Trans Threads in AH

L.Jenkins

I refer to this thread specifically: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747589, the latest in a line of threads on the topic.

I want to raise the issue, Should trans issues be discussed in AH, when we have a perfectly good LGBT forum for that purpose? Topics such as Soccer and Politics are banned from the likes of AH and R&R, Why not LGBT topics also, since there is forums for that purpose.

Links234

Itzy wrote: »

Should trans issues be discussed in AH, when we have a perfectly good LGBT forum for that purpose?

Do you really want to direct regular AH users to the LGBT forum?

and honestly, I'd rather discuss trans issues in AH than the LGBT forum, because at least on AH people seem to be receptive to trans posters' opinions.

also, these threads come up once in a blue moon on AH. I think part of the reason banning soccer related threads from AH is because it's a topic that would be constantly coming up otherwise. I also think the AH mods do a pretty good job on trans related threads too.

Dravokivich

I see you are a mod of LGBT, as well as a dedicated Transgender forum. How would you have approached this thread if you saw it in either of them?

You are referring to a thread, which wasn't started off in a serious manner at all and was never about discussing transgender issues. It was purely to take the piss out of the person who underwent it.

Links234

Dravokivich wrote: »

It was purely to take the piss out of the person who underwent it.

I'd say the premise "lets take the piss out of someone 'cos they're transgender!" is fairly problematic itself, wouldn't you agree? what if it were a thread about someone who had come out as gay and it was purely to take the piss out of said person because of their sexuality, would that be acceptable? of course, I don't think regular AH'ers are malicious and as soon as I mentioned that there are trans boards users who may be reading the thread the piss taking died down, which was nice.

AH is where you have a general discussion about things without it moving into anything serious and precise. I have to agree with links; the banning of discussing issues like transgender would likely be more problematic than anything else.

Dravokivich

Links234 wrote: »

I'd say the premise "lets take the piss out of someone 'cos they're transgender!" is fairly problematic itself, wouldn't you agree?

I didn't defend that thread in any way in the above post. I just replied saying I found it odd that someone would want such a thread, with that particular OP, to be put into a more topic related forum, considering all it was is taking the piss. It was not set out to be a thread about transgender issues.

Links234

I see what you're saying Dravokivich, but I think when a thread is discussing a transgender person, focusing solely on the fact that they're transgender, then that thread is defacto about trans issues. You can also appreciate why a thread that's only basis was "hey lets laugh at this wally 'cos they're different" was going to rub Itzy and other posters the wrong way.

Dravokivich

I get that, which is why I'm somewhat bemused as to why they'd want that thread in LGBT/Transgender.

I just read through that thread fully and there's nothing really malicious about transgendered people mentioned, bar one particular poster. The unfortunate thing is that you'll always get someone like that. All the other comments were more making light of the Wachowski's previous work.

The problem with issues that are against what is considered as the "norm" (as they currently stand), such as transgender, homosexuality, or many others, is that you'll always get ignorance towards it. Banning the discussion of these topics will likely do more harm than good towards the eventual goal, which I would imagine is acceptance?

Micky Dolenz

Politics isn't banned from AH and we can hardly compare LGBT to soccer. As long as comments are banter and are light hearted, I don't have an issue with them. Report the posts you find offense.

I think this thread illustrates how a lot of the AH community feel on the issue.

Links234

boneyarsebogman wrote: »

The problem with issues that are against what is considered as the "norm" (as they currently stand), such as transgender, homosexuality, or many others, is that you'll always get ignorance towards it. Banning the discussion of these topics will likely do more harm than good towards the eventual goal, which I would imagine is acceptance?

Couldn't agree more, I think what helps a lot is to nornalize these things, so that when they think of a gay person for example, they don't think of 'that puff off the telly' or whatever negative stereotype they have, they think that its someone's son, brother, friend. Same with trans people, I think a polite reminder that there are indeed trans posters on boards has gone a lot further to humanize us than banning the discussion could ever do. I think a great majority of AH users are pretty cool about trans issues, and I've often seen people change their minds completely when engaging in these threads. The mods have also done a good job of reigning in some particularly belligerent trolls who targeted trans threads.

Links234

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I think this thread illustrates how a lot of the AH community feel on the issue.

