# ...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:** 3
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/41 "2019-10-24T15:50:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is a private message board. There’s no force involved here. Sure there is. We have posters here arguing that if people don’t abide by a certain viewpoint, that they should be warned/banned. ---
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/42 "2019-10-24T15:50:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This shows a gross misunderstanding of the concept. Gender identity is a real thing, with lots of science and study behind it. I think the existence of transgender identities is not beyond the scope of allowable debate. Even the existence of personhood is not beyond the scope of allowable debate. I could go and create a thread about solipsism and, while claiming that none of you are real people, still carry on a respectful and civil debate. As such your assertion - that gender identity is a real thing - is better suited perhaps in the linked thread than as a basis for a forum-wide rule against transphobia. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Calavera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calavera/32/70_2.png) [@Calavera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calavera)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/43 "2019-10-24T15:52:43Z")
Using the term “transman” for F to M is and “transwoman” for M to F is begging the question, and it’s unreasonable to complain when people who don’t see it that way accidentally or deliberately confuse the terms. It would have been better to use a more neutral, unabiguous term like “Mattof” for Male to Female and “Fettom” for female to male. As it is, the terms they’re complaining about people not using already imply agreement with their opinion. No wonder the terms get “abused.” ---
**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, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/44 "2019-10-24T15:54:42Z")
> [@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. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This shows a gross misunderstanding of the concept. Gender identity is a real thing, with lots of science and study behind it. The problem with Rachel Dolezal is not that she wasn’t “really” a black woman despite identifying as one. The problem with Rachel Dolezal is that she was occupying a paid position that was for black people advocating for themselves; it is a position that (for what I presume are self-evident reasons) should be occupied by a person who has spent a lifetime dealing with the Experience Black, including the disadvantages when it comes to obtaining a paid position; and she, Rachel Dolezal, had not spent her life in that fashion. That makes her more than a bit of a jerk. And a miserable poster child for the notion that perhaps we should embrace “trans race” people as doing a legitimate and reasonable thing in how they identify. Be that as it may, perhaps we should. Meanwhile, basing acceptance of gender variant people on “it’s a real thing, with lots of science and study behind it”, is, in my opinion, reactionary and not progressive. A trans person’s gender identity is valid and real because it is how they identify. Science doesn’t have jack shit to do with it. If science says tomorrow “oops, our mistake, doesn’t look like there’s any evidence supporting atpical gender identity as built-in after all”, you gonna go join the transphobes? Of course not! You shouldn’t embrace a position on the basis of what it subsequently lets you argue. That’s intellectually dishonest. If you believe, independent of the political and social outcome, that it’s built-in, that’s a different matter, but if you “believe” it merely because of what you think it then lets you argue, that’s a load of crap. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/45 "2019-10-24T15:59:26Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Transmen presumably still have menstrual cycles so the rest of my post does not apply. Maybe, maybe not - if someone identifies himself as a transman to me I have absolutely no way to know what sort of treatments he may or may not have had, what surgeries, what hormones, and so on… He might or might not menstruate. And I sure as hell am not going to ask him. Because it’s none of my business. I work in a store. Lots of men buy menstrual products. If I think about it at all, I assume it’s for one or more women in their lives but maybe some of those guys menstruate. How would I know? Again, none of my business. If only more people would adopt that attitude. ---
**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, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/46 "2019-10-24T16:01:57Z")
On a broader note, we’ve had several such threads in ATMB over the past year or so, centered on the theme of “Such-and-such is offensive, can we ban it?” I think \*\*Miller \*\*encapsulated it best in the comment earlier: Are we supposed to be a message board that bans things just because some find it offensive, or a board that allows people to say offensive things as long as they are made to appear civil and don’t feature profanity, etc.? ---
