I'm going to take a break from this forum

Links234

Maybe it's the Christmas stress, but some of what has been going on in this forum has really upset me, and it's left me feeling as if I can't talk about issues that are important to me for fear of being called narcissistic or accused of being obsessed with victim-hood, or that if I take offense at something, no matter how offensive that might be, I get accused of "biting people's heads off" or being aggressive. After DADT being repealed, I had considered posting an article about how it still leaves out transgender people being able to serve their country, but I didn't because I was afraid of people saying "can you not just be happy about it being a big step forward for LGB people?" or saying that "trans people are always moaning about something or other."

Now I feel that trans people are being pushed into a catch-22 situation here, with people accusing us of biting heads off or losing the rag if we take offense at something, all the time when people think it's their prerogative to make general statements that attack and invalidate trans people's identities, or engage in flat out character assassination. For some reason it seems that trans people are expected to field some of the most horrible and undignified lines of questioning, and also expected not to be in the least bit offended. This is being dressed up as if trans people want everyone else to be "100% PC", which is a horrible assumption to make in the first place, for two reasons.

First, it suggests that there's something wrong with phrasing something politely or respectfully, or that there's something wrong with being "politically correct", and if you think that, please watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

he is absolutely spot-on where he says it's being used against people on the left who are concerned about the way people are represented look like killjoys, and that is what's happening here.

Second, it's being "politically correct" to have the basic decency and respect to not attempt to attack and invalidate other people's identities. Like I said in the other thread that as a part of general discourse, it is a basic respect that you do not get to question how someone else identifies, but some here seem to feel that it is not a respect that extends to transgender people. I have no doubt that if someone was to call into question someone else's sexual identity on this forum, or questioned the validity of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, people would be quite rightly outraged. Yet if someone questions the validity of trans people's genders, we're not supposed to be offended?

What shocks me the most about the attitudes being expressed in recent threads, is that they are so accurately mirroring the tactics of anti-LGBT people.

Let me give you an example. The whole driving force behind the "It gets better" campaign is the wake of gay teen suicides. In other forums, and in comments on news articles, I've seen anti-gay proponents say that gay people are "in love with their own victim-hood" for holding up these suicides as an example of the damage anti-gay attitudes and bullying do. This is a tactic, it's a method of invalidating people's anger and caricaturing them, just in the same way that saying gay people are easily offended or seek to be offended is caricaturing and damaging. Yet these are the same tactics and caricatures that are being turned around and used against trans people here on this forum. That some people seem to engage in this without irony shocks me, yet they would no doubt feel differently if it was them being caricatured over an issue that they felt was important.

What's especially upsetting is that some of these posts are receiving a few thanks, as if to say "Right on, you tell them uppity trannies!" It's not just a few people saying something offensive without realising it, but people who are back-slapping and congratulating each other over saying these things. It's upsetting that you think you should be high-fiving each other over offending people. And you know what, don't pretend that what happened in this thread was anything other than a continuation of the transphobia that started in this thread. Hounding Deirde (whether she was justified or not) had nothing to do with the topic at all, you just took the next transgender related thread that was posted and used it as a platform to continue your diatribes, and for that you should be ashamed of yourselves.

And generally, when you offend or upset someone, you apologise to them! You don't bang on and on about how they're wrong to be offended or upset.

I'm shocked that people think it's acceptable for Deirde to be treated like that. And when people say that trans people are being aggressive or biting people's heads off over questions they ask, I'm shocked that people think some of the questions posed to trans people are acceptable in the first place. Like for example, in the trans questions thread, someone had expressed a preference for trans women who "still had boy bits downstairs" and quite belligerently argued that trans women should be expected to not have genital reassignment surgery in order to please a partner, and continued to argue that they should be expected to change for a prospective partner.

If that line of questioning had been directed at someone who wasn't trans, it wouldn't have been tolerated at all. If for example, someone who had a thing for lesbians had directed a line of questioning towards a lesbian that she should be open to sleeping with men too, and continued to argue that she should even after being told that they will not and can not change for any prospective partner, I'm sure many people here would have agreed that it was unacceptable. Yet, for trans people, we should be expected to have these kinds of questions aimed at us, and not to say we're offended or that a line has been crossed. The idea that we are losing the rag or being aggressive isn't true, because I think we did respond to that in a very calm and helpful way.

(I'll also say that in the "would you ever" thread, while people weren't belligerently told that they should want to date trans people, it wasn't acceptable to question people on why they wouldn't either. But two wrongs people!)

And that someone suggested that the "T" be dropped from "LGBT" if they didn't have free reign to comment as they saw fit is utterly shocking. People don't have free reign to comment without consideration or respect for others, and that's true right across the board, we are expected to be sensitive to people here. It would not be tolerated if someone came in here, stated that homosexuality was a deviant lifestyle choice, then upon being reprimanded they suggested "lets just drop the whole LGBT thing so we know what's fair game." It's appalling that someone would ever suggest the marginalization of trans people out of this forum, simply because they don't have things their way.

Finally, I'm not saying this to try and continue any arguments. I'm saying this because I am deeply upset by what has gone on in this forum, that I feel as if we're being pushed into a catch-22 situation here, that I feel afraid even posting this thread that it'll be derailed by people who seemingly aren't too happy that transgender people are getting offended by some very offensive things, that I'm being caricatured as someone who is in love with her own victimhood and loves to take offense at things... and I'm saying this because I feel that who I am as a person isn't even being respected on this forum any more, and that's deeply hurtful.

I said before that I like to assume the best in people, and that's still true here. I won't attribute all of this to malice, and that perhaps it's down to Christmas time stress, and it is a stressful time of year! Perhaps people are a bit short tempered now, on both sides of this, I know I'm upset because this isn't the best time for me either, and we'll say things perhaps that we won't really mean. I can attribute quite a bit of this to a breakdown of communication. God knows, I've seen plenty of arguments erupt on other forums this time of year (there was huge arguments on another site I visit recently) for little or no reason.

Which is why I'm going to take a break from the forum. Get my head clear, relax, and come back when it isn't so hostile around here. And I'd politely suggest that other people do the same thing too, relax a bit and come back with clear heads, maybe say sorry if you have offended people and offer an olive branch.

I'll start, I'm deeply sorry and apologize profoundly for the huge wall of text.

