octopus, with all due respect I hardly think Great Debates and Politics & Elections would be “neutered completely and become farcical” if we straight up censored debate on the validity of transgender identity. That one type of debate would be neutered, but not the complete fora.
~Max
While I haven’t been posting, I have been reading, andi want to echo WE here. There’s a lot that I need to learn.
Thirded. I’ve been reading this thread and fully realize I don’t understand much of the basket of issues being discussed – and I’ve dated trans ladies. I wasn’t aware until quite recently that there was such hostility to transwomen (who are indeed women) from feminists? Boggle.
This is, of course, the position I took last time we discussed minority groups in ATMB. The difference this time around is that the moderators have made it explicit that they want to be friendly and inclusive, to make the board feel like a safe place.
I never had an issue with that, once it is decided that is the goal. Lofty ideals of free and open debate on every topic fall to the wayside when the community (or the administration) says, “no, we are not willing to tolerate this”. Even if I personally disagree, it’s not my message board. Even if it was my message board, I wouldn’t necessarily want to go against the community like that.
~Max
There isn’t any from this feminist. Hell, they’re signing up to fight for my side. I’d welcome them into the foxhole with me.
Perhaps. However, it would be useful if the very front page of this website didn’t have this anachronistic language.
“ That’s not to say it just happened. Two elements were key. The first was that we had rules. The initial one was simple: don’t be a jerk. Jerkitude lacking specificity, this was soon elaborated on, but the basic idea persisted: you could venture any opinion you cared to provided you remained civil.”
Cecil Adams
Now I feel sad for teaming up against octopus. Well, what the heck.
My personal opinion is that this is not a justified interpretation of a generic “transwomen aren’t women” debate. Just because someone claims that you don’t know who you are, does not mean they claim you are being deceptive or have some kind of ulterior motive. If someone claims that you (or all similar individuals) are being deceptive or have some kind of ulterior motive, I would say that is crossing the line. I do not agree that it follows from every post claiming that “transgender women aren’t women”. It should be possible for someone to think you are wrong about your own identity without attributing malice to you.
You might arrive at a different conclusion based on inference. Because you are a transgender person, I suspect that you have been exposed to these “transgender women aren’t women” debates far more often than I. You probably have more experience with this kind of debate and, based on that experience, you might feel justified in assuming your opponent thinks you have an ulterior motive. Maybe you just have more experience in life. Or perhaps there is an element of trauma beyond your control that really hurts you when you read these posts. Or perhaps all of the above.
Or maybe there’s a bunch of posts on these boards that cross the line. I don’t know if I’ve seen them but there are many topics I don’t read.
In my own head, I’m able to put myself in your shoes and imagine myself taking your position, wanting to ban debate on the validity of transgender identity. There are things that may be private to you which would change my mind, which you can’t necessarily make me see (and please, don’t feel obligated to try). But in my shoes, I just can’t endorse that position.
That being said, you don’t need my endorsement to change the rules. I do slightly prefer the “we can debate anything” environment, on principle, but I also recognize that I really couldn’t care less if we ban debate on transgender identity. I’ve tried looking into that debate and I find it boring - I’m sorry if that offends you. My apathy is a privilege, and I own that. The way I see it, my slight interest in a “debate anything” environment is countered by my privilege of not caring about this subject in the least. That’s why I wrote “I have no horse in this race”.
I’m not concerned about a slippery slope because I have faith in the reason of my fellow board members.
There, now you have my full position. Do with it what you may.
~Max
So it’s been done 15 years ago.
Can we bring those threads, or the applicable information from those threads, up front and center so people don’t have to do it all over and over again?
– this might make sense for Thrice-Told Tales in general: along with the explanation of what’s not up for further discussion, links to some good explanations of what’s already been gone over.
Maybe. But I’m not sure it’s possible to see people telling you you’re wrong about your own identity without being infuriated, or injured, or both.
I sure as hell don’t want anybody patting me on the head and telling me that they know better than I do who I am.
