a PM telling me very explicitly that I was the reason my sister committed suicide and I should just kill my ugly self. It was only after that last PM that mods as whole acknowledged that yes, there might be some bullying going on after a couple years of my telling them that I was being harassed and hearing “I don’t see it, I don’t see it.” Hell, even after that Ed Zotti told me he didn’t see bullying going on. I will say that I appreciate that that mods did ban two of the people participating in PM bullying, but there are still some who just don’t see it.
I get that if you’ve never been the target of bullying you might not see it or might not understand. Hey, I don’t always get the viewpoint of a minority I don’t belong to - I don’t have the visceral understanding of what it means to be a black man in the US, as an example, because I am neither of those things and I’m sure I miss things, but I don’t discount that such a person can really suffer from the actions of others.
For too many years there has been a tendency to discount the pain experienced here by women, by minorities, by LGBTQ… The mods will jump on personal insults, but don’t seem to react to words that aren’t insults but are intended to cause deliberate offense or to deliberately cause pain.
So why do I stick around? Stubbornness, to some degree. Also, this place reflects the world we live in, where the pain and distress experienced by women, minorities, LGBTQ, etc. are routinely ignored and dismissed. I’d like this forum to be better, and sometimes it is, but not always.
Finally, I’d like to throw out the thought that the words “I was just joking” are not a valid defense. Whether the words were a joke or not, if something caused hurt or offense, intentional or not, that hurt should be acknowledged. Personally, as a general rule, if the person causing the offense apologizes immediately and unprompted it was unintentional in my experience. If the person gets defensive then it was deliberate. Just a thought.
Two (or more) people can continue to dissgree due to starting from “different sets of unresolvable moral axioms” yet do so politely, without insults, without demeaning the other side of the debate. Not all debates will be resolved, nor do they have to be. I enjoy discussing topics with people of vastly differing opinions but I don’t enjoy dogpiling, bullying, threats, and words intended to cause deliberate offense during such a debate. We have had very cordial debates on contentious topics. Unfortunately, more often such cordial exchanges are hijacked by one or two jerks who refuse to behave.
It is, however, possible to have a thread on trans gender issues play out between opposing opinions without it devolving into a total train wreck. I will now point to a thread of that sort which, while at spots it got heated, did not wind up locked or require mod intervention:
So yes, we CAN have a discussion of these issues without it completely imploding, exploding, going sideways, or otherwise requiring a lock or driving the mods crazy. We SHOULD be able to discuss contentious issues, but it requires everyone involved to be an adult.
Not that that thread was perfect, I think we could (potentially) do even better than that, but it is an example of having an actual discussion.
I’m still in contact with Una. Yes, she was (and still is) really busy and has long had too many demands on her time.
But she also really did leave this forum due to misogyny and lack of action against trolls, bullies, and other nasty people.
Referring to folks as they wish, within reason, is the polite thing to do. However, reality is what it is. Regarding an exodus, not every post is going please everyone. Take the abortion debates as an example. Yes, mod fiat can shut them down and the space would indeed be ‘safer.’ But the space wouldn’t be better. No one is compelled to engage in debate and not every thread needs to be safe.
must… resist… threadsafe… joke… Okay, it’s definitely past my bedtime.
~Max
There’s not a critical number where it becomes “misogny is a problem” and just one poster less than that means every is OK.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that it is not a problem here. On the other hand, if you find yourself in a minority you might want to reconsider that perhaps it’s more of a problem than you realize.
I fully support treating misandry as something toxic and offensive.
And who gets to decide what’s “reasonable”?
Some threads, by being allowed to exist, render the whole board unsafe for minority groups.
If there was an active thread (so, frequently bumped onto the forum listings and “what’s new” post lists) questioning whether Jews really did sacrifice Christian babies, you would not be surprised if that rendered the whole board a hostile space for Jewish posters, would you? Even if no Jews participated in that particular thread.
