No, that’s not it. There are, or could be, posters in any category, and there’s exactly one category where “you can’t disagree with this because some people here would be insulted by implication” is ever invoked. We don’t have a “no supporting Hamas because some people here are Zionists” rule or “no saying Back to the Future sucked because some people here are big fans of the movie” or anything else for any other group besides trans.
Perhaps you could point out this “you can’t disagree with this because some people here would be insulted by implication” ‘’‘rule’‘’?
If you don’t see the difference between preferences for movies and politics, and your own identity, then I don’t think we’re going to be able to agree. Nor are you apparently denying that jerkish natures of the attacks, just that other classes of people/beliefs aren’t given the same status. To which I point to all the other banned or tired topics, which have been ruled out for the good of the board, and the fact that the rules @miller quoted were explicitly written to allow discussion without rising to the level of jerkism/attacks.
Not to mention, you probably have not seen the way threadshits are moderated even in Cafe Society and P&E, where coming in just to take potshots (IE, being a jerk) is often moderated, even though neither of those are a protected class of people or discussions in any way.
Again, there is no other position where “expressing this opinion might make some people upset, therefore it is being a jerk, which is prohibited” is the reasoning applied. The only time that is invoked is when the position is questioning maximalist stances on one side of trans issues. It is definitively not applied to many other areas where “identities” are in question, e.g. questioning religious dogma, supporting the right kind of racial discrimination, denouncing entire countries, etc.
The reason that we have a de facto “no disagreeing with trans ideology” rule, and people insisting that we don’t have such a rule in order to avoid having to defend it, is because the people in charge of enforcement have both a a strong attachment to an extremist position on this issue, and no ability to actually articulate why they are right without resorting to their ability to shut down discussion. Period.
No, it’s because they are dancing around admitting that one side of the argument is ill-intentioned and unwilling to argue in good faith. A longstanding issue on a number of subjects here.
Also, your argument is self defeating considering how you are throwing around terms like “extremist” for your opponents without getting moderated for it. If you were correct, you wouldn’t be allowed to say what you are saying.
We very much have rules that amount to “No saying Jews/Blacks/gays shouldn’t exist” , though. When the transphobic posts are effectively that, it’s the same.
When it’s not (e.g. the more civil parts of the sports discussions), there’s no rule against it. Just the consequences.
You mean outright opposition to the idea of trans people existing? That’s my reading of “maximalist” here.
It’s not recreational outrage. The term transgenderism is primarily known as a hate term, regardless of the OP’s intent. Here is a link from GLAAD, for example.
It’s a term used to pretend that being trans is an ideology rather than an identity. It’s similar to “the gay agenda.”
Wanting to have a bigoted term removed from the title is not recreational outrage nor being pedantic, but in line with the rules of this board about titles.
I think it depends whether you’re arguing “transwomen shouldnt compete with women because there’s (legitimate and backed up with evidence) difference x between cis- and trans- women” or “transwomen in sport are actually men who are trying to cheat as part of a misogynistic plot to erase women”.
Likewise I think its fine to discuss whether its still useful in this day and age to have binary toilet facilities rather than unisex bathrooms or individual cubicles, or even (IMHO) to express personal discomfort at sharing changing rooms with transwomen, but not if you’re denying their identity by insisting that they are actually just men who should use the male facilities, or worse accusing all transwomen of being sex offenders.
Of course the other issue is that you’ve got to be willing to listen too. If you’re repeating the same misconceptions about transpeople in multiple threads despite being corrected, it’ll become quite clear that you have an agenda, at which point the mods should be telling you to shut up and leave due to the “Don’t be a jerk” rule.
I suppose to put it more simply, you can discuss how society should transition from an apparently binary one to its true non-binary state, you cant pretend that the world is binary while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
(Obviously all the above applies to transmen too, but they rarely seem to be part of the “discussion”)
There’s definitely a rule about discussing race science & race realism because it’s so overdone by now that we understand it to be a fig leaf for racial bigotry. Same thing with “trans realism” or whatever, it always turns out to be bigotry masquerading as reasoned debate.
You can’t end-run around bigotry by making pseudo-scientific excuses for it.