Damn! I sure was a happy bunny! ah gots mah titty skittles a while after that

Annasopra

I think trans posters should not feel that they cannot post in any forum on boards.ie. (banning T discussions in AH might in fact make trans posters more uncomfortable to go in there. ) I can see why Itzy suggested this and I certainly sympathise with what Itzy is saying but I think Links makes some good arguments in response. The point made by Micky Dolenz is actually very important. If you find something offensive then report it.

I think sometimes posters can in some threads say stuff that is arguably ok but borderline offensive/transphobic. It's kind of a low level trolling that it can be hard to identify as trolling and/or transphobia.

I think Links is right - just going in there and pointing out that trans people are human beings with feelings reading these posts can often calm things down. Open discussion can be a good thing.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747589

"There is no willy."

I find the title suggestively transphobic. It sets the scene for ridicule and flippancy towards transgender issues. It'll go down the drain eventually.

I don't find an issue with discussing Lana Wachowski and her transition on AH I just have an issue with the way the OP and the title are worded.

In reply to the thread in After Hours:

There is a big difference between making light of something and actually being transphobic.

In the post linked here only one of those borders on being transphobic, but I would guess that's more-so because of that poster being a troll rather than trying to be transphobic. Unfortunately you're always going to get those, especially on the internet.

In reference to the thread title being "There in no Willy" - it is not opening up for ridicule. It's a reference to the Matrix movies, in particular to a quote, "There is no Spoon", so it fitted the thread.

philologos

Itzy wrote: »

I refer to this thread specifically: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747589, the latest in a line of threads on the topic.

I want to raise the issue, Should trans issues be discussed in AH, when we have a perfectly good LGBT forum for that purpose? Topics such as Soccer and Politics are banned from the likes of AH and R&R, Why not LGBT topics also, since there is forums for that purpose.

Anything should be able to be discussed in AH. If we moved every thread about political parties in AH to politics, or every thread about Christianity to Christianity, every thread about atheism to Atheism & Agnosticism and everything that touched on life in Dublin to the Dublin forum there wouldn't be any discussion left.

How do we decide what is and what is not appropriate for ridicule on After Hours also? Personally, I think ridiculing someones identity irrespective of what it is based on is obnoxious and rude, but I've encountered many posts which are obnoxious and rude in After Hours before.

Are the mods going to be consistent and make sure that this isn't the case on every issue, or just certain issues? Whatever is done, I think it should be consistent and right across the board rather than confined to certain issues.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

In reply to the thread in After Hours:

There is a big difference between making light of something and actually being transphobic.

In the post linked here only one of those borders on being transphobic, but I would guess that's more-so because of that poster being a troll rather than trying to be transphobic. Unfortunately you're always going to get those, especially on the internet.

In reference to the thread title being "There in no Willy" - it is not opening up for ridicule. It's a reference to the Matrix movies, in particular to a quote, "There is no Spoon", so it fitted the thread.

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

The general rule of thumb re: threads being moved is:
Soccer gets moved automatically, mainly because of the hard work that these threads can impose.
If the thread is a proper discussion on topics such as Christianity and Politics, then it gets moved to the relevant forum. It's easy to tell the difference between proper discussions and keyboard experts.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

While that's true, it's possible that anything you say could potentially offend someone.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

While that's true, it's possible that anything you say could potentially offend someone.

Say the director of the movie "Up the Creek" came out as gay. Would it be appropriate to make a thread with the title "Up the Bum" to discuss the director's coming out just because it's a clever reference to the movie he directed?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Say the director of the movie "Up the Creek" came out as gay. Would it be appropriate to make a thread with the title "Up the Bum" to discuss the director's coming out just because it's a clever reference to the movie?

I don't see what is offensive about "Up the Bum". Maybe that's me. There's a difference between a thread being called "Up the Bum" and "Director of Up the Bum now a f*ggot". One is a humorous reference, the other is actual homophobia.

This is going back to what I said previously, if you ban and/or regulate what a person says with regards a certain topic, in this case because you're worried about offending someone who might choose to be offended no matter what you say, is that it's actually a step back from solving ignorance.

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

I agree in principle, but I think it needs to be done with a fine line. People need to distinguish between a genuine ad-hominem and a genuine debate.

