Look at it like this. If you changed your name from DemonTree to AngelTree, it would be okay for someone to say “when you joined this board, your name was DemonTree” it would be wrong for someone to say “your name is DemonTree”.
It’s pretty arbitrary, yeah.
Is it allowed to say that someone who was born biologically male and has made no physical changes to their body is still biologically male?
AFAICS, @Aspidistra wasn’t saying “trans women are male” in general, she was saying specific ones who hadn’t taken hormones or at least hadn’t had surgery would be known to be biologically male by people around them.
You cut the rest of my comment where I explained you can’t do that and still have a debate worth a damn. This subject is different from those you listed in that it is a live issue, and @Aspidistra’s view is well within the Overton window, but the board could and maybe should ban debating it rather than losing more longstanding members.
I don’t have time to reply to the rest, I need to work.
Thirded, or fourthed. For example, when DemonTree refers to “trans women in women’s sports”, as she did in this thread, that’s totally acceptable. When Aspidistra refers to “male people in women’s sports”, meaning transgender women, that’s not acceptable.
As I have been repeatedly saying in these discussions, you can tell honest respectful disagreement from transphobic propaganda by the willingness of the honest disagreers to use respectful language when expressing their opinions. Everybody understands that the term “transgender women”, in the context of women’s sports, means exactly the same thing (and expresses it more accurately) as what Aspidistra et al. mean by “male-bodied people”. The unwillingness to use the more respectful term is the transphobia tell.
Requiring politeness is all we are doing here. There is absolutely no Board rule that prohibits expressing opinions such as “transgender women shouldn’t compete in women’s sports because of physiological advantages”, or “transgender women shouldn’t share locker rooms with cisgender women”, or “transgender people’s legal gender transitions should be more restrictive than just self-ID”. Nobody has been moderated for respectfully expressing any such opinion.
What people get modded for is using such discussions to say “transgender women are men” or “transgender women are male”, etc., which is rude and jerkish. Doesn’t matter if you sincerely believe it: it’s still rude and jerkish to say it.
Similarly, a poster might have sincere beliefs on, say, the uniquely sacred essential nature of heterosexual marriage. There’s nothing wrong with posting opinions like “I think there’s a uniquely sacred essential nature of heterosexual marriage that other relationships don’t share”, for instance. But it would be rude and jerkish to say “Same-sex couples aren’t really married”.
Not really. If somebody has gone down the transphobia rabbit hole far enough to be unable to discuss transgender rights issues in a respectful way, and they can’t control themselves enough to keep off of the topics they can’t discuss respectfully, then they have basically self-sabotaged their value as an SDMB poster. Letting people indulge in jerkish behavior just to support “diversity of opinion” isn’t benefiting the Board overall.
Such as? If somebody wants to debate that black people are inferior and gay people are mentally ill and need conversion therapy, should we allow those debates as well?
This is utterly irrelevant as has been pointed out.
Sure they can. The SDMB is free within some extremely broad legal limirs to make any rules they want. We might lose ‘debate’ over some issues. Some issues are not, in my opinion and the opinion of the mods and admins, debatable.
The board loset Eve and Una Persson/Anthracite because it allowed transphobic posters and posts. Yes, we have lost some posters who insisted on making transphobic posts after the rules were updated.If any of them were “valuable”, I’ve forgotten their names. No way were they as valuable as the wit of Eve and the scientifc knowledge of Una Persson/Anthracite.
ISTM that that’s deliberately using a very ambiguous and imprecise term, namely “biologically”, in order to dogwhistle the rude assertion “transgender women are male”.
There’s a great deal that we don’t actually know about the biology of transgender people. We don’t know in what ways their brain structures might differ from those of cisgender people, or how their physiology processes different kinds of hormones, or what the range of all such biological effects may be over the whole population of transgender people. There is some scientific data on the subject, but it’s still very imperfectly understood.