It is not clear. After falling foul of a new rule that hadn’t been added to the official list (still hasn’t been) and is hardly clear to an ordinary reading, I realised I had misunderstood the rule on misgendering too. But when I asked for clarification so I could avoid it happening again, all I got was multiple people accusing me of rules lawyering, and worse. There’s plenty of jerkishness allowed on this board as long as you pick an unpopular target.
I think the best bet, always, is to ask the mods directly via PM about any rules clarifications. If you put it out in public all you are going to get are various unofficial answers and opinions.
That’s fair enough, but people are way too quick to assume nefarious intentions. Not just here but in general.
You’ve just got to decide for yourself: Do I want an answer, or do I want an argument?
Well said.
Another similar issue is
“Do you want the truth, or will you only accept the answer you want to hear?”
I identify as a Jew. Nobody on this board has in 25 years told me that I am not a Jew. Questioning “religious dogma” is not nearly the same as questioning some one’s religious identity.
I have been told by a Black Hebrew (they believe Africans are the real Jewish people and for some reason centuries ago a bunch of white Europeans stole their name) that I was not a Jew. I simply replied “Don’t tell my mother. It would break her poor heart.”
So I responded with my reasons, which you obviously do not share about why it was jerkish behavior, and your response is once again to ignore how/why it might be jerkish and instead insist that myself and others posting in this thread are some form of “extremists” on the point. When, again, Miller directly quoted to you the actual rules from the TOS, where the board explicitly allows discussion on the point, with comparatively minor rules to allow a respectful conversation on the subject.
That does NOT strike me as an extremist POV on this or any other board.
But you are correct in that the rules do limit you. So do the rules of pretty much any group or society. This board is a small, in some ways quite exclusive group of people. It’s not going to be a fit for everyone. No one is forcing you to post here. The mods are unpaid volunteers that get enough grief trying to get everyone to play nice within our comparatively fuzzy guidelines, and even then posters (including myself!) get guidance via notes or warnings, most of which get the posters to sit up and pay attention.
Other posters come here and, just like you, disagree with the rules, and sometimes the rules change. Still, and speaking for only myself with about 5 years as a poster, the prior, more lax rules created a more toxic environment. Fundamentally, it’s up to us the posters to make an environment people want to post to. If you want to post on this particular subject, but find the rules too confining, then post about the subject elsewhere and post on other subjects here. If you only want to post on this subject, and insist it be here, well, then you’ll have to hope/wait for a rules change.
Again, we’ll have to disagree. IMHO, you are being judged in light of your prior posts. Which you indicate were based on your misunderstanding. If so, exactly as I said, given time and good faith, others may be happy to assist you, but they aren’t exactly required to do so. And as for you last point, the Pit has a ton of jerkishness - where it is explicitly allowed, as a counter to the quite tight moderation elsewhere. I have gotten a note for making what was considered a personal attack, and so have others. If it has happened to you, or you find it happening to others, use the flag option.
You are correct in alluding to the fact that there are groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites who are extremely concerned with identifying who the “real Jews” are.
I do not believe you are correct in asserting that either the BHI’s opinion on this issue nor the mainstream Jewish response would be barred from discussion here according to the “no challenging identities, even by implication” pseudo-rule. For many reasons, including the fact that discussions of who is or is not a Jew have in fact happened here for decades including long after the huge focus on trans issues began, and have not, in fact, been curtailed by any such rule.
That they happened before the rule is uttterly irelevant. So did blatant transphobia. I know. I joined twenty five years ago. So did scientific racism, climate change denial and everything else on the list.
Remind me please (anybody is welcome to do so) exactly when did the “tired topics” and the rules pertaining to trans folk get added?
Thank you for pointing out that we have gotten better over the years.
Transgenderism used to be a term used by the transgender community itself. It wasn’t a hate term. It was used by transgender people to express their existence and experiences, and there was nothing inherently wrong with the term.
However, poking around on the internet, it seems that the term has in fact been turned into a dog whistle in recent years. I was not aware of this.
I therefore apologize to our transgender members for not being aware of the current usage of the term.
I will discuss with the other moderators about how we should moderate this term.