This is exactly the sort of nonsense that “but we’re not political” opens up. Since a mod has said that dehumanizing language shouldn’t be allowed, does that mean it’s up for discussion whether dehumanizing language should be allowed?
Fuck, I propose, no.
This is not my forum to moderate, so I indicated I was posting as a poster. But that’s not really accurate. I am a moderator who, while not a moderator of this forum, still has an opinion on how future moderation on this issue should be handled. So let me change my comment and say that I spoke as a moderator, not a poster. And I don’t think your perspective is going to change how we handle moderation here.
I see your point very readily and if people on the “right” wish to characterize the Board’s position as biased, I can live with that.
I guess what sticks in my craw is that, as we agree, the outrage and hatred has been very deliberately and effectively ginned up. As such, I struggle to be characterized as “biased” when my perspective on the issue has never changed, and it wasn’t “bias” until certain rightward factions decided to make it so. It’s no different to racism, in my view, and should be handled the same on the Board: Zero tolerance.
And boy do I agree we’re not in normal times politically. Staff are trying hard to maintain a fair and broad approach to discussions, but some things are beyond the pale. In my opinion as a moderator, this is such a one.
How, exactly are we supposed to know what is being said about these things if we do not discuss it?
I don’t read Twitter, Facebook and the other social media.
I’m unlikely to encounter a trans person in RL.
I count on the SD to keep me informed what is not in mainstream newspapers. (I’ve recently stopped watching TV news, god my life is better because of it).
We should talk about it. That’s how we learn from others more worldly or informed.
Personally I do not know what to think of gender, trans issues.
I’m so confused. 
It is possible to discuss information without promoting misinformation, especially misinformation that has pointed out as such over and over again.
This is obviously not the standard. No one is going to say it’s “dehumanizing” and against the rules to contest the notion that “Christians are uniquely saved by Christ and everyone else is going to hell,” or “Israeli Jews are the indigenous people of the Levant” or “Russians are the legitimate governing power of Ukraine.” There are millions of people who genuinely define themselves as those things, and of course those identifications should be, and are, subject to debate in any forum that purports to be dedicated to “debate.”
Just like all the other proposed post-facto standards e.g. “no debating metaphysical status of anything is allowed, only practical proposals for legislation” it’s very clearly not the rule, never has been the rule, and is not workable as the rule in the future. It’s all obvious posturing to avoid just saying “we have decided not to allow debate on the following topics because we have the power to do so and have chosen thus, there is no overriding principle as to what topics are on the list besides which issues the staff of the board personally feels are important, and you can suck it up or leave.”
I assume we could definitely have a thread about what the administration is up to regarding trans people, the current state of trans medical care, etc. What we shouldn’t (and can’t) do is deny their existence, say they are faking or looking for attention, mis-gender them, etc.
Someone asked a question, and I wasnt sure if there was an answer. Some trump tweets (or truth socials?) could be called hate speech. Could we link to one in P&E, etc threads about trump? Or link to someone posting elsewhere about how outrageous said quote was?
Ah here is the question-
I mean, I think it would be okay, but geez.
It seems like the only thing that makes it ok is that it’s official government policy and therefore worthy of discussion. But if it were just someone’s blog, it seems like it would be a pretty explicit violation. The EO itself is pretty clear cut. Some clarification would be helpful, in any case.
First, most people are unlikely to. If the area in general does not feel like a safe place to disclose that kind of information, people will just keep it hidden.
Second, most people believe they can spot a trans person. There is no one way trans men or women look. Pretty much any physical feature that you can easily observe can be surgically altered. etc.
I say this seriously- ask politely. Way back when, a member named Esprix started a thread titled “Ask The Gay Guy” IIRC all the questions and discussions continued for four threads. A Muslim guy by the screen name Muslim Guy started an “Ask The Muslim” thread. It was very educational.
Sadly, most of our trans posters were indeed driven away by transphobia in the years before it was banned here. We have a few openly trans posters remaining. While they are by no means obligated to answer questions, IMO most will if they feel the questions are asked honestly, without any agenda beyond a desire for knowledge and understanding, and without malice. People like me, who try to be allies, can also help answer some questions.
What proposed post-facto standards? And proposed by who exactly? Members are free to propose new rules. The mods and admins are free to ignore those proposals.
Exactly what rule are you quoting here? A link would be nice.