1) How far would you take it?
2) Where would you draw the lines?
3) Would you consistently apply this topic right across the board? (e.g if posters were saying bigoted and derogatory things about any other grouping in society?)
4) Would you agree that debate should be permitted on LGBT issues (including whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, or scepticism to transgender issues?)

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see what is offensive about "Up the Bum". Maybe that's me. There's a difference between a thread being called "Up the Bum" and "Director of Up the Bum now a f*ggot". One is a humorous reference, the other is actual homophobia.

This is going back to what I said previously, if you ban and/or regulate what a person says with regards a certain topic, in this case because you're worried about offending someone who might choose to be offended no matter what you say, is that it's actually a step back from solving ignorance.

Again, it's not up to you what an LGBT person would find offensive. I imagine most gay people would find a thread title such as "Up the Bum" offensive if it was in reference to someone's coming out. Calling a thread title "There is no willy" is no different.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I agree in principle, but I think it needs to be done with a fine line. People need to distinguish between a genuine ad-hominem and a genuine debate.

1) How far would you take it?
2) Where would you draw the lines?
3) Would you consistently apply this topic right across the board? (e.g if posters were saying bigoted and derogatory things about any other grouping in society?)
4) Would you agree that debate should be permitted on LGBT issues (including whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, or scepticism to transgender issues?)

1 & 2) I'm not entirely sure, because I wouldn't be interested in political or Christian discussions, so I'm not the right person to ask.
3) If this was the case, then rather being moved, it would be locked in whatever forum it was currently in, because the rules on most forum charters would include don't be a dick, so being bigoted or saying derogatory things would fit into this.
4) Of course it should be allowed. Again, if you limit discussions, you'll likely be doing more damage than good. Discussions bring forward understanding and knowledge. Understand and knowledge lessens ignorance, though you're always going to get people that will be trolls/ignorant/assholes, so there's not much anyone can do.

Yes, it's not up to me to determine what one person finds offensive, but if you worry about that, then you are going to completely quash any chance of conversations, thus negating this website's purpose. If a person chooses to be offended, then they'll be offended regardless of what you say.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

philologos wrote: »

I agree in principle, but I think it needs to be done with a fine line. People need to distinguish between a genuine ad-hominem and a genuine debate.

1) How far would you take it?
2) Where would you draw the lines?
3) Would you consistently apply this topic right across the board? (e.g if posters were saying bigoted and derogatory things about any other grouping in society?)
4) Would you agree that debate should be permitted on LGBT issues (including whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, or scepticism to transgender issues?)

In terms of discussing LGBT issues, I have no problem with it. However, I think that the debate ought to be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset, regardless of what your views on LGBT issue are. For example, having a discussion on LGBT issue on a thread with the title "The is no willy" is completely inappropriate.

I would take a similar approach to most other issue. If there is a bigoted or derogatory comment about, say, people of different ethnic/racial backgrounds, then clearly it needs to be addressed in a similar fashion. E.g., just because you don't find calling a Chinese person a "chink" offensive doesn't mean a Chinese person shouldn't be offended, and so on.

If you want to discuss something like whether or not sexuality is biologically determined I think you ought to recognise and respect the fact that sexuality is not a choice, the same goes for transgenderism. There's nothing wrong with discussing their origins as long as you don't judge or be disrespectful to others.

Thing is you can't really compare saying "There is no Willy" to calling a Chinese person a chink or whatever else. Rather than choosing to be offended, you should take the opportunity to find humour in it.

Had the person that created the thread and called "There is no Willy" was a transgendered person, would you be equally as offended? Or the "Up the Bum" was a gay person, would you be up in arms?

Gummy Panda

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

If people keep getting offended by every little thing posted in AH, we'll have nothing left to talk about except the weather. And we have a forum for that!

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

In terms of discussing LGBT issues, I have no problem with it. However, I think that the debate ought to be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset, regardless of what your views on LGBT issue are. For example, having a discussion on LGBT issue on a thread with the title "The is no willy" is completely inappropriate.

Do you think any issue should be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset?

