So the appropriateness of anti-Klan language is dependent on how many Klan or Klan-adjacent members post here?
This is also just kind of irrelevant. ‘Telling people to think of themselves as something other than what they are’ is very specific to trans issues, it’s not a general difference between conservative and progressive politics. You may as well say "it’s okay for us to make other people feel bad by decreeing their formerly normative political positions are biased, because we are correct’. The conservative would say the same.
Hardly, the Right loves demanding that people pretend to be something other than they are. Pretend to be straight. Pretend to be Christian. Conform. Conform. Conform.
I am genuinely unclear what you meany by “standard”. If you mean ‘Other rules don’t have that rationale.’ I never said that they did. If you mean ‘That is not the reason why those posters left or why transphobia was banned.’ Both the former posters and the mods disagree with you.
No, probably not.
So we’ve gone from a fairly central question of identity to “people who hate 3D animation.”? How are the two categories remotely similar?
If that was the case, why didn’t they ban transphobia when a large group of posters, including me, first complained about it? Why didn’t they ban transphobia any of the repeated times we complained about it? Why did they wait until nearly all the trans Dopers (according you. people they had already decided were on the right side of the debate) had left?
Again, why?
“criticized”?
Do you honestly feel that telling somebody ‘You are not a woman. You are a mentally ill, surgically mutilated man. I understand your medical condition and the workings of your mind better than you do.’ is merely criticism?
I disagree.
‘You are not a trans woman. You are a mentally ill man.’
‘You are not gay. You just need conversion therapy to fix you.’
The comparison to wanting people to stop using certain terms because they are found to be outadated or offensive is not a good one.
It is impossible for someone who doesn’t think transgender women are women to reply honestly to this post without breaking the rules of the board.
Do you agree the right is about greed, hatred, cruelty, malice, and the denial of reality? That it has always been about hurting and oppressing people? A third to a half of people at any given time are motivated by this? If not, don’t you think it’s pretty prejudicial to claim they are? As in, likely to make people prejudiced against them, as it would with any other group?
This is turning into a debate on the issues again, so I am bowing out now.
If I say “Jesus never existed, and if he did he certainly wasn’t the son of god”, that’s a pretty specific denial of people’s religious identity. I can even go on to say that people’s religious feelings are delusional; they’re based on a complete fiction and arise from their brains misfiring. AFAIK, this is not considered hate speech.
Seems inconsistent that some types of identity-denial are ok and others are not.
Since the rules have been agreed to, I guess not responding at all would be the proper response.
I’ve been diagnosed with a bunch of things from the DSM by many licensed professionals. Once I was old enough to understand what those diagnoses actually meant, I realized that most of these proefessionals had been wrong. I began taking agency in my mental health care.
So, unless somebody has both a diagnosis from a qualified professional and good reason to believe the diagnosis is correct, I woudl recommend they get a lot more information and possibly a second opinion.
When it comes to care and counseling for trans patients, saying “Hi! I’m a woman!” will not automatically get you horomone therapy and various surgeries.
You will need to see a therapist for a mandatory minimum. If that goes well, you can begin dressing and living as the desired sex. If that goes well, you can start on hormones. If that goes well, you cand undergo surgery if you feel the need (not everybody does).
All is this takes years. It is also generally quite expensive.
Are there exceptions where somebody has gone to another country or given people large amounts of money to skip the process? Of course there are. Those people tend to have very negative outcomes. There is debate over just how long the process should take and exactly what medical officials should have exactly how much power. However, people tend to realize that some effects of hormone therapy cannot be reversed, and the surgeries are basically not reversible. Checking that the patient is “Insistent, Consistent, and Persistent” is a good idea.
I disagree.
I didn’t ask if people agreed with “u are not a woman. You are a mentally ill, surgically mutilated man. I understand your medical condition and the workings of your mind better than you do”. I asked if they thought it was “merely criticism”?
There are plenty of things you can say about somebody, even on the SDMB, that are “merely criticsm”. I contend that telling somebody they are delusional, their doctors specifically and the entire field in general are wrong, and that you understand them better than they understand themselves- rises to level far above what is covered by the denotation or conotation of “criticism”
@DemonTree , my advice is “know your audience”
I know, but if I said yes then you’d ask why, and I can’t explain why without breaking the board rules.
I mean he’s right. Conservatives are put into a bind on certain core conservative topics like racial hierarchies of competence, transgender existence, women’s rights, etc.
Read history. Look at the news. If anything that’s optimistic.
There’s a reason why you don’t try to refute my position by reciting anything the Right has done or said, now or historically: because people can’t talk about the right without either lying or making it look horrible. So they just throw out high-minded sounding apologia that carefully avoids mentioning any of the actual actions or positions of the Right.
That’s not even close to the same thing, that’s like comparing apples and meteors. You’re not denying the existence of Christians. You’re declining to agree with their faith. Not even close. (And I’m speaking as a Christian.)
You can disagree with an aspect of an identity, even a very important part, without denying it altogether. For example, you might say I accept the existence of trans people but don’t think they should be allowed into the bathroom associated with their identified gender. That would be something that could lead to a strong argument or even fight but you’re still not denying that they exist.
Another thing to remember is that there is real world baggage and even persecution that goes along with certain subjects. Some people joke about disliking “gingers” and might make some disparaging comment but it’s not the same as saying something similar about a person who has faced (and still faces) real persecution, like jokes about the Holocaust or slavery. Even though they’re all related to a person’s ethnicity and/or appearance, they don’t have the same weight and aren’t all given the same taboos and consideration.
These factors I’m sure have affected why the rules have evolved here over time.
How would a Conservative (or anyone) make the case that the transgender topic isn’t like the other topics mentioned? He’d have to explain why he thought transgender women weren’t women, which is explicitly disallowed by the board’s rules.
Really feels like a “working as intended” situation.
I’m denying the reality of a real Christian identity (hypothetically, that is).
No one denies the existence of people who claim to be Christian, just like no one denies the existence of people that claim to be trans. And (almost) no one denies the existence of people who really believe in their own Christian identity, just as almost no one denies the existence of people that really believe in their trans identity.
The issue at hand is whether is ok for others to say that this identity isn’t actually a legitimate thing. It’s not the same as saying they don’t exist–obviously they exist in the sense that they’re out there and seem to really believe in what they’re saying. But I’m allowed to say that this inner Christian identity is actually a fake, and a delusion, whereas for trans the rules are different.
Sure, I agree with this. But we should be explicit when the rules are different for different groups.
The issue isn’t whether or not I agree with the sentiment, the issue is whether the sentiment should be allowed on the board. You’re arguing that calling conservatives “evil” should be disallowed, but are (I gather) okay with calling the KKK “evil.” The problem is, what’s the distinction between the two groups that makes it okay to call one group “evil” and not the other? Other than, “It’s factually inaccurate,” because I don’t think you really want the SDMB staff to make more moderation decisions based on our personal opinions on what political claims are “factually accurate.”