# ...will the board consider explicit transphobia hate-speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 23, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204 "2019-10-23T23:18:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/21 "2019-10-24T13:44:13Z")
There was a time (not terribly long ago) when it was the conventional wisdom that the word “man” meant “male person”, and that both of those expressions specifically meant XY chromosomes, external genitalia (penis & testicles), no periods, no uterus, grows copious body and facial hair at puberty, etc. Likewise in that same vein for “woman” meaning “female person” and corresponding to an array of physical genotype and phenotype characteristics. We were introduced to the notion of transgender people via the personal narrative of people who explained that they _should have been_ born as the other sex, that who they actually _were_ was the same personae, the same identity, as the identities shared in common by the other sex. And they then sought physical transition in order to bring their bodies into alignment with their identities. Society reacted to this initially with an attitude akin to “ooh circus freaks! weird kinky perverts!”, then a long period of somewhat accepting (to varying degrees) the people who identified in this fashion but still regarding them as irrelevant data as far as how they continued to understand what it means to be a man or a woman; and, now, in more recent times, by being increasingly inclined to fold an understanding of trans people into our everyday understanding of sex and gender. At no point in this narrative so far does “REAL” crop up. There isn’t a “REAL” (empirically, objectively correct) answer available to us, precisely because the subject matter is social. The meaning of terms isn’t a fact that biological science, neurological science, embryological science can answer. And we have not “arrived” at a final social destination whereby we can look backwards with smug self-righteous assurance that our current understandings are correct and that we were biased and wrong in the past. It’s still a work in progress. “Hate speech” is also a social category. Nothing is intrinsically hate speech aside from how we collectively choose to define it. I, personally, would be fine with a board policy that it is not okay to use the loaded language “is not a real woman” / “is not a real man” but to allow and encourage discussion of the best use of various terms such as “man”, “woman”, “male”, “female”, the appropriate or inappropriate way to think of and understand transgender people, and where one’s feelings and reactions come from and so on and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/22 "2019-10-24T13:57:57Z")
To announce that ANY person is not a “real person” is cruel, hurtful, and narrow-minded. It reeks of prejudice and malice. Looking down on people as not worthy of being full fledged people is the hallmark of racism and all the other “isms”. To say something hateful and bigoted and then say it isn’t “hate speech” is one of those, “No offense, but …”, statements. “No offense, Urbanredneck, but your opinions are ignorant and narrow-minded.” See, I didn’t mean any offense. I was just posting an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/23 "2019-10-24T14:04:15Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > 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. He obviously doesn’t mean they aren’t “real” in any other sense. They of course are real and exist - have flesh, blood, cells, DNA, etc. What he is arguing is that a trans person claiming to be another gender doesn’t really make them that gender. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2019, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/24 "2019-10-24T14:04:24Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > To announce that ANY person is not a “real person” is cruel, hurtful, and narrow-minded. It reeks of prejudice and malice. Looking down on people as not worthy of being full fledged people is the hallmark of racism and all the other “isms”. Well, that’s the thing. I don’t think **Urbanredneck** implied that transmen and transwomen are not real people, only that they aren’t really men and women respectively. If he had written, transgender people aren’t real people, I would have an entirely different reaction. ~Max ---
**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:** [October 24, 2019, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/25 "2019-10-24T14:09:00Z")
In response to the OP, my opinion is that transphobia should not necessarily be excluded from these boards, while transphobic hate speech should; also that the present example qualifies as transphobia but not hate speech. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/26 "2019-10-24T14:23:46Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > 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… Max, you too seem to be referring to transmen as transwomen. In your case, I assume it’s a slip. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/27 "2019-10-24T14:30:16Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > He obviously doesn’t mean they aren’t “real” in any other sense. They of course are real and exist - have flesh, blood, cells, DNA, etc. What he is arguing is that a trans person claiming to be another gender doesn’t really make them that gender. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Well, that’s the thing. I don’t think **Urbanredneck** implied that transmen and transwomen are not real people, only that they aren’t really men and women respectively. > > If he had written, transgender people aren’t real people, I would have an entirely different reaction. > > ~Max People of the board, I give you Hida Viloria, an intersex activist who identifies as intersex. Hida considered themself to be neither a man nor a woman, neither male nor female. (_Born Both_, an excellent memoir). Saying that someone is not a “real man or woman” is not necessarily the same thing as denying their personhood. There is closemindedness of the bigoted variety but there is also closemindedness of the “if you say that, that automatically makes you a bigot” variety. I’ve never been very fond of the attitude that “all the important people already weighed in on this and the correct answer is known and you just wrong, bro, and it’s not up for discussion”. Sometimes it’s necessary to wield that attitude anyhow, to avoid rehashing every damn thing for generation after generation, but I think there’s often a rush to that position as a political act, a way of trying to declare the discussion over, and our position (whatever it may be) the one that has prevailed. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2019, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/28 "2019-10-24T14:32:25Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Max, you too seem to be referring to transmen as transwomen. In your case, I assume it’s a slip. Yes, sorry. ETA: oh, I see what you mean. Looks like I read that thread backwards. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/29 "2019-10-24T14:36:52Z")
Banning such declarative statements robs us of the opportunity to question such statements and perhaps change the minds of those who make them. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/30 "2019-10-24T14:37:07Z")
The use of “real” is somewhat troubling because of the value judgement, but I don’t see anything wrong with the opinion that there is a difference between a transwoman and a ciswoman. I don’t think it falls into hate speech. Though I would agree that saying directly to someone “you are not a real man” would be being a jerk. > [@Riemann](#): > > 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 didn’t even notice. Are you sure it’s deliberate? > [@Broomstick](#): > > “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. Yes, that’s troubling. It doesn’t have to be “hate speech” to be bullying and being a jerk. That kind of behavior \*should be \* struck down, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/31 "2019-10-24T14:39:36Z")
I get the feeling that we are trying to dance on the head of a pin, here. > [@](#): > > Wikipedia: "Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[2][3] > > There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[4] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics.[5][6][7] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[8] Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[9][10][11] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. > > A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. So, in essence, we have to decide how disparaging we can be and still get away with it. I still say that telling someone that he or she is not a real man or woman is totally demeaning and hurtful. So, it’s okay if it’s not officially “hate speech”? We should allow that? According to the rules, if I got pissed off at you and said, “Max, your not a real man!”, I would be rightfully flagged for that because I would be berating a poster and not his opinion. The SDMB doesn’t consider it proper conduct. So, allowing “almost-hate-speech-but-not-quite” isn’t in the spirit of what we are supposed to be about. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2019, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/32 "2019-10-24T14:41:13Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > 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. > > ~Max Upon review the thread is about trans_men_ calling out a company that used the female symbol (♀) to advertise menstrual products. **Urbanredneck** takes the position that transmen are actually women and therefore the female symbol is appropriate. Transmen presumably still have menstrual cycles so the rest of my post does not apply. ~Max ---
**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:** [October 24, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/33 "2019-10-24T14:51:25Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > I get the feeling that we are trying to dance on the head of a pin, here. Such a distinction is not unpractical if I think it applies to the current case. > [@Jasmine](#): > > So, in essence, we have to decide how disparaging we can be and still get away with it. I still say that telling someone that he or she is not a real man or woman is totally demeaning and hurtful. In some contexts, calling into question a person’s gender is disrespectful. In a debate about the validity of transgender identities, I think calling into question a person’s gender _can_ be appropriate. I think the present example qualifies. > [@Jasmine](#): > > According to the rules, if I got pissed off at you and said, “Max, your not a real man!”, I would be rightfully flagged for that because I would be berating a poster and not his opinion. The SDMB doesn’t consider it proper conduct. So, allowing “almost-hate-speech-but-not-quite” isn’t in the spirit of what we are supposed to be about. Well, if I claimed to be a transgender man in a thread where we end up debating the validity of transgender identities, “Max, you’re not a real man!” could be appropriate, in my opinion. It’s pushing the envelope, and would have to be related to some argument, of course. You can’t call me a liar. For example, the argument “transgender men are really women therefore using a female symbol on menstrual products is OK”. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/34 "2019-10-24T15:03:47Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > To announce that ANY person is not a “real person” is cruel, hurtful, and narrow-minded. It reeks of prejudice and malice… See, this is why Sunny Daze going down this path of misparsing and distorting what Urbanredneck said is such a distraction. Half the posts in in this thread are now about _something he didn’t say_. Again, he said: > [@Transgender activists pressure Always to Womens symbol of feminine hygiene products](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-activists-pressure-always-to-womens-symbol-of-feminine-hygiene-products/842069/24): > > NO, transwomen are transwomen and transmen are transmen. Not REAL men and women. IN context, his second sentence should obviously be parsed as: > [@](#): > > (Not REAL men) and ([not REAL] women) In other words, his rhetorical structure, in context, is precisely equivalent to saying (correcting his willful misgendering): > [@my paraphrase of Urbanredneck](#): > > Transmen are transmen, not REAL men; transwomen are transwomen, not REAL women. Nothing more. In plain English, his statement does not exclude the (misguided) belief that transmen are women, transowomen are men, i.e. that gender identity as distinct from biological sex assigned at birth is in some sense not real. Can we please put to bed the false claim that he said anyone is not a real _person_, and stick to the actual important issue at hand, of whether the vile things he did say should be tolerated on this board. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/35 "2019-10-24T15:07:05Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I didn’t even notice. Are you sure it’s deliberate? I guess I can’t exclude the possibility that it’s just sloppy rhetoric. I don’t feel inclined to search through Urbanredneck’s posts to find out if he deliberately misgenders habitually. And his approach is to drop turds and then disappear, so he’s unlikely to clarify the point himself. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/36 "2019-10-24T15:22:33Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > So, in essence, we have to decide how disparaging we can be and still get away with it. I still say that telling someone that he or she is not a real man or woman is totally demeaning and hurtful. So, it’s okay if it’s not officially “hate speech”? We should allow that? That’s quite different, though. If, for instance, someone here started calling black people the N-word, that would be a clear case of hate speech. That would be a case of insulting and denigrating people on the basis of race. But the trans issue is more akin to Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black. In that case, someone who said, “Rachel Dolezal isn’t truly black” isn’t insulting Dolezal on the basis of her race, the person is challenging/questioning whether Dolezal is really a member of that race to fit the definition criteria to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/37 "2019-10-24T15:29:09Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > 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. > [@Broomstick](#): > > “Seriously enough”? I recall a thread where, after being specifically asked NOT to ask about a person’s genitals a transwoman… > > 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. > [@Irishman](#): > > …It doesn’t have to be “hate speech” to be bullying and being a jerk. That kind of behavior \*should be \* struck down, IMO. I agree with this. Trying to pin down whether something is hate speech or not is not the relevant standard here. The board now has an explicit policy that we don’t want anarchistic _anything goes_ freedom of speech when that results in widespread toxic misogyny. Why not a similar policy toward transphobia? I don’t know where exactly where the line should be, given that we probably want to maintain some degree of flexibility in fighting ignorance and tolerating (say) initial misgendering and some degree of ignorance from someone who grew up in the Bible Belt and is clueless, but shows some inclination to want to learn something. But that isn’t Urbanredneck, he’s way over any line we’d care to draw, imo. As a start, I think willful misgendering, after it has been corrected, should be warnable and ultimately bannable. Whatever someone’s opinion is about whether a transman is a “real” man, it’s being beyond a jerk not to have basic respect for how people feel about themselves, and what they want to call themselves; not to mention the fact that the word has an established meaning in the English language that’s not ideology-dependent. Anyone is free to have a low opinion of Bone, but I’m pretty sure they are not free to persistently call him “Boner” whenever they refer to him (sorry Bone, the first silly example that I could think of). And misgendering has vastly greater psychological implications than a silly demeaning nickname like that. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/38 "2019-10-24T15:40:01Z")
The problem with a lot of the suggestions in this thread so far is that they give off a vibe of, “If we can’t make our viewpoint prevail via persuasion and debate, then we’ll just have to settle for making it prevail via force instead.” ---
**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:** [October 24, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/39 "2019-10-24T15:41:44Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > it’s being beyond a jerk not to have basic respect for how people feel about themselves, and what they want to call themselves I disagree with the premise that intentional misgendering _necessarily_ amounts to disrespect for how the person in question feels about themselves. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/40 "2019-10-24T15:45:29Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But the trans issue is more akin to Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black. In that case, someone who said, “Rachel Dolezal isn’t truly black” isn’t insulting Dolezal on the basis of her race, the person is challenging/questioning whether Dolezal is really a member of that race to fit the definition criteria to begin with. This shows a gross misunderstanding of the concept. Gender identity is a real thing, with lots of science and study behind it. > [@Velocity](#): > > The problem with a lot of the suggestions in this thread so far is that they give off a vibe of, “If we can’t make our viewpoint prevail via persuasion and debate, then we’ll just have to settle for making it prevail via force instead.” This is a private message board. There’s no force involved here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=3)