In fairness to Urbanredneck I didn’t report that post because I thought it would be fair to have a discussion about it first, so the moderators may not be aware of the existence of that post. So really I’m asking about where the line is going to be drawn between “free speech” and “hate speech” in cases like this, and is making the statement “transwomen are not real women” an example of hate speech, or does the board consider that sort of comment legitimate expression of an opinion?
Hate speech seems to have a fuzzy definition (hence, I think, it’s usefulness to some people). I thought it generally referred to using racial / sexual slurs. In this case, I think something along the lines of “tranny” would be a slur & hate speech, but expressing one’s opinion that “transwomen are transwomen and transmen are transmen. Not REAL men and women.” seems to fall more into the category of expressing one’s opinion about a fairly legitimate topic of discussion without any obvious hate speech / slurs. YMM (and probably does) V.
It’s unlikely that that would be considered hate speech any time in the near future. Unfortunate as it may be, the validity of trans identities is a major topic of political and social debate, and one of the functions of the SDMB is to provide a place for people to debate major issues of the day - which necessarily means we have to allow to contra position on the boards. This is generally why we only moderate outright slurs or calls for violence as hate speech, and tend not to moderate people for having unpalatable ideas, so long as they can slather at least a thin veneer of civility over it.
I find that particular example to be heinous. Transpeople aren’t “REAL”? The most charitable construction I can put on that is that maybe he meant that biologically they were born as one sex, so they aren’t really any sex but that one. The language used is very dismissive, even negating of the humanity of transpeople. I’d prefer that it wasn’t used.
Upon reflection, stating that transpeople aren’t “REAL” does read as hate speech to me. I think we can and should do better in our discussions here.
Not that I agree with UR, but I don’t think the opinion that “the only real men are those born biologically male and the only real women are those born biologically women” should be considered hate speech.
In no way does he say that “they aren’t real, period,” and it is really stretching to interpret it that way. He obviously says that transmen aren’t “real” men and transwomen aren’t “real” women. One side says that sex is determined by your genes and your genitalia, the other side says that it is determined by your mentality. Neither side can claim to have the absolute, objective, factual truth–one’s position on that is a matter of opinion and social conventions. So no, having the opposite opinion doesn’t make it hate.
Another saying that is is obvious that the person was saying a transman is not a real man and a transwoman is not a real woman as opposed to saying that a transperson is not a real person. Which is the focus of the debate.
In my opinion, stating that someone isn’t a real person is negating their personhood and agency. One could say that you don’t agree with their statements or with their wishes to change sexes instead. Those are accurate statements. The phrasing was wrong. I don’t like it. This thread is where I get to say so.
He didn’t say that transmen and transwomen are not real people. Although it’s technically grammatically possible to parse it that way, in context it’s a ludicrous to suggest that’s what he meant. He said that transwomen (misgendering them) are not real men, and that transmen (misgendering them again) are not real women. His (misguided, but sadly not uncommon) view is that gender identity is immutably defined by biological sex.
I don’t know what’s going on here, but I had a similar back and forth with puzzlegal in the thread in question, over her & Broomstick’s even more ludicrous misparsing of something else he wrote, see here:
I appreciate that you’re angry about what he wrote. So am I. But you can’t just distort the plain meaning of his statements because of that. I think it’s an unhelpful to distraction to pile on unwarranted accusations about things he clearly didn’t say. Let’s focus on the appalling stuff he did say.
I think if he told a transwoman they are not a real woman, that that is hate speech, or ate the very least being a jerk. If he said about transwomen that (he thinks) they are not real women , it is not.
I agree that the parsing as noted above is disturbing, wrong, and above all, unnecessary.
I’m not sure what you mean by the definitions and the winky-face?
To explain, here’s the exchange with Kobal2 in full:
If you think about the rhetorical structure, you’d say:
But you would put it backwards on one side like this:
What he wrote appears to be inverted like *** above. At first, because I’m used to referring to trans people correctly, I just took it to be sloppy rhetoric. Then I realized - of course he is deliberately misgendering them. When he wants to refer to a transman, he uses the word transwomen.
I can’t see how it isn’t hate speech, either. It effectively calls all trans people liars. I could see allowing it in the context of an actual debate about gender, but such is not the context here. I can’t see any reason he posted this other than to attack trans people for being trans.
I won’t name names (as I was asked not to), but I have it on good authority that over a dozen trans people have quit this board because they do not think it takes trans issues seriously enough. It seems a bad idea to have moderation that chases them away simply for not being the gender they were assigned at birth.
I see no reason why whether a belief is common or not should have anything to do with it. Misogyny is common, but you guys have no problem moderating that. I do not see why trans people should be required to suffer or quit in order to keep on someone who is posting something so hateful.
I would implore the mods to draw a line here: declare whether or not trans identities are legitimate to be off topic except in a thread specifically about said topic. If Miller thinks it needs to occur, then maybe allow it in the Pit, where such transphobia can get the responses it deserves.
I’ll even appeal to your personal interests: when a poster does this, it is very likely to hijack a thread and people are likely to start throwing barbs at the poster who said it. That creates more work for you, while making you effectively defend someone who has said something awful.
I can’t see why this can’t be treated like misogyny. I’d argue it’s worse than most forms of bigotry, as misgendering causes gender dysphoria. It is psychologically unsafe for trans people to be around places that allow transphobia.
“Seriously enough”? I recall a thread where, after being specifically asked NOT to ask about a person’s genitals a transwoman was *repeatedly *asked whether or not she had a dick. Said person is no longer a part of this board because nothing was done to stop such bullying. Her departure was, IMO, a serious loss to this forum. I don’t know if that particular thread was the one that broke the camel’s back but she’s gone.
Not take the issue seriously enough? The mods won’t even stop flat out, actual bullying. Of course it’s not taken seriously and they aren’t going to stop hate speech against them, either. It is one of the most disappointing aspects of this forum from my viewpoint.
It is NEVER OK to ask about anyone else’s plumbing (unless you’re a doctor conducting a medical exam). Unless, apparently, you’re a transgender person on the Straight Dope Message Board. Then it’s OK. Any complaints will be met with silence on the part of the people running the place, so go right ahead. Can’t stop free expression even when it’s causing immense pain to someone else, right?
The thread in question was about transwomen calling out a company that used the female symbol () to advertise menstrual products. Urbanredneck, the member who started the topic, takes the position that transwomen are biologically incapable of having periods and therefore have no reason to criticize the company. That is the context in which Urbanredneck says transwomen and transmen are not “REAL men and women”, and I believe the comment was on-topic if insensitive.
Even if I were to accept the premise that a person can identify as something other than their biological sex, I might still differentiate transwomen from women who have a biological menstrual cycle.
ETA: It looks like transwomen can have symptoms similar to PMS or PMDD though.
) to advertise menstrual products. Urbanredneck, the member who started the topic, takes the position that transwomen are biologically incapable of having periods and therefore have no reason to criticize the company. That is the context in which Urbanredneck says transwomen and transmen are not “REAL men and women”, and I believe the comment was on-topic if insensitive.