Eebs

Links, have a nice break.

Lumping trans opinion into that of 'reactionary tranny' is way easier than listening to the point and examining yourself. I feel like it's stupidly become an 'us and them' situation. Which is ridiculous.

You don't have to treat trans people with respect, but you do here.
It's as simple as that. I'm not asking for PC, I'm asking for a small amount of basic respect. I am not my genitals, my gender is authentic and as valid as yours, don't make assumptions about my life based on one facet of it and we'll be FINE. It's not that hard.

What's the big deal? Put your 'I don't want to offend you but..' questions in the designated thread and leave it at that. But don't be grumpy when you don't get a parade after asking if we stand or sit to pee. If you want nicer answers ask better questions! It's not my duty or responsibility to answer politely to everything people ask me about trans people. I'm just a guy, I'm not an encyclopedia!! Stop moaning about being attacked.

I don't want to just get scraps of good will. I want to be treated as fully equal to cisgender people and unless I act like that's what I deserve I'll never get that.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/more.html

Aard

Links234 wrote: »

And that someone suggested that the "T" be dropped from "LGBT" if they didn't have free reign to comment as they saw fit is utterly shocking. People don't have free reign to comment without consideration or respect for others, and that's true right across the board, we are expected to be sensitive to people here. It would not be tolerated if someone came in here, stated that homosexuality was a deviant lifestyle choice, then upon being reprimanded they suggested "lets just drop the whole LGBT thing so we know what's fair game." It's appalling that someone would ever suggest the marginalization of trans people out of this forum, simply because they don't have things their way.

I'll address this part, because I'm the one who said that. My post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69684180&postcount=44) was not directed at the thread itself, but in reply to Sir Ophiuchus's comment about minorities. I was acknowledging my proximity to the minority, viz. transgendered people, and stating my expectation that if a fellow LGBT can't comment then who can. It wasn't directed at anyone but that post.

The last line, "If not, then maybe the "T" should be dropped so as that we know what kind of comments are fair game", was tongue-in-cheek, and a reference to the debate earlier in the year around the time of the name-change of the forum.

Annasopra

Hi links,

I appreciate the points being made. I hope that you do come back.

Can I make a general point to everyone that if there are posts that you find offensive that you report the posts

wonderfulname

Wow, I've been gone a while... sorry to hear that links, boards can be a bit of a minefield all right, it does appear that has invaded this normally okay end recently.

Hope you get what you want from your break, I'll do my bit to prevent your head from exploding by keeping my gob shut on my opinions about political correctness... :P
Do come back.

Rev Hellfire

SugarHigh wrote: »

I've never understood why people do this on internet forums. If you want to leave for a bit then do so but why make a dramatic thread about it?

Perhaps the intention isn't to make people go "Ohh noo you poor thing", but rather to think about how their actions may have driven someone to take this stance and perhaps reflect on that.

Boston

I don't really see why it's acceptable for you to start up again discussions which have been locked in other threads. Those topics were locked for a reason, and if another users started up a new thread just to throw in their two cents, it would not have been tolerated. But you've opened the discussion, and unfortunately on a public forum that means other people have the right to reply.

Starting with the most recent issue.

The thread by Deirde_dub slating a survey on LGBT attitudes in the work place. It was blindingly obvious when taken on the whole that the survey was in no way attempting to suggest that gender identity was part and parcel of sexual orientation. The authors of the survey went to lengths to make that clear. However, Deirde_dub ignored that and chose instead to outright attack the authors with all forms of villainous theories related to their motivations and agendas. She accused them completely in the wrong and refused to acknowledge that there might even be the possibility of an innocent explanation. She never even gave them the chance to reply to her feedback before she came on to this forum and attacked them. When one of the authors did reply, they (by all accounts) were very reasonable and respectful. But did Deirde_dub come onto the thread and say, "Mia culpa, I've over reacted, I'm sorry for any damaged caused" and apologise? Hell no, she tried to make out she was actually a supporter of the survey and had made no attempt to undermine it.

You yourself must at some level believe that Deirde_dub was not justified as you made no attempt to justify her position. The only objection you have is that someone had the gall to challenge a clearly wrong position. Deirde_dub wrapped herself in the blanket of victimhood and accused someone of attacking her, in the wrong. And what is it you expect? Everyone to stand ideally by and support that. You're "I'm shocked that people think it's acceptable for Deirde to be treated like that", I'm shocked that deirde could attempt such blatant character assassination of an innocent person and see nothing wrong in it. What if that persons supervisor had come into the thread and the consenus had been that tha survey author was a bastard? What about respect for that person.

The questions for trans people thread.

What exactly was expected? I thought the thread was a massive mistake from the start but kept quite on it since a) It wasn't me who was going to get offended and b) I'd only have been slatted for opposing it. A thread was started which basically amounted to "Post all your ignorant and half assed ideas about gender identity and transgendered people. Certainly you got a few decent post out of it, but it only takes one crude person to spoil the whole show. You can't blame that person, he was lead to believe it was right for him to ask whatever moronic question he wanted. And what are the moderators to do, since it's kids gloves when dealing with anything transgendered related?

You're right, you'd never see posts like those aimed at deirde directed towards gay/bisexual members of this forum. The reason is because a thread inviting morons to spout their moronic opinions about sexuality would never get the green liight.

The would you date thread.

It doesn't take a genus to see what would happen in that thread. As I said before, the only conclusion one could arrive at is that the thread was started specifically to cause the type of drama that it resulted in.

I think there's no clear boundaries as to how to deal with transgendered topics. Frankly I don't think johnnymcg running around locking threads and threatening posts is contributing. Unless of course the aim is for de facto segregation of trangendered and not transgendered topics. Other users have comment that sometimes it feels like you can't post in a transgender issues thread without offending someone. I made the point that transgendered people are not biologically speaking the same as their "naturally born" counterparts. That is a statement of fact, it's irrefutable. Yet somehow that got turned into "I don't think you're authentic" and "I hate you all".

If you're not going to tolerate the moronic discussions and you're not going to tolerate the intelligent discussions then what is left, the purely emotive ones? If that the policy decision of the forum, than fair enough, be up front.


Going forward.

You can go away for a few days/weeks but when you return the problems here will remain. Clear boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable with regards to transgendered issue need to be established.

