I believe that was a large motivation behind the (otherwise ill-advised IMO) topic bans. Most of the enthusiasts behind those topics were getting themselves banned anyway. And they’re mostly fringe topics with few people needing convincing. Whereas the topic at hand is decidedly not.
No, I would not, because given the nature of discussion on this message board, there would be no lack of posters (gentiles and Jews, alike) debunking that claim. So someone coming along to simply read the discussion as a casual (interested) observer, would benefit from having read the bad claims and the cogent arguments against such bad claims. I realize that topics like this may eventually be classified as thrice told tales and be prohibited. That’s fine because I’m pretty sure all the evidence is in at this point. But the trans issues discussion is still highly topical and not all the evidence is in. The subject may have been boring you since 2005, and others may find it offensive, but it’s an ongoing conversation in the world, whether SDMB bans it or not. And frankly, while it is ongoing, it would be foolish of the mods to ban it when some of the most interesting aspects and challenges of the conversation are taking place as part of public policy, health policy and research.
Agreed.
Also agree this was jerkish and should have been modded. Is there anyone at all who thinks this kind of thing should be allowed?
It would be nice to do this for the currently banned topics. Add some links to threads in the post that lists them, perhaps.
Is there an award for most hyperbolic comparison? 
The issue of whether transgender people have a sincere and legitimate gender identity is specifically “The trans issue” I was comparing.
And you respond with “Not all the evidence is in”?
Seriously?
You want to maybe rethink that post?
What a privilege, to get to decide what is and isn’t hyperbole for minorities one is not a member of.
The target of this was sufficiently high in the SDMB hierarchy that it’s inconceivable it wasn’t noticed. Which pretty much tells those from back in those days who the target was. Maybe it was eventually dealt with, but it was certainly left far too long. I suppose I could go back and dredge up the thread and posts, but not at the moment. Right now I’m just dropping in briefly.
No need and I’m pretty sure who we’re talking about. Can I say, that as you described it, I would have moved on it fairly quick as soon as it came to my attention.
Modnote: By stripping off the last paragraph of what MrDibble posted, you didn’t respond to his question but effectively cherry-picked what to respond to. That is to be discouraged. Please do not do this again. Hopefully it was just an accident.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, not to your own reality.
By leaving it out, I assumed it would be clear from my response that I was not questioning the sincerity or validity of transgender identity of trans posters. Based on @MrDibble reply and your note, I see that was a wrong assumption to draw. When I said the trans conversation is still highly topical as a whole and that “not all evidence is in”, it was to contrast the comparison he used wrt claims of Jews killing Christin children; that is what I was getting at.
The comparison of people questioning that trans isn’t a valid gender identity? That comparison? Because that and racism are the only two I made in that post.
Since Oceania is a made-up country, but real trans people do kill themselves over their identity being erased, I think that statement is oh so very true, but not in the way you intended.
The notion of gender is going through something of a transformation right now. To say self-identified gender is that gender is not an immediately understood concept. The JK Rowling thread was contentious, but I learned a lot through all the heated discussions. One big takeaway I had is that the only thing you can say about a transgender person is that they identify as that gender, but that doesn’t imply anything else about them. You can’t make any assumptions that if a person identifies as gender X, they have characteristics of gender X. A sincere transwoman does not have to do anything that might stereotypically be considered feminine, such as have having a feminine name, using feminine pronouns, dressing in a feminine way, acting in a feminine way, or anything else like that.
It’s like the way that although there are generalizations about Americans, you can’t make any definitive assumption about an American. An American may speak English and wear jeans, but an American may also speak German and wear lederhosen. I see gender along the same lines. Two people may say they identify as women, but that may be the only thing they have in common. The nature of what it means to each person to identify as a woman may be completely different. That’s the kinds of discussions I feel can be very valuable. The pat answer of “TWAW” is not really going to convince anyone that is confused about these kinds of issues.
I recognize that this is your position of comparison and that of other posters with similar views.
No one here on the trans ally side gives just that pat answer and doesn’t elaborate in some fashion.
Are all of these the same thing? I have no problem with transgender people using whatever bathroom they want to use, serving in the military, I’m pleased as punch to refer to them by whatever pronouns they choose, I’d like to make sure they’re protection from discrimination in housing, education, & the workforce, and I’d like rules here that prohibited people from deliberately misgendering trans people. But I do have some concerns when it comes to transwomen competing in women’s sports. But I don’t think that means I’m denying the validity of transgender identities.
If someone else has posted links yet, I missed them.
This thread of Una’s is the main one I remember:
but in searching I also found this older thread:
Thanks, Thudlow
No it isn’t. This is an outdated term from a now-discredited classification scheme from the 18th century that formed the basis for scientific racism. Has as much validity as orgone and cosmic ether.
If you’re behind on that, you’re behind on a lot of stuff, and you have nobody to blame for it.
I said due to misogyny, not trans. And yes, I do assume that if a poster left the board due to harassment, they would either make a public announcement or PM a Mod, not PM a random poster.
“I have here in my inbox a secret list of 100 posters who left this board due to misogyny”
Hmmm, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names …" Tailgunner Joe.
And when someone announces here that they will leave the board unless we change the rules, what has been our response, Every. Single. Time.?
Look, we should change the rules because it is the right thing to do. That is the only proper reason.
Not because of a “secret list”.