I think the best policy is to look to all issues and apply this policy instead of making rules specific to particular subjects.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I would take a similar approach to most other issue. If there is a bigoted or derogatory comment about, say, people of different ethnic/racial backgrounds, then clearly it needs to be addressed in a similar fashion. E.g., just because you don't find calling a Chinese person a "chink" offensive doesn't mean a Chinese person shouldn't be offended, and so on.

I've seen people post rather bigoted stuff about people from religious groups differing to their own on After Hours. Do you think this should be dealt with in a similar manner to the above topics?

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

If you want to discuss something like whether or not sexuality is biologically determined I think you ought to recognise and respect the fact that sexuality is not a choice, the same goes for transgenderism. There's nothing wrong with discussing their origins as long as you don't judge or be disrespectful to others.

I think it should be up for discussion. Much in the same way as I think that atheists should be free to openly disagree with the claims of faith groups without attacking individuals, or making bigoted claims about faith groups.

Much in this manner, I think it should be open to discuss the factors behind sexuality (there is no reason to suggest that it is biologically hardwired) or transgenderism as long as it is done with the respect that is deserved in that discussion.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Gummy Panda wrote: »

If people keep getting offended by every little thing posted in AH, we'll have nothing left to talk about except the weather. And we have a forum for that!

It's easy for you to say that if you're not transgender, but someone who is may find it a title such as "there is no willy" extremely offensive. Remember, it's people's identity you're dealing with, it's far from being pedantic.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's easy for you to say that if you're not transgender, but someone who is may find it a title such as "there is no willy" extremely offensive. Remember, it's people's identity you're dealing with, it's far from being pedantic.

My point of whether the person was transgendered or not still stands. It's very likely that someone that is transgender could find something like "There is no Willy" funny. You tell me I can't decide what someone finds offensive. You, in turn, can't decide what someone finds funny.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

philologos wrote: »

Do you think any issue should be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset?

I think the best policy is to look to all issues and apply this policy instead of making rules specific to particular subjects.

Look, it should be very simply put, if you're discussing things like LGBT rights, people of different ethnic background or people of different religious conventions, etc., then perhaps a certain level of decorum and respect is needed as you are dealing with real people's identities. You don't have to make specific rules for specific subjects, it should be universal. If you wanted to discuss something about Chinese people, you're not going to have a thread with the word "chink" in the title, or if you have a thread on something to do with Jews you shouldn't have a phrase like "snipped cock" in the OP, and so on. It's disrespectful and offensive.

philologos wrote: »

I've seen people post rather bigoted stuff about people from religious groups differing to their own on After Hours. Do you think this should be dealt with in a similar manner to the above topics?

Yes.

philologos wrote: »

I think it should be up for discussion. Much in the same way as I think that atheists should be free to openly disagree with the claims of faith groups without attacking individuals, or making bigoted claims about faith groups.

Much in this manner, I think it should be open to discuss the factors behind sexuality (there is no reason to suggest that it is biologically hardwired) or transgenderism as long as it is done with the respect that is deserved in that discussion.

Yes, as long as it is respectful. I think mods need to give a firm eye on the wording of OPs and the thread titles and be able to gauge whether or not the thread will go out of hand from the outset as the first thing people read when their introduced to a new thread are the thread title and the OP.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

In reply to the thread in After Hours:

There is a big difference between making light of something and actually being transphobic.

In the post linked here only one of those borders on being transphobic, but I would guess that's more-so because of that poster being a troll rather than trying to be transphobic. Unfortunately you're always going to get those, especially on the internet.

In reference to the thread title being "There in no Willy" - it is not opening up for ridicule. It's a reference to the Matrix movies, in particular to a quote, "There is no Spoon", so it fitted the thread.

I'll be honest, I found some of the comments to be quite transphobic, and downright hurtful even. But that's not really what this thread is about, it's about whether or not these threads should even be allowed to take place at all.

Interesting bit of trivia about The Matrix though, did you know that the character of Switch was meant to be played by two actors, one male and one female, where one actor portrayed the real world character and the other the character's perception of themselves inside the matrix, hence the name switch. But this was cut from the script because the producers thought it might be confusing for audiences.

Links234

Links234 wrote: »

I'll be honest, I found some of the comments to be quite transphobic, and downright hurtful even. But that's not really what this thread is about, it's about whether or not these threads should even be allowed to take place at all.