Eebs

Boston wrote: »

You're right, you'd never see posts like those aimed at deirde directed towards gay/bisexual members of this forum. The reason is because a thread inviting morons to spout their moronic opinions about sexuality would never get the green liight.

Actually the thread was started because those comments were coming up constantly in OTHER threads and then people were flouncing about wanting to ask their questions, so a space was created for them. So you've got your cause and effect totally wrong.

In fact, I think there have been less stupid questions popping up everywhere since the thread, which is great.

Eebs

Boston wrote: »

is that the thread was started specifically to cause the type of drama

The thread you're referring to is the 'Would you ever' thread.

I don't like that you've decided that ITMA was out to cause trouble because I don't think they were. I think they were very naive but your assumption of bad faith is a bit rich. Accusing more people of bad faith in a thread that is asking for a bit of calm. Wow. Big of you.

Do you think most of the trans people on the board just like drama and calling people transphobic or just one or two members who you are highlighting in your points? Because all your points either directly or indirectly bring up 3 or 4 different people as the source of the problem. Me as one of them since I started the questions thread. I'd like it on the record that I hate that threads spiral off topic an into inflammatory statements.

Boston

Eebs wrote: »

Actually the thread was started because those comments were coming up constantly in OTHER threads and then people were flouncing about wanting to ask their questions, so a space was created for them. So you've got your cause and effect totally wrong.

In fact, I think there have been less stupid questions popping up everywhere since the thread, which is great.

Yes. However, the questions where legitimised through the creation of a thread specifically designed for them. The posts were told it was ok to ask whatever they wanted, with foreseeable results.

Eebs wrote: »

The thread you're referring to is the 'Would you ever' thread.

I don't like that you've decided that ITMA was out to cause trouble because I don't think they were. I think they were very naive but your assumption of bad faith is a bit rich. Accusing more people of bad faith in a thread that is asking for a bit of calm. Wow. Big of you.

Well what did you expect to happen in that thread? Maybe you were right, maybe the op expected simple yes or no responses, but the minute the question of "why" came up, the path was clear.

Eebs wrote: »

Do you think most of the trans people on the board just like drama and calling people transphobic or just one or two members who you are highlighting in your points? Because all your points either directly or indirectly bring up 3 or 4 different people as the source of the problem. Me as one of them since I started the questions thread. I'd like it on the record that I hate that threads spiral off topic an into inflammatory statements.

Let's be clear, I don't blame you for the question thread. The blame rests with the moderators who've more than enough experience to know it should have been more tightly controlled and boundaries established or the thread not started at all. I find it odd that what I attributed to deirde_dub has been taken as a slight against the entire trangendered community. Can I not say one person is being irrational without that somehow being an attack on the core being and the right to exist of an entire grouping? You yourself didn't share deirde's level of concern over that survey but somehow me calling it an over reaction is an attack on you and people like you? It doesn't wash I'm afraid.

I've known plenty of absolutely mad transgendered people. I've also known plenty of absolutely fine transgendered people. Nothing said on this forum by myself or Aard even remotely compares to the vicious attacks I've seen transgendered people perpetrate on other members of the "community".

Eebs

I would never ever start a thread about 'would you date a trans person' so I expected to happen what happened and reported it long before it went there. However, what you're saying is not that you and I can see that, but that the OP saw that and started the thread with the deliberate intention of causing drama. I'd like you to take that back because I think it's not true and ITMA has said that they didn't intend that in the thread.

Also the existence of worse transphobia elsewhere does not mean we should just ignore the non-violent transphobia. I don't know if you're trying to downplay that or what you're trying to say but I asked you specifically if you think the trans people on the board are actually the problem. Because it seems like you think that and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I also don't think what happened to Ddub was a slight on the whole community I think you were disgustingly rude and abrasive with her. I don't think it was appropriate. That's that. I didn't agree with her methods but I did with her sentiments, I made my point and we moved on. Do you think the only reason I'm not being targeted is because I'm trans? I think if you reread the thread we had very different approaches to disagreeing with her.

I think people are wondering if you're that rude to any person who annoys you or if it was specifically because she was talking about trans stuff.

deirdre_dub

I think I should better jump in here!

First of all, Links, I'm so sorry to read that you are hurting. FWIW whereas I most certainly did have my character assassinated in another thread, I am happy to report that it didn't actually have that big of an emotional impact on me. The assassins had, as far as I was concerned, proved themselves to be unworthy of my emotional energy.

I was actually a bit disappointed when that thread was locked, as I was in the process of responding to Sir Ophiuchus's wonderful post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69683585&postcount=38) when my response was blocked due to the thread being locked. I thought Sir Ophiuchus's post had potential to solve the underlying problem once and for all.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

Aard wrote:

If there is a "T" in "LGBT", I believe it's sufficiently within my domain that I can comment freely.

Some of the most innane, offensive, and stupidest remarks about transgendered people I've ever heard have come from LGB people. So, no, it isn't necessarily within your domain for you to comment freely. Frankly, I think you've proven that it is most certainly outside of your domain.

The transphobia to be found in the LGB community is usually worse than that found in the straight community, probably because LGB people believe that they can comment freely, and then feel free to jump up-and-down about trans people's "need for self-victimisation" when their comments are challenged.

Boston wrote:

The thread by Deirde_dub slating a survey on LGBT attitudes in the work place.

I don't know where you are getting your assertion of me attacking the survey author from. I attacked the survey! I've since exchanged more emails with the survey author - the upshot is that the author agrees 100% with my points, and has thanked me for my input. And, I'm still not going to answer the survey - question 24 erases the gender of transgendered people. The survey author is aware of that problem and understands how it makes it pretty impossible for me to participate in the survey. Now, who, exactly, amongst the three of us (me, you, and the survey author), has a need to see victimisation where none exists?

Boston wrote:

You're right, you'd never see posts like those aimed at deirde directed towards gay/bisexual members of this forum. The reason is because a thread inviting morons to spout their moronic opinions about sexuality would never get the green liight.

In other words, it's not the fault of those writing moronic posts - it's the fault of those who came on here looking for validation / support / whatever. The fact that such validation / support not only doesn't exist, but the seeking of it is seen (as you say) as an excuse to "spout moronic opinions", isn't the fault of the morons - it's the fault of the person asking the question / seeking the support / whatever.