Well, it was the same with the old race realist threads for me and at least some other Black posters, and it’s no doubt the same with threads questioning the sincerity or validity of transgender identity for trans posters.
How the brain perceives the body is biological and has a physical origin. That’s a fact: Now it’s perfectly legitimate for a private site to state such facts aren’t facts or sanction and ban the discussion of those facts. That doesn’t change reality.
In a place where contentious issues are discussed feelings are going to get hurt. It’s ok to have hurt feelings. Imagine we were discussing war. We could have posters from one of the involved countries present. That’s literally life and death for those folks. Should those topics be banned?
Drug legalization or criminalization directly effects posters here. Potentially in very harmful ways. Is that too sensitive a topic? I get feelings are important but so are science and political discussions.
I get what you are saying and there are topics I don’t like seeing. I find posts and threads on prisoner abuse such as prison rape jokes to be totally devoid of empathy. I think those are uncivilized sentiments. I also don’t think they hold much of any political or scientific value. I’m not sure if they ought to be forbidden. But I digress.
We definitely shouldn’t be having discussions like “do those Oceanians deserve to die?” or the like, which is the equivalent of discussing transgender posters’ gender identification validity.
Of course they should be. We don’t allow rape jokes about real people outside of prison, do we?
There are limits to this. Thus the specific restrictions listed in the GD Rules. But I’m not recommending a topic ban, I don’t think any mod is.
Racism is simpler and most of us grew up with it being a big major issue and yet we’re still surprised sometimes.
Well with the Transgender issues a lot of it is new to a lot of us. I mean some is pretty obvious. If a poster identifies themselves as trans-male and would like the pronoun He used towards them and another poster continually uses Her or It, clearly the poster is being a jerk.
I’m iffy on the participating in sports issue, but stated preferred gender clearly should be respected at least.
This is complicated as it is new to many of us.
I would love to know if those jerkish posts were flagged. Never expect something to be done without flags, otherwise it is just dumb luck that a mod is reading the same thread as you. The SDMB just added 4 new mods (puzzlegal, Hari_Seldon, raventhief & myself) and the flags are getting reacted to a bit quicker. For an extended time Jonathan_Chance was mostly on his own for the 2 toughest forums, GD and P&E. So there were probably longish delays in getting flags responded too also.
You’re are correct, if a post is insulting or jerkish, “I was just joking” is not a valid defense in most cases.
- There will be no discussion or debate of these other topics in this thread just to make it clear.
- This is also not the place for any arguments on the trans issues that have come up recently elsewhere.
- This thread is about the rules and specifically on gender & trans-related thread moderation.
that was a bit much to handle before I finished my coffee
Thanks, that’s an excellent point. Quite a lot of trans phobia seems to come from a place of misandry.
I… Actually think it is still 2005. The fact that the US is still fighting over laws that affect trans people in fundamental ways suggests to me that this isn’t, yet, a thrice-told tale. Heck, the ignorance I’ve seen in this thread from people of good will says the same to me.
It might still be too toxic a topic. This is where fighting ignorance and don’t be a jerk collide.
I like to call that Schroeder’s asshole. Is it a real insult or just a joke? There’s no way to know until people react to the comment.
Modhat on: despite being new and all that, I am very comfortable that “it was just a joke” is not a valid defense. If your statement (meant as a joke or not) was perceived as hurtful, you apologize right away and don’t say that kind of thing again. You don’t defend it as “a joke”.
Then we lose the benefit of active participation, interaction with posters we are used to currently interacting with, and relevant current events.
And nobody has to do it again. While many of us think that the majority view in this country is a fixable problem, nobody is obligated to be part of the solution. No one is interested in, emotionally equipped, knowledgeable enough, or clever enough to be part of every solution. Most of us have jobs and lives. But we are making progress with these conversations. And the majority thinking on this topic isn’t going to just go away if we ban it here. So while not everyone has to be part of the solution, actively trying to prevent others from being part of the solution actually turns one into part of the problem.