So when we say that somebody was “born biologically male”, that’s actually just a shorthand for saying that the person was assigned male at birth, usually based on superficial assessment of visual genital structure. When we say that a transgender woman “is biologically male”, on the other hand, that’s an unjustified assertion that that woman’s physiology doesn’t differ in any significant way from that of men. That’s a really loaded statement whose ultimate purpose is just to place transgender women in the same category with men, in order to reject their right to identify as women.
If what you actually mean by such a statement is simply that “this transgender woman still has male genitalia and noticeably male-associated secondary sex characteristics such as facial hair, etc., and still presents as male”, and so on, then you can say those things explicitly. Nobody’s ever been modded for doing so AFAIK.
But you don’t actually know what that transgender woman is really like “biologically” in a more comprehensive sense, so saying that she’s “biologically male” is just well-poisoning.
Concur. This should at minimum result in a topic ban. And I frankly think we’re long past that.
This^^.
The poster isn’t a total loss. The poster+topic combo is long past untenable. The sealioning in this thread in this forum is deafening. They’re either disingenuous or functionally blind to the point at issue.
I didn’t read the entire thread.
IMHO, misgendering has as much power to do as much damage as “The N-word” (or any of the better-known slurs for LGBTQ+ people) has had throughout history.
Since we don’t allow the latter, I think we should take a pretty damned tough stance on the former.
And it isn’t lost on me (or others, to be sure) that the US has diverged from a pretty basic, pretty easy, and pretty low-cost standard for ‘(not) being a jerk.’
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”
We’re on the side of the angels here. The current US administration … not nearly so much.
Quoted for agreement. The useful number of sealions in a productive debate is zero.
Look, I think it’s worth removing both the specific poster and the specific offense from the equation here.
If any poster receives three warnings for breaking any specific rule, that should be actionable.
If it’s not actionable, then the only message we (and the poster) can take away is that the rule is unserious.
That is not the first time you have said she said something, or said something like something, without actually giving us a direct quote. Also, saying you are afraid to ask a question because it might get you banned just doesn’t fly any more when it is so easy to just PM the mods to see if you would be allowed to ask that particular question. By the way, people have named some of those that left because of the transphobes-can you name someone who supposedly left because they weren’t allowed to politely ask questions on this subject?
You With The Face kept misgendering people. I fail to see how that is ‘politely asking questions’.
Monstro IIRC was polite but left when her sister, YWTF, was banned.
It isn’t the same thing, because sometimes people with DSDs are mistaken as the opposite sex at birth, or doctors literally assign them to be raised as a sex that doesn’t necessarily match their biological one (this is where the term comes from).
Nor is it claiming a trans person’s physiology doesn’t differ in any significant way from the standard. There are plenty of ways people can differ from the norm and still be definitionally male or female, ie able to produce the corresponding gametes.
In my view it makes sense to distinguish between social sex and biological sex and recognise these can be different, but board rules don’t allow this.
Moderating:
Two things:
This is being reviewed in the Modloop. We might not be as quick as you like, but it is being looked at. That started when @Miller closed the thread in the pit.
The other is do not debate the topic or get political in About This Message Board.
I’m closing this for 12 minutes to help ensure everyone gets this message.
This topic was automatically opened after 12 minutes.
I think that there is a difference between outwardly acting polite on this message board and actually being polite on this message board, and there is no possible way to politely deny basic human rights, period.
We understand this is being reviewed. This thread is basically saying ‘why does it even need to be?’ A three-time offender on this shouldn’t need review.
If I called another person (off board), who I knew to be Jewish, the word ‘kike’ in a contentious Israel thread, would I not be immediately warned, if not suspended, by the first mod who came along? And if I then, after my suspension, did the exact same thing about another Jewish person, would I ever get a third chance? Same-same with calling a Black person the word ‘nigger’ in some thread about BLM.
My opinion - ban first, and maybe have a mod review afterwards. At your leisure. Take all the time you need. Years even…
Basically, say “There are some things up with which we will not put” (thank you, Mr. Churchill).