Other users have comment that sometimes it feels like you can't post in a transgender issues thread without offending someone.

May I suggest that is because those users are not aware enough of transgender issues to know how to say something without causing offence? I think such people need to sit back, read, re-read, and read with more care, what the transgendered people on this forum write.

Boston wrote:

Clear boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable with regards to transgendered issue need to be established

I think Links did a very good job indeed about establishing those boundaries. I think Sir Ophiuchus's post was also excellent. I don't think there is a problem around establishing those boundaries - I think there is a problem around observing them.

Aard

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Some of the most innane, offensive, and stupidest remarks about transgendered people I've ever heard have come from LGB people. So, no, it isn't necessarily within your domain for you to comment freely. Frankly, I think you've proven that it is most certainly outside of your domain.

How is it inane, offensive, and stupid of me to suggest that I should be allowed comment? Is commenting on transgendered issues reserved solely for transgendered people?

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

How is it inane, offensive, and stupid of me to suggest that I should be allowed comment? Is commenting on transgendered issues reserved solely for transgendered people?

Good grief, Aard, I really really do wish that you would start actually reading what I write. This is at the very core of the problems we are experiencing.

First of all, I didn't say anything about you not commenting. What I said was about you commenting freely.

And this was in the context of problems around transgendered people getting offended, and your assertion that, because there is a "T" in "LGBT", it qualifies you to comment freely. It doesn't.

Good grief - and you accuse me of having a persecution complex?!

Aard

OK, thanks.

Wolfe Tone

I have always found it curious that Lesbians, Gays, Bis and Trans people are lumped together tbh.

Boston

Eebs wrote: »

I think people are wondering if you're that rude to any person who annoys you or if it was specifically because she was talking about trans stuff.

I don't think people are wondering that. I find it hypocritical that someone should demand respect from me while showing absolutely none towards others. That I should be tolerant of their opinion while they tell me I shouldn't express my own.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

First of all, Links, I'm so sorry to read that you are hurting. FWIW whereas I most certainly did have my character assassinated in another thread, I am happy to report that it didn't actually have that big of an emotional impact on me. The assassins had, as far as I was concerned, proved themselves to be unworthy of my emotional energy.

Yes you're the victim, not the person whom you made an unfounded and unsubstantiated attack on.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I was actually a bit disappointed when that thread was locked, as I was in the process of responding to Sir Ophiuchus's wonderful post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69683585&postcount=38) when my response was blocked due to the thread being locked. I thought Sir Ophiuchus's post had potential to solve the underlying problem once and for all.

Sir Ophiuchus's post amounted to "Unless you're trans, you're in no position to call a spade a spade". If that's the case, then trans topics have no place on a public forum as the only people who can engage in them are other trangendered people.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Some of the most innane, offensive, and stupidest remarks about transgendered people I've ever heard have come from LGB people. So, no, it isn't necessarily within your domain for you to comment freely. Frankly, I think you've proven that it is most certainly outside of your domain.

Innane and stupid. This is how you court respect and tolerance? The mere suggestion that the massive chip on your shoulder might be causing you to see enemies where there are none, and attacks where there are none is met with absolute fury. Thats exactly what happened though, you took a simply mistakes by someone and turned it into a personal crusade and even more laughably you expect now to be taken seriously.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The transphobia to be found in the LGB community is usually worse than that found in the straight community, probably because LGB people believe that they can comment freely, and then feel free to jump up-and-down about trans people's "need for self-victimisation" when their comments are challenged.

If you don't want LGB people commenting freely on transgendered topics, then what's the point in having sexual issues and gender issues in the same forum. If you truly believe what you're spouting, then transgendered issues should be split off into a completely separate forum.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I don't know where you are getting your assertion of me attacking the survey author from. I attacked the survey! I've since exchanged more emails with the survey author - the upshot is that the author agrees 100% with my points, and has thanked me for my input.

You accused the author of trying to force you to be something your not, and having a hidden agenda. You actively attempted to undermine his work. Have you linked him to the thread. Have you linked him to the post where you accuse him of dismissing the distinction between gender and sexual identity and trampling all over your good self?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

In other words, it's not the fault of those writing moronic posts - it's the fault of those who came on here looking for validation / support / whatever. The fact that such validation / support not only doesn't exist, but the seeking of it is seen (as you say) as an excuse to "spout moronic opinions", isn't the fault of the morons - it's the fault of the person asking the question / seeking the support / whatever.

Nope. Try reading a post, not your own version of it.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

May I suggest that is because those users are not aware enough of transgender issues to know how to say something without causing offence? I think such people need to sit back, read, re-read, and read with more care, what the transgendered people on this forum write.

Sometimes there's no handy way of saying you're wrong and deluded.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I think Links did a very good job indeed about establishing those boundaries. I think Sir Ophiuchus's post was also excellent. I don't think there is a problem around establishing those boundaries - I think there is a problem around observing them.

The number of locked threads and the level of drama would suggest otherwise. You're the one on the "would you date" thread who started challenging people to answer why they wouldn't. Deliberately needling people until something was said which you could take offence to. If someone came onto this forum and said homosexuality is genetic, it would be OK for me to challenge that opinion but for whatever reason I'm not allow to challenge statement which are completely divorced from reality?

Maybe the boundaries are clear to you. They seem to amount to "everything is OK once you toe the party line".

deirdre_dub

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I have always found it curious that Lesbians, Gays, Bis and Trans people are lumped together tbh.

I think we have more in common than we have that's different.

And, we aren't constantly "lumped together" - lesbians have their own space (e.g. Running Amach), trans people have our space, bis have a few square metres somewhere in connemara and gays have the rest

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

And this was in the context of problems around transgendered people getting offended, and your assertion that, because there is a "T" in "LGBT", it qualifies you to comment freely. It doesn't.

And you believe that just because you are trangendered that a) You speak for the entire community and b) that you're in the perfect position to have an unbiased view.

There is as much "free comment" about transgendered issues as there is about sexuality issues on this forum. What you're asking for is special treatment to disallow any comment which maybe to interpreted by you as in some way offensive or disparaging.

That's the key point. You've consistently taking huge offence when none has been intended, prime example being the survey. How is someone meant to know whats likely to cause you offence? When something like the suggestion that sex is a biological fact is taken as a complete slap in the face? The only conclusion to take it that any outside opinion will be treated with hostile suspicion.

