Naah, we need more of it.
That’s funny, I don’t get warned for my controversial opinions (of which I have expressed plenty that most Dopers disagree with, like absolute pacifism and rejection of the fiction of free speech).
It’s not about having controversial opinions, it’s about how you argue them.
I still did nothing of the kind.
Those views are barely controversial on this message board.
Bullshit. You try debating the pro- merits of absolute pacifism, complete rejection of so-called free speech, or - another one of my views - anarchism. See how “noncontroversial” they are. I’d show you previous threads on this if the site search for old threads didn’t suck completely.
This is as good as saying that we are only permitted to debate a topic if we explicitly endorse the very views we are arguing against! That is an unreasonable position that conveniently serves to enforce one viewpoint and shut down all debate against it. Banning the use of insulting terms is reasonable, banning neutral ones is going too far.
No, it’s saying we should only debate topics that aren’t historically only started by trolls, disingenuous debaters and JAQers.
What about banning disingenuous OPs?
Your use of “girls” to refer to everyone who isn’t trans in the context of a debate on the rights of trans girls is definitely not “neutral”, sorry. You aren’t the only one doing that crap, either.
It is pretty difficult to find neutral terms in this debate. Okay, I’ll stop using ‘girls’ in that context. Just need to find a suitable replacement.
May I suggest “cis girls” or “cis women”, depending on their age? That’s exactly the right word for this context.
I don’t like using cis because it doesn’t just mean not trans, it’s defined as requiring you to identify with a particular gender.
AFAB (Assigned Female At Birth) girls, vs girls in general, vs trans girls specifically?
Who are you wanting to include that’s not being included under this word? Are you worried about AFAB folks who don’t consider themselves girls and who want to play girls sports and don’t want transgirls to be able to play? I’m not sure this group exists.
Yeah, the number of nonbinary (+genderqueer, pangender, whatever else non-cis you might be thinking of) people AFAB who want to play girl’s or women’s sports and would be upset to have to compete against a trans girl or trans woman is probably zero.
I personally find “AFAB” an awkward construction, and only use it when it’s the only word (phrase) that works in the context. I think “cis” is exactly the right word for this discussion.
Since this has become controversial, let me go into more detail on my reasoning. Aside from the utterly gratuitous slur on women’s sports, that only added to my irritation to the OP. The OP’s claim was that Biden had issued an XO saying that transgender women had to be allowed to compete on Women’s teams. The XO said nothing of the sort. It was a general order that transgendered persons were essentially a protected class and could not be discriminated against on that basis. It is arguable that an unintended consequence of that order might be that transgendered woman must be allowed to compete on women’s teams. Arguable. Sports federations are heatedly arguing this point. Right now they are trying out a rule that you cannot compete as a woman if you have too much testosterone, but there are obvious problems with that too. It is a difficult and fraught question that can be debated. But the way the OP presented is, IMHO, trolling.
I for one am very grateful that after years and years and years of complaining, this sort of disingenuous argument is finally being slapped down.
And if these sorts of arguments are made in good faith by people who are just bad debaters, this sort of warning might be the motivation to learn.
So, thank you Hari_Seldon.
The original poster of that thread was misled by a hateful and bigoted op-ed piece and seems to be just wrong on the subject. However, being wrong shouldn’t be warnable on its own.
The gratuitous slur on women’s sports was obviously (to me) sarcasm.
I think the OP was so wrong as to warrant shutting down the thread (especially after no real cites were provided), but I don’t think it merited a warning.
There’s being misled, and then there is seeking out those perspective. The OP didn’t even bother to link to the op-ed, until it was linked by another poster and asked if that was where she got it from. She admitted that the reason that she didn’t link it, and instead just started her OP with a fallacious assertion was because the op-ed was inflammatory. She new the nature and the content of the piece she was pushing, there was no “misleading” there.
She did not cite the EO, she did not cite any analysis, she basically just repeated the exact inflammatory language that of the misleading op-ed.
It was less sarcastic and more passive aggressive. Just daring anyone to disagree with her, as that would mean that you don’t care about women.
If anything that thread should be preserved as a near perfect example of well poisoning.
Would you still have warned me if you’d realised that was sarcasm?
I believe this would not be happening if it affected men’s sports. Is expressing that opinion against the rules?