**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, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/47 "2019-10-24T16:03:41Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > A trans person’s gender identity is valid and real because it is how they identify. Science doesn’t have jack shit to do with it. If science says tomorrow “oops, our mistake, doesn’t look like there’s any evidence supporting atpical gender identity as built-in after all”, you gonna go join the transphobes? Of course not! Nope, I’m sorry I don’t agree that this is a complete view of the matter. I think on ideological grounds we should _respect_ how anyone chooses to identify. If a furry identifies as a non-human animal, and wants to be treated as one, I believe ideologically that we should respect that. But nothing is going to convince me that any human objectively really does have the same neuron configuration as a dog, because it take doggy genes to make a doggy brain. Gender identity is in a different category. _Not only_ should we respect a person’s self-stated gender identity on ideological grounds, _but also_ there is a plausible scientific basis to believe that gender identity as distinct from somatic phenotype is objectively real, in the sense that someone can have (say) XY karyotype and the biological sex of a man, but _actually have_ a similar neuron configuration to someone with an XX karyotype and the biological sex of a woman. And I think, in fact, that gives insight in to what board policy should be. We can surely discuss the objective scientific question while always remaining respectful on ideological grounds. ---
**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, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/48 "2019-10-24T16:08:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think the existence of transgender identities is not beyond the scope of allowable debate. I haven’t advocated this – I just pointed out a gross misunderstanding of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/49 "2019-10-24T16:08:40Z")
> [@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.” You can disagree politely. For example, saying “I disagree with the notion that someone born with XY chromosomes, who has a male-typical hormone profile and physical development can somehow have a “female” brain” is definitely disagreeing, but that is not being _disagreeable_. We’ve had a couple of threads about transgender children where people seem to have sincere disagreements with both the notion that a pre-pubescent child can be transgender, as well as what treatments are or are not acceptable. I think those threads are valid discussions, and I also think they’re important places for people to ask questions AND to dispel myths, information, and incorrect assumptions. On the other hand, saying “these people are sick in the head and should be locked up and forcibly reprogrammed” shouldn’t (IMO) be acceptable for a LOT of things, not just transgender issues, due to the notion of using incarceration and force to alter the thinking of people that the speaker disagrees with. That’s not debate, that’s thought control. So yes, this is going to require _thought_ rather than an attempt to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule, but surely this board has people capable of thought. If we’re going to keep fighting ignorance then we’d better. ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/50 "2019-10-24T16:10:19Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Nope, I’m sorry I don’t agree that this is a complete view of the matter. > > I think on ideological grounds we should _respect_ how anyone chooses to identify. If a furry identifies as a non-human animal, and wants to be treated as one, I believe ideologically that we should respect that. But nothing is going to convince me that any human objectively really does have the same neuron configuration as a dog, because it take doggy genes to make a doggy brain. > > Gender identity is in a different category. _Not only_ should we respect a person’s self-stated gender identity on ideological grounds, _but also_ there is a plausible scientific basis to believe that gender identity as distinct from somatic phenotype is objectively real, in the sense that someone can have (say) XY karyotype and the biological sex of a man, but _actually have_ a similar neuron configuration to someone with an XX karyotype and the biological sex of a woman. > > And I think, in fact, that gives insight in to what board policy should be. We can surely discuss the objective scientific question while always remaining respectful on ideological grounds. I agree with this take. If someone asks me to call them a houseplant, then I’ll call them a houseplant – that’s just being a decent neighbor. But there’s an enormous amount more than this to gender identity – it’s not just about someone deciding on a whim to be something that they’re not. There really is real science and study behind it. ---
**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, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/51 "2019-10-24T16:11:30Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > You can disagree politely. > > For example, saying “I disagree with the notion that someone born with XY chromosomes, who has a male-typical hormone profile and physical development can somehow have a “female” brain” is definitely disagreeing, but that is not being _disagreeable_. > > We’ve had a couple of threads about transgender children where people seem to have sincere disagreements with both the notion that a pre-pubescent child can be transgender, as well as what treatments are or are not acceptable. I think those threads are valid discussions, and I also think they’re important places for people to ask questions AND to dispel myths, information, and incorrect assumptions. > > On the other hand, saying “these people are sick in the head and should be locked up and forcibly reprogrammed” shouldn’t (IMO) be acceptable for a LOT of things, not just transgender issues, due to the notion of using incarceration and force to alter the thinking of people that the speaker disagrees with. That’s not debate, that’s thought control. > > So yes, this is going to require _thought_ rather than an attempt to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule, but surely this board has people capable of thought. If we’re going to keep fighting ignorance then we’d better. Sure. I agree with this. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/52 "2019-10-24T16:13:37Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …TW: the posts in this thread are offensive, and may upset some people. > > This was posted in a thread about “Transgender activists pressure Always to Womens symbol of feminine hygiene products.” > > Transphobia can be defined as ["Transphobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. "](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia) > > In the wiki article about transphobia it talks about misgendering here: > > [Transphobia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Misgendering_and_exclusion) > > 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? Just a couple of comments, FWIW. First, I disagree with Urbanredneck’s comment. I think he’s simply wrong. I don’t think it was offensive, either intentionally or unintentionally, though I could certainly see someone taking offense either for themselves or as a proxy for what they think others would think. As for free speech, this board isn’t about free speech nor should it be…nor does it have to be or required to be. They can and do limit speech all the time, and, frankly, we want them too. They aren’t the government, nor are they someone like YouTube or Google or other large scale social media sites where some limits on what they can censor are advisable. I think on this particular subject, the Mods do need to walk a finer line, as it IS debatable what he said. I’d certainly debate the user and tell them why I thought they were wrong. But today, right now, it IS a debatable point, and folks with a more conservative or religiously oriented outlook and world view genuinely think they way they do. Until there is a full shift in our society that precludes this line of thinking as completely and hopelessly wrong (I think it is, but the key there is I THINK it is) it’s still something that needs to be talked about and hashed out. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/53 "2019-10-24T16:17:33Z")
And to add, of course - I believe as a biologist that my scientific take on it is plausible, but it’s a completely open question, and that aspect _should_ be discussed actively. I think that absolutely contributes to fighting the widespread ignorance that it’s “basic biology” that transgender people cannot _really_ have an identity that differs from their physical body at birth. ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/54 "2019-10-24T16:18:17Z")
I think the speech in question is hate speech, and I don’t think there’s much question about it – similar to saying that black people are inferior, gay people are going against nature, or similar. But unfortunately, this particular type of hate speech is still pretty widely accepted by society (more so than the prior examples, anyway). Maybe the board should allow such hate speech precisely because it’s so widespread, and thus needs the most discussion in order to educate as to why it’s wrong. But I don’t know. I’d defer to trans Dopers on this issue. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/55 "2019-10-24T16:20:57Z")
If someone on the Dope is insulting trans people with invective, using every insult one can find on Urban Dictionary, then yes, they should be warned and banned. That is flaming. It is rude and crude. But if someone uses calm, measured, language to explain or argue why they feel that trans people are not “really” the gender they claim to be, then that is…calm. It doesn’t feature profanity, it’s not flaming. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/56 "2019-10-24T16:33:50Z")
I don’t think civility matters much when it comes to hate speech. Calmly and “nicely” explaining why black people aren’t fully human isn’t any better than spouting racial slurs and profanity. ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/57 "2019-10-24T16:35:50Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But if someone uses calm, measured, language to explain or argue why they feel that trans people are not “really” the gender they claim to be, then that is…calm. It doesn’t feature profanity, it’s not flaming. Ok, so up to a point, on the objective scientific question, I agree with this in principle. And so I think it needs to be added for clarification in case some others are unfamiliar with the specific poster under discussion in the OP that I’m reading what Urbanredneck posted in the context of his past posting habits. It may appear superficially that it can be argued that he was doing no more than debating a sociological/scientific issue in the manner you describe. But in fact, I don’t remotely believe that he was using “calm, measured language to explain or argue”. I think he was following his established pattern of dropping a flaming turd and disappearing. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/58 "2019-10-24T16:38:32Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If someone on the Dope is insulting trans people with invective, using every insult one can find on Urban Dictionary, then yes, they should be warned and banned. That is flaming. It is rude and crude. > > But if someone uses calm, measured, language to explain or argue why they feel that trans people are not “really” the gender they claim to be, then that is…calm. It doesn’t feature profanity, it’s not flaming. No, but it might be [sealioning…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning) You can still be pretty damn insulting, belittling, bullying, and objectionable even using polite, non-profane language. It may be a bit more challenging than what the average troll does, but it’s still possible. Context matters. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/59 "2019-10-24T16:39:18Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > No, but it might be [sealioning…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning) Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/60 "2019-10-24T16:44:11Z")
If a child says to his adoptive mother “You’re not my real mother!”, is that hate speech that would be banned? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=4)