Wolfe Tone

But you could have a trans person who feels homosexualty is wrong, or a gay person who believes trans people are kidding themselves,(insert various other slurs and whatnot) gay people who think Bi people are just doing so for attention etc etc etc


They are separate things, being trans isn't even a sexuality is it? So why do they hang out under the one banner?

Boston

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They are separate things, being trans isn't even a sexuality is it? So why do they hang out under the one barrier?

Let me just jump in here and say the way you phrased your question "trans isn't even a sexuality". Suggests a hierarchical structure to being queer where sexuality is placed higher and valued more than gender identity. People looking to be offended may choose to interpret your question as an attack on the very validity of their existence.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Yes you're the victim, not the person whom you made an unfounded and unsubstantiated attack on.

Who are we talking about here? The author of the survey? If you read what I said, I think you will find that I attacked the survey, and not the author of the survey.

Sir Ophiuchus's post amounted to "Unless you're trans, you're in no position to call a spade a spade".

Unless you are trans, your are in no position to tell a trans person what they should and should not feel.

Innane and stupid. This is how you court respect and tolerance?

I'm calling a spade a spade on my experience of some of the questions and comments I've received in the past from LGB people about the experience of being trans.

The mer suggestion that the massive chip on your shoulder might be causing you to see enemies where there are none, and attacks where there are none is met with absolute fury.

As far as I can see, the only one that is furious is you. I'm actually quite calm. I'm actually almost amused.

Thats exactly what happened though, you took a simply mistakes by someone an turned it into a personal crusade and even more laughably you expect now to be taken seriously.

Likewise.

If you don't want LGB people commenting free on transgendered topics, then what's the point in having sexual issues and gender issues in the same forum. If you truely believe what your spouting, then transgendered issues should be split off into a completely separate forum.

I'm sorry - I thought you were calling for tolerance?

In this context, the word "freely" is being used to signify someone talking authoritatively about something. Only a transgendered person can talk authoritatively about the transgendered experience, just as only a gay person can talk authoritatively about the gay experience.

You accused the author of trying to force you to be something your not, and having a hidden agenda.

I accused the survey of doing those things.

You actively attempted to undermine his work.

I have asked people to consider not participating in the survey, and given my reasons why.

Have you linked him to the thread. Have you linked him to the post where you accuse him of

Where did I accuse him of anything?

I accused the survey of those things. And, as I said, the survey author is fully aware of my accusations, and he accepts them as valid.

Sometimes there's no handy way of saying your wrong and deluded.

I was wondering how long it would take before this descended into name-calling. Post reported.

The number of locked threads and the level of drama would suggest otherwise. You're the one on the "would you date" thread who started challenged people to answer why they wouldn't. Deliberately needling people until something was said which you could take offence to.

I believe you will find a post I made on that thread to Links where I said that there were perfectly innocent reasons why people would not date trans people. There was one post (that I saw) which contained such an innocent reason. That is what I was looking for. I'm well aware of the sinister reasons why people don't date trans people - I was looking for the other reasons.

If someone same onto this forum and said homosexuality is genetic, it would be OK for me to challenge that opinion but for whatever reason I'm not allow to challenge statement which are complete divorce from reality?

I don't know which statements that are divorced from reality you are talking about, but I'd like to suggest that maybe you aren't sufficiently aware of the realities of the lives of trans people, just as straight people aren't sufficiently aware of the lives of gay people.

Annasopra

I think perhaps everyone in this forum needs to just calm down a little bit

Boston - You've made some good points in all of the discussions and a lot I wouldn't agree with but the tone of aggression from your posts seems to me in particular to be causing a lot of friction on here.

Wolfe Tone

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I think perhaps everyone in this forum needs to just calm down a little bit

Boston - You've made some good points in all of the discussions and a lot I wouldn't agree with but the tone of aggression from your posts seems to me in particular to be causing a lot of friction on here.

In fairness as an "outsider" here(I'm straight) I don't think the posts are being unduly aggressive.

Boston

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I think perhaps everyone in this forum needs to just calm down a little bit

Boston - You've made some good points in all of the discussions and a lot I wouldn't agree with but the tone of aggression from your posts seems to me in particular to be causing a lot of friction on here.

Yes and bridges are built by referring to others as inane and stupid. Deirdre_dub finds it amusing that people are quitting the forum.

If transgendered issues are to be the sacred cow on this forum, then it should be spelled out clearly so people know to avoid those topics. Some people might have this crazy notion of a free exchange of view points and ideals.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

And you believe that just because you are trangendered that a) You speak for the entire community and b) that you're in the perfect position to have an unbiased view.

Oh good grief.

There is as much "free comment" about transgendered issues as there is about sexuality issues on this forum. What you're asking for is special treatment to disallow any comment which maybe to interpreted by you as in some way offensive or disparaging.

What I'm asking for is respect. Just as you wouldn't tolerate a straight person coming on here and telling you what it is like to be gay, I'm asking that everyone here don't tell me what it is like to be trans. By all means ask me about what it is like to be trans - just don't tell me what it is like being trans. And that includes telling me to not be upset at something.

You've consistently taking huge offence when none has been intended, prime example being the survey.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that my beef was with the survey and not it's author.

The author of the survey is a student, and students make mistakes. I've educated him, and he has thanked me profusely for the education.

How is someone meant to know whats likely to cause you offence?

How is a straight person supposed to know what is likely to cause you as a gay person offence? By learning what it means to be gay. And that is never going to happen if they don't listen to what it is that you tell them about being gay.

When something like the suggestion that sex is a biological fact is taken as a complete slap in the face?

Telling me that my identity is invalid is a slap in the face, just as telling you that your sexual orientation is invalid would be a slap in the face.

getz

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But you could have a trans person who feels homosexualty is wrong, or a gay person who believes trans people are kidding themselves,(insert various other slurs and whatnot) gay people who think Bi people are just doing so for attention etc etc etc


They are separate things, being trans isn't even a sexuality is it? So why do they hang out under the one barrier?

gay people will always hang out where they are welcome,and can meet others of the same gender,also the pink pound is big money,cities like manchester have a gay week,and people of all genders will turn up from all over the world,being different sexually is no big thing in the UK.but ireland ,with its religious hang over,is still coming to terms with it,

Rev Hellfire

deirdre_dub wrote: »

but I'd like to suggest that maybe you aren't sufficiently aware of the realities of the lives of trans people, just as straight people aren't sufficiently aware of the lives of gay people.