Interesting bit of trivia about The Matrix though, did you know that the character of Switch was meant to be played by two actors, one male and one female, where one actor portrayed the real world character and the other the character's perception of themselves inside the matrix, hence the name switch. But this was cut from the script because the producers thought it might be confusing for audiences.

It would have been somewhat confusing though from the onset.

Outside of Confab, who it could be said was being a troll, which comments did you find offensive?

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Look, it should be very simply put, if you're discussing things like LGBT rights, people of different ethnic background or people of different religious conventions, etc., then perhaps a certain level of decorum and respect is needed as you are dealing with real people's identities. You don't have to make specific rules for specific subjects, it should be universal. If you wanted to discuss something about Chinese people, you're not going to have a thread with the word "chink" in the title, or if you have a thread on something to do with Jews you shouldn't have a phrase like "snipped cock" in the OP, and so on.

I think this rule is already in the charter for any discussion. It's up to the moderators to ensure that they are enforcing the charter, and indeed it's up to posters on After Hours to report posts.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Yes, as long as it is respectful. I think mods need to give a firm eye on the wording of OPs and the thread titles and be able to gauge whether or not the thread will go out of hand from the outset as the first thing people read when their introduced to a new thread are the thread title and the OP.

I agree. I'm just making sure that your suggestion won't stifle genuine discussion on either.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

My point of whether the person was transgendered or not still stands. It's very likely that someone that is transgender could find something like "There is no Willy" funny. You tell me I can't decide what someone finds offensive. You, in turn, can't decide what someone finds funny.

Who is to say that some black people don't find the 'n' word offensive? It's not the point, most probably would. Similar most transgender people would find words such as "tranny", "shemale", or flippant references to their genitalia offensive, it doesn't mean that all would, but most would.

If there was a tragic plane crash and there was a thread on AH about it and then you decided to joke about it, do you think the moderator has a right to kick you off the thread because you thought it was funny and no-one else did? Of course. The fact is, it's inappropriate, it doesn't matter whether you find it funny or not.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

Outside of Confab, who it could be said was being a troll, which comments did you find offensive?

I think what I may or may not have found offensive is immaterial to the discussion, which is whether or not there should be effectively a blanket ban on all these threads. My point is that while I do have issues with that thread, that in no way should trans related threads in general be forbidden, and that such a ban could in effect make transgender boards users feel as if they are persona non grata here.

Annasopra

Links234 wrote: »

I think what I may or may not have found offensive is immaterial to the discussion, which is whether or not there should be effectively a blanket ban on all these threads. My point is that while I do have issues with that thread, that in no way should trans related threads in general be forbidden, and that such a ban could in effect make transgender boards users feel as if they are persona non grata here.

I think that for people to understand why Itzy suggested a ban in the first place that perhaps a discussion on what was offensive in that thread might be material to this discussion.

mango salsa

mango salsa wrote: »

I think that for people to understand why Itzy suggested a ban in the first place that perhaps a discussion on what was offensive in that thread might be material to this discussion.

I was about to come back and suggest that. As someone who is neither gay or transgendered, it is hard for me to tell what someone might deem as offensive, if it is not blatant. The comments Links suggested were offensive might have been something that I found humourous.

The reason I asked what you found offensive was so that I could make an attempt to try and understand it, in an effort to not be ignorant, which I admittedly am with regards to these issues.

minidazzler

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Again, it's not up to you what an LGBT person would find offensive. I imagine most gay people would find a thread title such as "Up the Bum" offensive if it was in reference to someone's coming out. Calling a thread title "There is no willy" is no different.

Offense is something that has to be intended. Taking offence to something is a choice if it's something that was not meant in a harmful manner.

Of the 6 posts you called transphobic the only ones that actually were were posts 3 and 4. The others are jokes. Telling trans jokes is not the same thing as hating trans people or being afraid of them. It may be bad taste but it doesn't mean the joker hates you.

I'm sure there are a few posters on here who do hate Trans people, but you'll find that everywhere you can't stifle discussion just because some bigoted piece of sh1t might offend someone.

There is no Willy is an obvious and blatant reference to a movie Wachowski directed, it's relevant.

