OK, can you try and be a little patient with a middle age white cis-male new to modding this board that is trying to learn more about issues that never have been part of his life.
There is a lot of new stuff for me and I’m sure many of the other mods. I’m trying to learn more. But I do think you’re assuming I and other mods understand the issues and are ignoring them. I at least do not.
A dialogue is OK, but let’s not attack any particular poster, OK?
This is a good place to discuss the issue, not attack the poster.
If the issue is the behavior of other posters, as well as that as mods acting as posters, then bringing up their behavior is more than a bit necessary.
It’s not an attack, it’s a description of the problem. If someone sees the description of the problem as an attack, then that is the problem, right there.
Absolutely not, a person’s gender is what they say it is. It is not up for debate.
Exactly. Whenever I bring up the bigotry of other posters or mods, I am characterized as “attacking” them and I’m done with putting up with that.
I haven’t posted any photographs on here at all since that became a thing you could do.
Ever heard of GIRL? People have been known to lie about their gender online…
What about other aspects of identity? Is a Baptist allowed to say that they don’t consider Mormons Christian? Can we argue about whether Obama is black or mixed race (or both)? Or whether Dreamers are American? Or whether someone suffering from depression counts as disabled?
ISTM “You’re not a real Christian” or real “other” would rightly be taken as a personal attack.
Someone was recently modded for challenging someone’s disability status, so that too would be considered inappropriate.
I’m not sure what the issue is here.
Are we talking about people who deny the existence of transgendered people in general?
Or are we talking about disagreements over the gender of specific individuals who have not clearly self-identified their gender?
I’ve seen threads on this board which cover either of these issues.
We are talking about statements like “transwomen aren’t women” or accusations that transgenderism is a misogynist plot, or just straight up intentional misgendering.
That is just a small sample of what transphobic arguments and statements I’ve seen given a pass on this board.
What’s to debate? Would you debate on whether the sun rises in the east?
It is a valid fact. Undebateable.
Not everything is the same. Each issue needs to be looked at in its own merits.
Count me as someone else who quite misses Eve and Una and others and who, sadly only in hindsight, found that from where I was standing, I was not seeing the problem as it happened because I did not know what to look for. Many of us in this very community may be quite satisfied in ourselves as to how openminded and inclusive we are, but we can have huge blind spots when it comes to what hurts someone. Or even the far more common phenomenon of “well, I’m not (racist/transphobic/etc.) and that’s the extent of what I’m responsible for”.
Something that to me may seem worth analysing according to different philosophical approaches pro and con, to this other person at my side will be absolutely appalling that I am looking at it as an intellectual philosophy exercise, when it is their very being.
Will I always “get it”? No. Will it some times “take longer than we thought” for me to get with the program on all that it implies and affects? Surely. But at the very least, I should be able to deal with, plain and simply:
The war in Eastasia goes well, comrade.
Agreed. It would be well to apply this also to issues surrounding misogyny. One is not more appalling than the other. Listen without instantly becoming defensive: if someone says “that devalues or diminishes me as it is transphobic [or misogynistic], back off with the knee jerk defense and consider that maybe it is exactly what we are saying it is. Then listen and learn. The fighting ignorance work about either is not done yet.
I’ll repeat that: slow walk the knee jerk defense, listen, ask questions, listen again and learn. I will too.
Well said. There is a tendency here to think everything is on the table, even if it is offensive to someone because of their lived experience as a woman, transgender or cisgender. I think the misogyny and transphobia possibly derive from the same source in many cases.
The right to free speech doesn’t give you the right to hateful speech, which is the end result of debating issues that are personal to many people.
… this is one of the reasons I think you should recuse yourself from any moderator discussion about transgender issues here in ATMB. I clearly said “posted links to photographs” not “posted photographs.”. The distinction really shouldn’t be important. But I worded my post clearly so that it shouldn’t have mattered anyway.
But you couldn’t help but be defensive and ignore the substance of my post. Do you think the way you answered my question was helpful or appropriate considering your status as a moderator and the forum we are in?