The hope would be surely that all the listed parties would be able to empathise to issues facing the others when made aware of them.

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Telling me that my identity is invalid is a slap in the face, just as telling you that your sexual orientation is invalid would be a slap in the face.

You see I don't understand how you can go from the very basic statement of biological fact I made to "you're identity is invalid" I just don't see it. I'm missing some fuzzy logic which fits in between the two statements and turns the non-offensive to offensive like lead to gold.

It must be the same logic you use to intrepid my post as telling you want it's like to be trans. Please provide examples where I have told you what it's like to live as a trangendered person. I don't know what it's like to live anybody else's life but my own. I don't need to live your life to have an opinion on your behaviour or an insight.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Yes and bridges are built by referring to others as inane and stupid. Deirdre_dub finds it amusing that people are quitting the forum.

Nope - I'm finding the arrogance of people passing comment on things they clearly don't know enough about to be amusing.

If transgendered issues are to be the sacred cow on this forum,

Nawh - let's make straight people the sacred cow on this forum!

then it should be spelled out clearly so people know to avoid those topics. Some people might have this crazy notion of a free exchange of view points and ideals.

Here are some other view points and ideas that have (undoubtedly) been expressed on this forum - do you believe they should be allowed?

- all queers are f*cked up in the head
- gays and pedophiles come from the same stock
- LGBT people should be castrated/steralised

Boston - there are some ideas that are simply not welcome on this forum.

You've said that you don't know what those unwelcome ideas are when it comes to trans people. Myself and many others have been trying very hard indeed to educate you, but all you are doing with our education is jumping up-and-down about how you have the right to express whatever it is that you like and that we are all wrong and have persecution complexes etc.

If a straight person came on here, starting spouting the rubbish that I've spelled out above, and you tried to teach them, and then they started writing about how "gays are a sacred cow on this forum - some people might have this crazy notion of a free exchange of view points and ideals", what would you do?

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

You see I don't understand how you can go from the very basic statement of biological fact I made to "you're identity is invalid" I just don't see it.

Do you want to see it?

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Nope - I'm finding the arrogance of people passing comment on things they clearly don't know enough about to be amusing.
Nawh - let's make straight people the sacred cow on this forum!
Here are some other view points and ideas that have (undoubtedly) been expressed on this forum - do you believe they should be allowed?

- all queers are f*cked up in the head
- gays and pedophiles come from the same stock
- LGBT people should be castrated/steralised

Boston - there are some ideas that are simply not welcome on this forum.

You've said that you don't know what those unwelcome ideas are when it comes to trans people. Myself and many others have been trying very hard indeed to educate you, but all you are doing with our education is jumping up-and-down about how you have the right to express whatever it is that you like and that we are all wrong and have persecution complexes etc.

If a straight person came on here, starting spouting the rubbish that I've spelled out above, and you tried to teach them, and then they started writing about how "gays are a sacred cow on this forum - some people might have this crazy notion of a free exchange of view points and ideals", what would you do?

You've no regard for the intent of the poster. No one is allowed to intentionally cause offence on this forum by posting inflammatory opinions. That's across the board. You simply don't feel others should be allow disagree with your view because they are "arrogant, inane and stupid" people.

This forum was ticking along just fine before you blessed us with your "education".

Annasopra

Boston wrote: »

You've no regard for the intent of the poster. No one is allowed to intentionally cause offence on this forum by posting inflammatory opinions. That's across the board. You simply don't feel others should be allow disagree with your view because they are "arrogant, inane and stupid" people.

This forum was ticking along just fine before you blessed us with your "education".

Are you actually deliberately trying to cause rows because you never agreed with having the transgender in the title in the first place?

Boston

Sorry did I start this thread? Did I start any of the other threads? Should I post up a list of the transgender issue threads which have been locked without me even posting in them? It's a bit rich to be pointing the finger at me.

But sure, whatever, I'm done with transgendered threads on this forum. I expect very shortly you'll start red carding and banning members and before long we can have the transgendered threads and the threads people actually engage in.

Remarkable how we never how to deal with the "You don't know what it's like" argument when mixing Lesbian, gay and bisexual threads.

Karl Hungus

I'll be very brief on this.

Boston wrote: »

I made the point that transgendered people are not biologically speaking the same as their "naturally born" counterparts. That is a statement of fact, it's irrefutable.

Boston wrote: »

If someone came onto this forum and said homosexuality is genetic, it would be OK for me to challenge that opinion but for whatever reason I'm not allow to challenge statement which are completely divorced from reality?

Boston wrote: »

When something like the suggestion that sex is a biological fact is taken as a complete slap in the face?

Boston, the above quotes are practically the same thing I've read on the various After Hours threads that I've since stopped posting on because of how circular the reasoning was. I've liked it to arguing with creationists. But what you're saying here, is almost identical to what some AH posters say, namely that it's a "biological fact" that transsexuals are really just blokes (or women if they're female to male) and will generally re-iterate the word fact as if the mere use of the word makes it true.

I see that the various sources of neurobiological evidence has been posted already in another thread, and had seemingly been dismissed out of hand, just like the usual AH bunch will dismiss said evidence. I will say that the term sex change is not an ambiguous description, and that is exactly what a transsexual individual does, they change their sex via cross sex hormones and surgical methods. The physical changes influenced by the hormone treatment are biological, and that the body of a person who undergoes such treatment becomes biologically female (or male). In terms of secondary sex characteristics, and transsexual individual is in a real, physical sense, that sex. A male to female transsexual, who has undergone a sex change is biologically the same as a born female, body weight distribution, bone mineral density, the pheromones the body produces, skin texture, everything, they are the same. Again, sex change is not an ambiguous description, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

In the same sense, we do consider that a woman with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome to be female. Not in some wishy-washy 'gender' way, but they are considered female in sex by medical science. Yet a woman with CAIS is genetically male, they have XY chromosomes, and they are in essence males who developed as females because they were unresponsive to male hormones in the womb. They have no female reproductive organs, uterus and such. But still, it is medically factual that their sex is female. A male-to-female transsexual who has changed sex has no uterus or ovaries, presumable has XY chromosomes (though that's not a general statement, many people can have varied chromosomal makeup, XXY and so forth), but their sex is female also.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I've seen before that any arguments about science and biology are routinely ignored by people who have already made their minds up about transsexuals, so I've little interest in having a discussion over human physiology and biology. I am telling you that you are wrong.

