# I'm protesting my Warning **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 21, 2020, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746 "2020-01-21T14:51:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/81 "2020-01-24T15:43:34Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Recognizing the reality of transgendered individuals _is_ recognizing that men and women are different. If they weren’t, then we _would_ have “gender based on choices” rather than fundamental differences so severe that they cause some individuals trauma. [“Gender based on choices”](https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/1/18/do-you-need-gender-dysphoria-be-trans) appears to be where the trans community is right now. Gender dysphoria is no longer a requirement for people to be transgendered. If tomorrow, you suddenly decided you wanted to be “she”, then that makes you a woman according to the prevailing view. It would be transphobic to still consider you a man. No, I’m not bullshitting you; I have been told this on this very board. > [@](#): > > That’s the whole reasoning behind the TERF schtick is that it _undermines_ the idea that there aren’t any differences between genders. Lately I’ve been doing a lot of research into the warring opinions on transgenderism and this looks like a false statement. So-called TERFS believe there are differences between _sexes_.Men don’t get pregnant; women do. So-called TERFS don’t want to pretend otherwise. They also believe there are gender differences, but they ascribe these differences to nurture as opposed to nature (i.e. “brain sex”). Trans advocates take the opposite view from the above: Sex differences don’t exist because they believe men _and_ women can get pregnant. And they believe gender differences come from “brain sex”, so if someone’s feels like a woman then that makes them so. I think the OP’s warning was deserved, but I’d be lying if I didn’t see where they coming from. Our current discourse on gender feels very surreal as of late. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/82 "2020-01-24T15:43:44Z")
To end the discussion. When is the men-means-xy-and-penis the default when is it more flexible? Which topics? Do we agree that men (traditional definition) and women (trad def) are inherently different and that these differences express themselves in different life-choices regardless of culture? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/83 "2020-01-24T15:45:18Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Those posters aren’t setting up a gotcha against other posters on this board, and they aren’t trying to start an argument with anyone on the board. It’s nothing more than a side discussion, no more of a hijack than the lottery discussion in the same thread. > > You and I both know that Aji wasn’t trying to discuss anything in good faith. Again, it is all from your viewpoint. The lottery discussion was right on point (I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery because I either win or don’t win). The transgender issue was not at all relevant to anything in that thread. Nothing at all. I’ve already agreed that Aji was not acting in good faith. I don’t think these other posters were either. There was nothing about those comments that helped anyone understand why some people would view winning the lottery or a man having a baby as a 50/50 chance. It was purely a dig at the OP who did not properly account for some men being transgender men. Now, if you take Aji, in a thread where we are asking why are all the mass shooters male, that might be, IMHO an “interesting discussion” to see if it is confined to biological men versus transgender men. But he is smacked down for it because (something to the effect of) we have no data on that as of yet and “yes” it was a bit shitty the way he said it. But we don’t apply that standard across the board. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/84 "2020-01-24T16:08:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Again, it is all from your viewpoint. The lottery discussion was right on point (I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery because I either win or don’t win). It was NOT on point, because the question was about whether a specific instance of that type of argument happened, not about the concept of the 50/50 argument as a whole. Even so, I freely admit that the transgender discussion was a hijack. > [@](#): > > Now, if you take Aji, in a thread where we are asking why are all the mass shooters male, that might be, IMHO an “interesting discussion” to see if it is confined to biological men versus transgender men. But he is smacked down for it because (something to the effect of) we have no data on that as of yet and “yes” it was a bit shitty the way he said it. But we don’t apply that standard across the board. He wasn’t smacked down because we don’t have data, he was smacked down because he didn’t ask the question you are now presuming he asked. He said > [@](#): > > How do you define male? > Are you implying that men and women are different? That isn’t an effort to start an interesting discussion about behavioral differences in biological vs transgender men. He didn’t just accidentally phrase his otherwise interesting question in a poor way. He isn’t interested in that discussion, he’s starting an argument, trying to score points, or trying to rules lawyer himself around the rules set in place by the mods. Even now, he wants someone to say that men are inherently different than women so he can point to it the next time someone calls him out on something. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/85 "2020-01-24T16:22:56Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It was NOT on point, because the question was about whether a specific instance of that type of argument happened, not about the concept of the 50/50 argument as a whole. Even so, I freely admit that the transgender discussion was a hijack. I think we largely agree. My whole point was that threads about “Why do men leave the toilet seat up?” and the like do not require a post #4-7 hijack about how not all men are biological men and therefore do not leave the toilet seat up. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/86 "2020-01-24T16:24:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > To end the discussion. > When is the men-means-xy-and-penis the default when is it more flexible? Which topics? When it matters. Consider: > [@hypothetical post in a different reality](#): > > The question of why most mass shooters are men is complicated by transgenderism. Of the mass shooters who are women, 54% of them are trans women, compared to 0.3% of the total population of women being trans. Of the mass shooters who are men, 0% are trans men, compared to 0.2% of the total population of men. It looks like gender may be less important than testicles. Now, if any of those numbers were true, it’d be relevant to bring up transgenderism in the thread. But they’re not. There’s absolutely no way that bringing up transgenderism added anything to the topic at hand. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/87 "2020-01-24T16:49:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I don’t disagree, but I think we should take a step back before we make simply bad posts against the rules. The probability thread wasn’t even about that. It was in GQ and the example used was that someone had said the chances of a man having a baby was 50/50 because it was either possible or not. The OP wanted to explore where such an absurdity of logic came from. The example could have been that a unicorn walks through my front door (50/50, either the unicorn does or does not). > > Inserting transgender discussions in that thread was equally hijacky in my opinion, even though it was done in a less trollish way that the OP here. > > I’m just saying that, respectfully, it is the subconscious bias showing through. Transgender rights are accepted as gospel here. So therefore if you point out that “men” can have babies: transgender men, then you are doing the world a public service. If you mention it, especially in not a very good way, in a “why are men mass shooters thread” then that is perceived as a negative that needs to be modded. We all have these subconscious biases and it is not wrong to point them out. That statement about the probability of men having babies being 50% has two components – the main component is, does it make sense to say that if something will happen or it won’t, that the chances are equal? Obviously not, unless you have no other information. The lottery discussion is not about men having babies but is about the probability question. The men having babies discussion is not about the probabilities, it’s about whether men can have babies. Both were much more germane to the discussion than the OP’s (of this thread) attempted gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/88 "2020-01-24T16:56:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > When it matters. > > Consider: > > Now, if any of those numbers were true, it’d be relevant to bring up transgenderism in the thread. > > But they’re not. There’s absolutely no way that bringing up transgenderism added anything to the topic at hand. You almost have me on your side. Almost. What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post. Many posts don’t add “anything to the topic at hand.” Some posts are great, some are shitty, and most are average. Nobody gets modded for a post because its quality is poor…except when it deals with touchy issues. Let’s take Mr. Dibble’s post upthread which consisted of “Naah. Nice try though.” (Just as an example). Didn’t really contribute much, but it is not a violation of the board rules. It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/89 "2020-01-24T17:01:02Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > That statement about the probability of men having babies being 50% has two components – the main component is, does it make sense to say that if something will happen or it won’t, that the chances are equal? Obviously not, unless you have no other information. The lottery discussion is not about men having babies but is about the probability question. The men having babies discussion is not about the probabilities, it’s about whether men can have babies. Both were much more germane to the discussion than the OP’s (of this thread) attempted gotcha. I read it again. The OP in that thread used an example to clearly illustrate the probability logical fallacy. I took it to mean that it is clearly impossible for men to have babies, but the person he was referring to did not take that into account. The person simply took the two states (a man can have a baby or he cannot) and assigned a 50/50 value to it. It was clearly meant only for biological men, much like the mass shooter question was clearly about biological men. If I read that wrong, I will retract and apologize, but it seems pretty straight forward to me. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/90 "2020-01-24T17:03:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue. Making a pithy remark to make a point uh n a way that dehumanizes a segment of the population that’s already heavily discriminated against does seem like it would fall under the umbrella of “being a jerk”, yes. Again, this seems like a feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/91 "2020-01-24T17:21:54Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You almost have me on your side. Almost. > > What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post. When someone who’s got a history of posting transphobic nonsense posts about transgender issues, there’s a pretty high probability that they’re posting more transphobic nonsense. When they’re doing it in a thread that has nothing to do with transgenderism, there’s a pretty high probability that they’re trolling/hijacking/being a jerk. In this case, a substantive point relevant to the thread is a defense against the T/H/BaJ charge. If they don’t have a substantive point, they don’t have a defense. If someone isn’t T/H/BaJ, there’s no charge they need a defense against. It’s the difference between being asleep in your bed, and being asleep in my bed. You don’t need to explain yourself if you’re asleep in your bed. But if I find you in mine, you better start talking fast. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/92 "2020-01-24T18:26:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You almost have me on your side. Almost. > > What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post. Many posts don’t add “anything to the topic at hand.” Some posts are great, some are shitty, and most are average. Nobody gets modded for a post because its quality is poor…except when it deals with touchy issues. > > Let’s take Mr. Dibble’s post upthread which consisted of “Naah. Nice try though.” (Just as an example). Didn’t really contribute much, but it is not a violation of the board rules. It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue. Right, but this is a different forum and it is specifically set up to allow discussion of contentious issues (relating to how the MB is managed). GQ is not like that. In fact, I think it is true that you’re supposed to have higher quality posts in GQ than any other forum. I would say that the post quality is something like: GQ, Thread Games, GD/P&E, IMHO, Game Room/CS, MPSIMS, BBQ Pit in terms of quality of the contributions and requirement to be on topic. So, yes, post quality matters in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/93 "2020-01-24T19:59:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Let’s take Mr. Dibble’s post upthread which consisted of “Naah. Nice try though.” (Just as an example). Didn’t really contribute much Of course it contributes. You made an assertion of similarity, I made a statement of disagreement.You expected a deeper analysis of why they weren’t similar? That’s not a must for this forum, I believe bare opinions on moderation are also allowed. I then made a sarcastic comment on your very obvious diligence at attempting to come up with evidence of hypocrisy from your ideological enemies as some sort of, I guess, attempt to sway the current tides of moderation? That’s also a comment on moderation, or at least, a comment that I don’t agree with your take on how it should go. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2020, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746/94 "2020-01-29T00:00:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The NHL actually has no rules against women players, and at one point in 1992 one woman was actually an NHL player briefly for the Tampa Bay Lighning, playing goalie in just one exhibition game in 1992 and another in 1993. Sorry to everybody who thinks this thread should die, but I feel compelled to name this woman. Manon Rhéaume was the first woman to play in the NHL, or _any_ major North American professional sports league, although she was brought in “largely as a publicity stunt” for Tampa Bay’s new team. She ended up holding her own and blocked seven out of nine shots from the Blues. Interesting 2012 interview on [NHL.com](http://NHL.com) linked below. [https://www.nhl.com/news/part-1-manon-rheaume-shatters-the-gender-barrier/c-642005](https://www.nhl.com/news/part-1-manon-rheaume-shatters-the-gender-barrier/c-642005) [https://www.nhl.com/news/part-3-rheaume-first-woman-to-play-in-nhl-game/c-642007](https://www.nhl.com/news/part-3-rheaume-first-woman-to-play-in-nhl-game/c-642007) ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-protesting-my-warning/846746.md?page=4)