The only reason the thread was there in the first place anyway is because she is famous, so maybe it should have gone to celebrities? Why specifically should it go to trans only? There are other factors to consider.

That said, AH is right for it.

I think the biggest problem with this is that what is humourous and offensive is sometimes completely subjective of the person and how they decide to take it up, unless it is a blatant attempt at being offensive or crude; in the previous example, one person could see "There is no Willy" as humourous, given that it is in reference to something, while one person could see it as offensive, because it is in reference to a particular person. Yet calling a transgendered person a trannie or a gay person a f*ggot is a blatant attempt at being offensive and has absolutely no humour in it at all.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well right now, so that sentence possibly didn't make much sense.

minidazzler

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the biggest problem with this is that what is humourous and offensive is sometimes completely subjective of the person and how they decide to take it up, unless it is a blatant attempt at being offensive or crude; in the previous example, one person could see "There is no Willy" as humourous, given that it is in reference to something, while one person could see it as offensive, because it is in reference to a particular person. Yet calling a transgendered person a trannie or a gay person a f*ggot is a blatant attempt at being offensive and has absolutely no humour in it at all.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well right now, so that sentence possibly didn't make much sense.

It makes sense alright.

Offensive statement made to incite violence or hatred - Ban it

Offensive statement made to denigrate a person or group - Ban it

Humorous statement made that can be seen as offensive - Case by case, but generally allowed.

If people weren't allowed make any statements on here that might offend some people then there would be fcuk all discussed.

I'm a huge fan of free speech, but realise this is a privately run website so free speech technically doesn't exist. But neither does censorship for the most part. You can't ban all humour related to potentially offensive topics that's not how the world works. You can ban outright dickery, but not stifle discussion to spare someones feelings.

And as my last before I step out of this; AH is the stuff you talk about in a pub*, a famous director getting a sex change is just the type of thing that would be talked about there.



*My personal opinion is Religion and Politics should not be talked about in the pub

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Look, it should be very simply put, if you're discussing things like LGBT rights, people of different ethnic background or people of different religious conventions, etc., then perhaps a certain level of decorum and respect is needed as you are dealing with real people's identities. ..........

So when you were posting "die unions die!!!!!" along with a video of a guillotine in the "Public sector unions" thread, it was with decorum and respect?

L.Jenkins

Why start a thread and fail to respond. To be honest, I was sitting patiently, reading much of the replies that ensued.

The whole issue I have with posting Trans topics is not the people who genuinely want to talk about it and poke some harmless fun out of it, but some people who are genuinely fúcking nasty and back handed.

I suppose I started this thread not to have the topic banned from AH, but to raise such points as stealth trolling and those who tempt people into debate with the idea of decending the whole thread into choas by causing offense.

And as pointed out during the thread, some people might take offense to different things. I can certainly take a joke and there is a humourous side to the thread, but some comments may have gone a bit too far.

Nodin

On any forum with a few hundred users, you can start a thread on weather, plants, cats - anything - and lo and behold, a few gobshites will appear.

Humour, as often stated here, is a very personal thing. Just because somebody thinks its unfunny, doesn't mean it is, or that its an insult.

LoLth

I dont think any ONE poster on boards has a right to decide what is and is not universally offensive or acceptable for a group of RL individuals. What you find funny, another may find abhorrent, what you use as a standard internet meme another may take as a personal insult.

If you have a problem with a post, report it to the mods.

The mods are made mods because we trust in their ability to differentiate between deliberate insult and personal opinion and we try to help all users maintain a level of posting that at least hovers above the "internet troll/arsehole/bigotted gasbag", unfortunately we cant pro-actively stop this category of poster from poster, we need to react to it which will be done faster if people report the posts they find offensive.

Now, just because you find a post to be offensive, doesnt mean it is actually outside of the realms of acceptable discussion on boards.ie , maybe the individual reporting the post is too sensitive to certian topics to participate in discussions with anonymous* internet people who have a layer of abstraction between them and their audience allowing them to say things that they would never, ever, say to someone's face.