The rule banning transphobia was in response to some very vocal transphobic posters who made the board so uncomfortable for trans people that most of them left. A long list of ‘tired topics’ were banned because those arguing against the all the scientific evidence rarely had any new ‘evidence’ we hadn’t already seen and dealt with before, and were often not arguing in good faith.
Thosew do seem to be the choices available to members. If the mods disagree with you on something, you can ask an admin to weigh in. If the admin refuses or sides with the mods, you have no further recourse.
We have an admin now?
I think it has been made clear that the problem is linking to hate speech as a way to circumvent the ban on hate speech.
I interpret this as posting a link with the comment “I agree with this” would land you in trouble. Posting a link to discuss its constitutionality would be fine. Posting a link to complain about how angry it makes you would depend on context; I can envision scenarios where it’s been done to death and further links are just perpetuating the harm.
I read @Esprix old threads. Found them very informative.
So long ago, tho’.
Things have really changed in this brave new world.
Not to mention I fall about 5 years behind on most things.
That is an egregiously unfair example. I was thinking of opinions like this:
The board rules on hate speech have an exception for “political affiliation or leaning”. I suggest removing this exception. Reasonable criticism supported by facts would presumably still be allowed; why specifically condone hate speech for this one group?
If you’ve ever wondered how conservatives and many centrists feel about all the changes pushed by progressives: exactly like that!
I agree with all of this. If the consensus is that posters or mods don’t want to allow debate on certain subjects, and want to ban even some widely-held opinions from being posted, then just do it. Modding links differently depending on whether the poster says they agree or disagree with them is obviously indirectly modding people for their political views.
Again, not the standard. No one is going to change the rules about how Israel is discussed if it causes Israeli citizens, Zionists, or Jews however defined to choose to stop participating. Nor is anyone going to respond to “people who hate 3D animation” leaving the board by banning discussion of Pixar movies. “We need to have people X here so we’ll do anything to keep them including banning anything that hurts their feelings” is a function of having already decided that people X are on the right side of the debate, as opposed to people Z who obviously just need to toughen up if they don’t like being criticized.
Expression of some of those opinions is banned, it’s in the site’s Terms of Service.
https://boards.straightdope.com/tos
Please do not state or imply that transgender people are mentally ill. We realize the question remains controversial. However, we’re not going to settle the matter here, and raising it tends to poison other discussion of transgender issues. Please keep your opinions on the subject to yourself.
And misgendering is also banned.
Do not deliberately misgender another poster – that is, refer to them by a pronoun or other sex-specific term indicating a gender other than the one they identify as. This applies only in cases where a poster’s gender identity is reasonably clear. Likewise, do not deliberately misgender off-board figures.
So, if you argue that a particular trans woman is really a man, you are violating the rules against misgendering someone, for example.
Trans issues are certainly something that can be debated (and often are), but only in a respectful way that isn’t violating our guidelines as put in the TOS.
(Note I’m just repeating the rules as I understand them, not trying to junior mod or anything here.)
How broadly do you want to apply that? Should it also be against the rules to say you hate literal 1940s era Nazis? Al Qaeda? The Ku Klux Klan?
Except we’re not trying to tell people to think of themselves as something other than what they are. Big difference.
Probably not, but I don’t understand why regularly posting hateful comments about large groups of people that surely include some board members themselves, along with many of our friends and family members, is considered okay.
I really don’t think this is a sensible standard. If someone self-diagnoses themself as autistic or bipolar, are we forbidden to contradict them?
There’s a difference between judging a person’s actions and judging their identity.
A closer analogy would be if someone tells someone they can’t be a Jew because they don’t “look like one”. Or even closer, saying that they aren’t Israelis at all because you don’t believe Israel is a legitimate state and that there is no such thing as an Israeli.
What basis would you have to contradict them? And note that a diagnosis is not the same as an identity. One is objective, the other is not.
Which is just a way of demanding that everyone lie in favor of the Right, since even the most neutrally-worded honest listing of the behavior and beliefs of the Right is “hateful”. Because they are hateful.
This is part of the right wing’s standard playbook; demand “fairness” by demanding that their opinions be treated as moral and reasonable, then spew bigotry and lies everywhere while demanding the punishment of anyone who calls them on it. Then everyone else leaves and the Right controls the forum/Discord server/whatever.