And Una was second in command to @Ed_Zotti, and seemed to be responsible for editing some of Cecil’s articles, so you think she would have been someone to listen to on this topic. (And the @Eve thing had happened so long ago that you’d think we’d learn our lesson.)
@What_Exit: I’m all for giving you time since you’re new. But do realize this is an old problem, and one I’ve personally fought for years. I’ve pointed out before that I got a PM from about trans people leaving (though I’ve refused to name any names, out of a promise).
Ever since the misogyny rules have been changed, I’ve pushed that transmisogyny is still misogyny and should be treated the same way. Anything that argues that trans women aren’t women or otherwise promotes discrimination against them should be treated the same way as if it were directed toward cis women.
I also pushed that several trans issues should be among the banned GD topics. It was @Miller (who tended to speak for the LGBT community as a mod due to being a bi man himself with many LGBT friends, including trans folk) who argued that it shouldn’t be, because the topic was still new.
I continue to argue that, while it’s true that the topic is new to many people, the actual psychology of the situation is settled as much as it has been for gay people. So I’m all for having a thread where everything is explained, but think debate on the topic is pointless.
This isn’t to say that nothing about the topic should be discussed–there are still lingering topics and new science that comes in. That said, you do have to be careful to keep those topics from being about whether trans folk should be accepted in general. That is a very common tactic, e.g. bringing up the ongoing issue with sports when being told that trans women are women, as if that one issue that affects maybe 0.1% of trans people negates every other situation. (I had someone actually randomly bring this up in PM form).
I would also accept a non-debate thread where these things are explained and questions are asked, as long as the assumption remains that trans women are women, trans men are men, and nonbinary is okay. It might need special moderation to keep those who think they are entitled to get angry and attack trans people from getting a foothold, but it could help with people learning about the topic.
What I am against is misgendering or trans people having to justify being trans or wanting rights the same as any minority. And, of course, I’m against scientific transphobia, which has as much relevance as scientific racism.
I still say the board as it currently exists is unwelcoming to trans people. I was grateful that the worst of it (that I saw) got some moderation action, but I do think more needs to be done. A general policy on misgendering would be a start.
Also, to quickly cover one objection by @DemonTree: the problem with “Guy In Real Life” is generally either a sort of catfishing scenario or used to troll, both of which would be covered by existing rules. The only other situation I know of is someone exploring gender options, and I don’t see how it harms anyone to treat them as the gender they identify as. Plus, well, that’s a common trait among “trans eggs,” people who have some feeling they aren’t the gender they were assigned at birth, and are trying things out.
In short, I don’t think the existence of G.I.R.L. is a reason that we need to allow misgendering. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if we all started saying you weren’t actually female.
That has been my lived experience, yes.
What I remember @RickJay doing was posting a link to a Google Image search for a particular trans woman while saying she clearly was not actually a woman. This was during a debate over whether someone is still a trans woman if they don’t appear to be making any attempt to actually present as female (other than claiming to be trans female and using female pronouns). However, in all the images I saw in the link, she was clearly and obviously presenting as female.
I have my own idea of why this might have been more a slip of the tongue rather than outright (trans)misogyny, but I have a “rule” that, if someone is accused of something, I don’t come up with the explanation for them. The logic is that, if they can’t think of the explanation themselves, then it likely isn’t true.
I concur. Not that there isnt stuff to be discussed and people to be educated, it is nigh impossible to debate this issue without people getting upset.
That could work.
Mind you I am one of those that think “cis” should be banned in casual use like “tranny” (unless it is the tranny on your 61 Chevy Impala) or “negroid” since they are too often used as a pejorative. That was the only argument I had with Una.
I am old fashioned, and often clueless, and i might well accidentally use the wrong pronoun when addressing someone, but I am a firm believer in you are what you say you are, not what I think you are.
I also as- asa poster and not a mod- that people please not personalize their comments and dig up old personal grievances. Keep it general and positive, what can we do better, not bad things that have been done.