Seems to me that what we’re discussing is not so much whether such people exist, but whether this particular corridor can be designed so as to discourage them from stepping on others.
I don’t think that this point should necessarily be closed to discussion. Even though we accept it as true, it will be genuinely confusing to many people and those people will bring up what they see as a contradiction in their understanding. If the debate is just closed, then those people will just leave and not change their mind. I don’t necessarily consider someone not understanding this point as being the same thing as that person being transphobic. As for me, my understanding of this concept came from the contentious JK Rowling thread. If that thread was just shutdown and closed, I likely would have not changed my preconceived notions.
Aside from misgendering, I’m talking about when someone makes one of those arguments based on the presumption that transgender identities are less valid than binary gender identities. Is that presumption fair ground for debate? If not, what happens to all the opinions that are built on top of it?
Here’s a scorecard, not that everyone’s opinion is equal, but just as a summary of this one sub-topic. I apologize if I mischaracterized anyone or left anyone out.
Would prefer to allow that debate
- Chronos (moderator of General Questions, Cafe Society, and the Game Room),
- DemonTree,
- filmore (would only allow discussion on the utility of name-identity-pronoun inconsistency, I think),
- Miller (according to BigT’s recollection; Miller moderates The Pit),
- octopus,
- psychonaut (I think - not sure if he is okay with full-on debates where both sides argue that the other is wrong),
and Ruken
Would prefer to ban that debate
- Babale,
- Banquet_Bear,
- BigT,
- BippityBoppityBoo,
- Boudicca90,
- DrDeth,
- JRDelirious,
- k9bfriender,
- Left_Hand_of_Dorkness,
- MrDibble,
- and Rick_Kitchen
I can’t tell what @74westy, @Broomstick, @QuickSilver, and @Spice_Weasel think about a topic ban. Their posts are focused more on countering vitriol and toxic behavior (like misgendering) than banning or not banning any particular topic of debate. I think everyone agrees with them except maybe DemonTree who has argued against banning misgendering. Banquet_Bear accused @RickJay of intentional misgendering, which RickJay denied (and said the accusation was off-topic), but we don’t know his opinion on whether it is appropriate. What_Exit and puzzlegal seem to agree that misgendering is inappropriate, the former explicitly opined it is covered by rule #1 “don’t be a jerk”. Those two mods and raventhief have indicated that they want to be more inclusive to transgender members, but I don’t think they’ve come down on either side of the question when it comes to a topic ban.
~Max
…this isn’t accurate, but I don’t want to drag the thread off topic. But the posts are up thread if anyone wants to read them.
I would not recommend a topic ban. I did say that at some point in this thread.
Sorry! Must have missed this.
~Max
No problem
Yes, I know and so?
Let us ban the Trans subject as a debate, and clamp down in other forums (except Cafe Society) on blatant sexim/ misogyny.
Closed for debate, but not for education.
Do you acknowledge that refusing to institute a ban is effectively rejecting the arguments presented by all those people?
- Rejecting the argument that questioning the validity of transgender identities is inherently a personal attack
- Rejecting the argument that it is more important to make members like Boudicca90 feel safe by banning the topic
- Rejecting the argument that questioning the validity of transgender identities in general is beyond the bounds of civil discourse
- Rejecting the argument that an unfair or prejudiced distinction between cis-gender and transgender constitutes gender discrimination worthy of moderation
- etc.
If you’re not comfortable rejecting all of these, I think you should talk to some of the people in this topic who presented those arguments. ETA: Or I can argue on their behalf, because I believe refusing to institute a topic ban implies all the above.
~Max
Maybe I don’t understand what we’re talking about. What are we talking about banning?
I am supporting these ideas are not up for debate:
- Transgender people exist
- Being transgender is not a mental illness
- The term ‘woman’ includes trans women, and ‘man’ includes trans men.
- Deliberately misgendering a public person is being a jerk or threadshitting.
- Deliberately misgendering a poster is hate speech (i.e., a much shorter leash).
Why would they do any of that?
Seems more likely to me that such a person would just stop posting and leave without saying anything. It’s not like an exit interview is required. I’d think the few who actually made an announcement would be the exception.
These two items imply that transgender identities are as valid as binary gender identities. A person who believed transgender identities were lesser than traditional gender identities would probably disagree with the first item, and would almost certainly disagree with the second.
I’m asking if you consider it unacceptable for members to debate whether transgender identities are valid. All four of your bulletin items can be accommodated as a matter of polite discourse, while still presenting arguments that deny or disparage the basic validity of transgender identities.
~Max
I cant reply to this, see the above Mod note.
I do think think that will be my recommendation, but I’m not quite ready yet. I’m waiting on feedback from a few other people before I make a presentation.
And Broomstick, DrDeth, I did modnote to drop this side issues. Thank you DrDeth.
What are you referring to when you write “that”? Something I wrote or the five points you wrote in post #251?
~Max
Well, just to clarify my position: I prefer to allow discussion on even very controversial or difficult topics, BUT if a situation/topic arises where the participants can not remain civil and respectful (or the trolls march in) then I’d like the mods to intervene. I recognize that sometimes that will result in the closure of a topic and there may be some topics so volatile, the chances of a discussion remaining civil so unlikely, that it is in the better interests of all here that such topics be banned either on a temporary or permanent basis. I just want to keep such a banned list as short as possible.
We have discussed, in a civil manner, some very volatile subjects. Other threads have turned into a clusterf*** over something relatively innocuous.
I also think standards should be looser in the Pit, but not absent altogether.
My apologies and my bad. It will not happen again.
I think the 5 points from Troutman that I quoted, and what you wrote that I replied to overlap.
I will stress, I consider myself pretty unknowledgeable on the entire subject and effectively getting a crash course here. I had stayed away from all the threads that lead to this one until the YWTF flags piled up.
Outside of meeting Eve once and a few friends of friends in New Orleans I don’t even know any trans people and would have insulted by accident some of them around the time of Jenner’s transition.
No problem, fast moving thread, easy to miss.
I totally agree, we can discuss and educate. But these four items should not be open for debate- either accept them or dont argue otherwise.
*** Transgender people exist**
*** Being transgender is not a mental illness**
*** The term ‘woman’ includes trans women, and ‘man’ includes trans men.**
*** Deliberately misgendering a public person is being a jerk or threadshitting.**
*** Deliberately misgendering a poster is hate speech (i.e., a much shorter leash)**
Emphasis on Deliberately. That needs to be very clear,