I for one would appreciate links to such threads. I was around 15 years ago but missed them and would like to know more.
The exodus of trans posters would indicate that is not true.
This is only a problem if your idea of civility is limited to not using swearwords. Deadnaming, misgendering, questioning someone’s stated gender are all inherently uncivil opinions, regardless of how politely they are worded.
You do realise that even without it being malicious in intent, it’s still hurtful in action?
Let me analogize - some race realists claim they’re coming from a place of love, that their concern for genetically intellectually-inferior Africans is paternalistic, that only by knowing the scientific truth of African inferiority can we convince society as a whole to do more to help Africans. How do you think actual Africans felt about their precious “intentions”?
This board eventually decided even such arguments weren’t worth having.
And I’d like to point out that again you’re privileging a hypothetical possible thread over the ones we do have, where we could see they were rife with projecting misandry onto transwomen and actual attribution of malice.
What would you have me do, read the J. K. Rowling trans furore thread and let you know how I would have modded it? Scour the “Did We Treat Transgenderism Better in the Past” thread for personal attacks?
ETA: Are you saying we don’t need a rules change to accomodate transgender members? That moderators can do a better job of enforcing existing rules?
~Max
I am absolutely willing to go through any topic you throw my way if this is what you’re thinking.
~Max
No, I don’t really care, because you’re not a mod.
I’m happy with you doing what you’re already doing, which is realizing that you don’t have a horse in this race.
I’d be happier if you actually debated points you raised rather than drop them when you realize you’re on a hiding to nowhere with them.
I’d be happiest if you realized the lesson about hypotheticals not trumping actual situations was a universally-applicable one for GD.
One? Hardly a exodus.
And I believe Una also had said she was really busy and hardly had time to post anyway.
Look, there’s been no mass exodus from either trans or Misogyny. That’s not a good reason.
However, basic guidelines for behaving as civilized human beings is why we need to change the rules as things IRL change.
I resent your accusations.
So is this your working definition of “gender discrimination”?
Gender discrimination. (n). An unfair or prejudicial distinction between different people or things, on the grounds of gender.
I am willing to make that concession. Here are the bulletins you took issue with,
- Debating the validity of someone’s gender is encouraging readers to treat others differently based on their gender
- encouraging readers to [treat] people differently because of their gender constitutes encouraging gender discrimination
- it is against the rules to encourage gender discrimination without mod approval
And here is a revision. (unfortunately I had to add a few extra logical steps due to the increased complexity of “gender discrimination”)
- All arguments against the validity of [any given class of transgender identities] are based on unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people who identify as transgender versus people who identify as cisgender, on the grounds of gender
- To argue that [any given class of transgender identities] are invalid is to encourage readers to make unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people who identify as transgender versus people who identify as cisgender, on the grounds of gender
- To encourage readers to make unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people who identify as transgender versus people who identify as cisgender is to encourage gender discrimination
- it is against the rules to encourage gender discrimination without mod approval
If, however, you are using “unfair or prejudicial” as a stand-in for immoral I suggest that your definition is compatible with my usage of it in post #1.
I’m sorry to disappoint, but I have yet to learn this lesson when it comes to rule changes. Rules apply to future threads so, in my opinion, you have to consider how potential threads would be affected by the change. You remember that I personally disagreed with the decision to ban scientific racism, just like I disagree here, based on my argument that it would prevent a hypothetical debate I consider civil.
~Max
So are you saying the transphobia targeted at her was ok then, since she was busy anyways? Or are you just being dismissive of her in general?
Might I suggest you sue your own posts for slander, then?
I’m aware. That’s why I phrased it as a future first conditional.
We’ve already established that what you consider civil doesn’t signify. You admit this with your acknowledgement that you have “no horse in the race”.
No. more than one. Out of such a small minority, that qualifies as an exodus.
Sufficient other posters have said different that I don’t believe you, but instead choose to believe them and the evidence of my own eyes.