What you're doing here Boston, is saying that "I'm right, you're wrong, it's a biological fact, my opinion is irrefutable! Anyone who disagrees is completely divorced from reality! Fact!"

That people are getting upset over your arguments doesn't surprise.


PS. To the question would I date a transsexual. Yes, yes I would.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

You see I don't understand how you can go from the very basic statement of biological fact I made to "you're identity is invalid" I just don't see it.

If you "just don't see" one of the most fundamental aspects of the trans experience, then surely you can see the reasons why you should consider not posting to trans-related discussions?

Boston

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I'll be very brief on this.
Boston, the above quotes are practically the same thing I've read on the various After Hours threads that I've since stopped posting on because of how circular the reasoning was. I've liked it to arguing with creationists. But what you're saying here, is almost identical to what some AH posters say, namely that it's a "biological fact" that transsexuals are really just blokes (or women if they're female to male) and will generally re-iterate the word fact as if the mere use of the word makes it true.

Saying a transsexual is not biologically identical to their "naturally born" female counterparts is not equivalent to making determinations on their gender identity. I would never make such a clumsy and poorly thought out argument.

I fully accepted the neurobiology arguments put forward though some of the links put forward actually support the argument that transgendered people have distinct neurology. You say I ignored them, but these links where put forward to counter an argument I never made.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

The physical changes influenced by the hormone treatment are biological, and that the body of a person who undergoes such treatment becomes biologically female (or male). In terms of secondary sex characteristics, and transsexual individual is in a real, physical sense, that sex.

I never disputed this.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

A male to female transsexual, who has undergone a sex change is biologically the same as a born female, body weight distribution, bone mineral density, the pheromones the body produces, skin texture, everything, they are the same. Again, sex change is not an ambiguous description, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Ah, this is where you're getting slightly disingenuous. A ftm transsexual isn't transplanted with testis to product testosterone? A mtf transsexual isn't transplanted with ovaries. You said it yourself, it is the secondary characteristics in combination with genital characteristics which are altered in a sex change operation.

What I said was

boston wrote:

Biologically speaking your statement is inaccurate.

That is what I said. The statement is inaccurate, it's not completely wrong, it just inaccurate. In absolutely no way does that suggest that ftm transsexual isn't a man or a mtf transsexual isn't a woman. If I believe that then I have to believe that a woman without ovaries wasn't a woman and a man without testis wasn't a man. Which would clearly be ridiculous. That inaccuracy can have huge ramifications in a relationship.

From a personal point of view I don't give a **** about someone's biology and I've always refereed to trangendered people using the pronouns they were comfortable with. I don't believe gender identity to be purely physical or even most physical. I don't think someone walks into an operating room a man and walks out a woman, I believe that in all likelihood a woman is exactly what they were their entire life.

But people immediately read into my statement what they perceived it to be. Which is ironic on a thread dealing with transgendered issue where preconception and perception are two things which should be tightly controlled. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you read the counter arguments to my supposed argument before you read my actual post, if you read it at all. And hence already had your mind made up that I was in the wrong.

Annasopra

deirdre_dub wrote: »

If you "just don't see" one of the most fundamental aspects of the trans experience, then surely you can see the reasons why you should consider not posting to trans-related discussions?

hang on a second here - - This is an LGBT forum and I appreciate that Bostons posts have been very much personally attacking but posts like this have the potential to create a culture of only trans people are allowed post in trans threads and deepen the apparent problem that Eebs suggested earlier that this forum seems to becoming Us V Them.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

You simply don't feel others should be allow disagree with your view because they are "arrogant, inane and stupid" people.

I really really wish you would actually read what I write.

I didn't call anyone arrogant, inane or stupid. I said -

deirdre_dub wrote:

Some of the most innane, offensive, and stupidest remarks about transgendered people I've ever heard have come from LGB people.

I said that the remarks were stupid, not the people who made them. And I said them in the context of countering an argument which said that, because there is a "T" in "LGBT", it means that "LGB" people are qualified to "freely comment" on trans issues.

Rev Hellfire

deirdre_dub wrote: »

because there is a "T" in "LGBT", it means that "LGB" people are qualified to "freely comment" on trans issues.

Interesting, does that infer that those who are non-glb are not "free" to comment on the topic. I'm curious has to what special attribute do they have with the rest of us lack ?

Karl Hungus

Boston wrote: »

Saying a transsexual is not biologically identical to their "naturally born" female counterparts is not equivalent to making determinations on their gender identity. I would never make such a clumsy and poorly thought out argument.

No, I think what you are saying is in fact worse than making determinations on their gender identity, you are making determinations on their sex. Looking at the other thread, the crux of the issues comes from this post.

Someone said;

Because trans women are women and trans men are men. Not accepting that is transphobic simply because you decide trans people aren't authentic and aren't real. At the end of the day ALL transphobia comes down to that or the world would treat trans people with the same respect and decency as anyone else.

And to this, you directly replied;

Biologically speaking your statement is inaccurate.

One can only assume that the part you're referring to as inaccurate, is the part that asserts "trans women are women and trans men are men." In which case, you would be flatly stating that biologically speaking, trans women are not women and trans men are not men.

That was the first instance of someone mentioning biology, and it was you that brought it into the argument. It would seem, specifically brought up as to make a determination about transsexual people's sex and dispute the statement that trans men/women are men/women, or dispute that they have the agency to change their physical sex. Your repeated iterations of sex being a biological fact would back up this interpretation.

This would strike me as obscenely offensive, that you are basically saying to transgendered people: You might think you're men/women, but you're really not, and you can't change that. It's a biological fact, sorry.

That may or may not have been intentional, it could have been a slip up on your part. But I think what you're doing is refusing to see fault and blaming everyone else for getting upset. Seriously, just look at what you've said in that post. Someone said that trans people are this and that, and you directly respond that it is a "biologically inaccurate" statement. Come on Boston!

Boston

Ok, you've made your point about what you inferred from my post. Now, what is you opinion on what I actually stated. Please point out the flaw in my logic. I think I made it clear in that post and subsequent posts that I was referring to sex and not gender identity. You're suggestion is that I somehow mince my words, say one thing but mean another. That wouldn't be in character. I think the fault lies with the people who assumed I was ignorant of the distinction between sex and gender. And immediately came to the wrong conclusion. Even after I've made my feelings on the matter crystal clear, you yourself insist that I'm saying

"you might think you're men/women, but you're really not, and you can't change that"

I don't know how you still defending that position. Perhaps it's through the fuzzy logic already applied. In either case, you're not a post op transsexual, so I'm afraid you're not allowed have an opinion on this matter.

Karl Hungus

Boston wrote: »

I think I made it clear in that post and subsequent posts that I was referring to sex and not gender identity.

No, it is perfectly clear that you are referring to sex, and that's the problem. You're not saying anything about transsexuals gender, but you're certainly making statements and determinations about their sex. That's what's causing the strife, not that people are assuming you mean gender when you say sex, I think they know it's their sex you're attacking.

You still seem to be saying words to the effect of "you may be men/women in gender identity, but not in sex."

Aard

deirdre_dub wrote: »

In this context, the word "freely" is being used to signify someone talking authoritatively about something. Only a transgendered person can talk authoritatively about the transgendered experience, just as only a gay person can talk authoritatively about the gay experience.

When I used the word "freely", I meant to be able to talk without inhibitions or fear of reprimand. I did not mean to be able to talk authoritatively.

Sir Ophiuchus

Boston wrote: »

Sir Ophiuchus's post amounted to "Unless you're trans, you're in no position to call a spade a spade".

No, it didn't. What I said, in brief, was that claiming you can speak to a minority group's experience when you are not a member is at best fraught with tension and at worst arrogant and hurtful. Therefore it is in order to take care when so doing.

This is an excellent discussion of the topic of privilege and how it can be approached. I recommend it to everyone interested in or affected by such discussions.

Boston

Karl Hungus wrote: »

You still seem to be saying words to the effect of "you may be men/women in gender identity, but not in sex."

That's a lot closer, but more extreme then I personally would have put it. Your statement starts delving into the territory links brought up at the end of the other thread which I never had the chance to reply to. From a purely biological point of view, ignoring neurological and physiological characteristics (Though that maybe in and of itself a complete fallacy to assume one can take these things out of context without judging them on the whole) where exactly is the biological boundary between male and female? Someone with XY chromosomes can have female reproductive systems. Neither you nor I are qualified to start dictating what biological sex a person is. Nevertheless, a transsexual will never have the same biological characteristics as the naturally born counterparts. That's undeniable and irrefutable biological fact. Some of the characteristics can be changed, but not all. As such I think it's perfectly valid to say No I would not go out with a transsexual because biologically speaking there is a distinction, namely an inability to reproduce*.

But a key point is this. Even if someone had posted up "No, because I don't think they're authentic" or whatever, you'd have to allow it. There was a deliberately attempt to solicited negative opinions. Deirde_dub herself challenged people to offer their negative opinions. I really think that's a key point being missed. It's one thing when people come along and volunteer their opinion but when you actively ask people what they think, you pretty much have to a) take what they say at face value and b) accept what you're given.

A lot has been made of the abuse received by the trans people on this forum, and tbh they've been abused to an unprecedented level. But you have to look at why that's happening. I know this will come across as blaming the victim but so be it. If I stated a thread asking "Would you date a bi-sexual" I'm sure I'd get all kinds of nonsense answers but I wouldn't really be in a position to complain since the response were only made at my request.

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

No, it didn't. What I said, in brief, was that claiming you can speak to a minority group's experience when you are not a member is at best fraught with tension and at worst arrogant and hurtful. Therefore it is in order to take care when so doing.

This is an excellent discussion of the topic of privilege and how it can be approached. I recommend it to everyone interested in or affected by such discussions.

I'd challenge you to detail in what way I was speaking to a minority group's experiences. I argued that the thread was an over reaction, it was later shown to be exactly that. The "you don't know what it's like" card was used as a justification for the extreme reaction to the survey in question. I never challenged that, infact I suggested that past experiences maybe exactly what had biased the poster in question.

Your link btw, is an exercise in common sense. But as they say, common sense isn't exactly common.

*Just as a for instance as to my it was relevant to the thread in question.

wonderfulname

Interesting how this turned into exactly the type of head wrecker links was trying to avoid...

Boston

I don't know, I think I'm having a somewhat productive back and forth with Karl there. A little head wrecking was to be expected, it's why as a rule moderators tend not to allow discussions from locked threads to be restarted. People always need to get their last 2 cent in.

L.Jenkins

Boston wrote: »

People always need to get their last 2 cent in.

Well it looks like 40 or 50 euro was fúcked into the pot at this stage. Me thinks we all need to chill the fúck out for awhile.

Annasopra

Boston wrote: »

I don't know, I think I'm having a somewhat productive back and forth with Karl there. A little head wrecking was to be expected, it's why as a rule moderators tend not to allow discussions from locked threads to be restarted. People always need to get their last 2 cent in.

and you are also continuing the personal abuse against Deirdre. I left this open because I thought it might clear the air a bit and to some extent it has but the abuse you have given Deirdre has been nasty. This forum was actually relatively calm while you were not posting here - there were a couple of minor problems. Your point that boundaries on Trans threads need to be much clearer is actually in my view correct. I warned the other day about aggressiveness and I am getting really close to banning you for personal abuse of other posters.

Boston

Shrug, the forum ran pretty smoothly before you took over as well. If we're going to start the blame game. The largest source of trouble has been that "Questions" thread, a thread I haven't posted in, and you've supported.

Anyway, here we go with the threats just as things were claiming down. You've given no infractions and no direct warnings but you're prepared to start banning people. Is it really acceptable to start threads announcing your decision to depart the forum? Is it really acceptable to say "I'm not calling you inane, stupid and arrogant, just your posts"? But where are the infractions. It's a blind eye to that is it.

You're the moderator, ban who you like, I guarantee there'll be no come back on you from the management. But you might as well ban Rev and Aard while you're at it, and anyone one else with an independent thought process.