IMHO (and not with an admin hat on) , ANYTHING should be up for discussion on a relevant forum unless its illegal in the real world (injunctions / inside details of a court case / slanderous accusations etc). As Nodin says, you cant stop the gob****es from appearing and trying to get a reaction from the crowd but we can try to ensure they only get to do it once and that the price of such attention is as high as possible. If I want to discuss racism, I should be able to as long as that discussion stays within acceptable levels and stays on topic. If if descends into users posting their racist ideals or encouraging/inciting racial hatred, then those posts should be dealt with appropriately and in a manner that shows boards.ie's disapproval. Similarly, if I want to discuss a Wachowski Brother becoming a Wachowski Sister then I should be able to do so, even with a bit of light humour. To me, its not the discussion thats the issue, its the off topic ****e that gets posted in any of these threads that I have an issue with, the seagull posters that post something "witty" and completely off topic in an attempt to get attention. For example, a thread about a transgender individual who is very much in the public eye and a moron takes it as an opportunity to soapbox about their opinion of transgender people as a whole - thats off topic, its not a post about the public figure. The same logic could be applied to any subject imho and would cut down the insulting/offensive posts, it wouldnt eliminate them.

As already said, humour is subjective BUT if something can be joked about, surely thats better than it being ignored or taboo ? It's at least being noticed by the public and its being brought to the attention of readers who were probably unaware of its existence beforehand. Its the fine line between a humorous comment and a mocking statement that needs to be observed.

I am not saying that its OK to poke fun at any minority. I am saying that in the interests of equality, all minorities and majorities should be equally open to humour and all should be equally protected from abuse.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

I was about to come back and suggest that. As someone who is neither gay or transgendered, it is hard for me to tell what someone might deem as offensive, if it is not blatant. The comments Links suggested were offensive might have been something that I found humourous.

The reason I asked what you found offensive was so that I could make an attempt to try and understand it, in an effort to not be ignorant, which I admittedly am with regards to these issues.

Well first of all "offensive" isn't really a very useful term because what's offensive or not is completely subjective, I mean to some people I am offensive. and this is true, to some people my very being offends their sensibilities, but you know what I say to that?



I think hurtful is a more useful term in this situation. and I could point towards specific comments, but I won't because it's not any one comment that makes the thread hurtful, it's the whole thread itself. It's the idea of "Hey, this person is transgender! LOLOLOLOLOL!" that's problematic, you know? and if you happen to be trans, it's hard not to read that as being transgender itself is a joke, and that's certainly hurtful. I still think my response seemed to work because there was only one crass comment after that.

Calhoun

LoLth wrote: »

As already said, humour is subjective BUT if something can be joked about, surely thats better than it being ignored or taboo ? It's at least being noticed by the public and its being brought to the attention of readers who were probably unaware of its existence beforehand. Its the fine line between a humorous comment and a mocking statement that needs to be observed.

I am not saying that its OK to poke fun at any minority. I am saying that in the interests of equality, all minorities and majorities should be equally open to humour and all should be equally protected from abuse.

This thread and the quote above reminds me of the episode of south park and the sea manatees (Cartoon wars), the writers are talking about free speech and what happens when we make something taboo. To paraphrase either everything is open for discussion or nothing is.

This is important to remember because in my view after hours is the all inclusive forum, everything within reason is up for discussion and as such is a useful tool for educating the masses (or as mass as AH gets).

Personally in the past I would not know much about trans issues and would have prejudged to an extent. However seeing this discussed in AH has gone a long way in challenging my own misconceptions and although sometimes i feel some folks come across too preachy or to harsh the open debate about it is good.

If these threads are moved to the LGBT forums/sub forum the chance to educate and be included would be lost as you would move it back into its own little domain.

mcmoustache

Calhoun wrote: »

Personally in the past I would not know much about trans issues and would have prejudged to an extent. However seeing this discussed in AH has gone a long way in challenging my own misconceptions and although sometimes i feel some folks come across too preachy or to harsh the open debate about it is good.

If these threads are moved to the LGBT forums/sub forum the chance to educate and be included would be lost as you would move it back into its own little domain.

I'd be the same. Some of Links123's threads on the topic have been really eye-opening for me.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

So when you were posting "die unions die!!!!!" along with a video of a guillotine in the "Public sector unions" thread, it was with decorum and respect?

The organisations, not individuals within.

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

The organisations, not individuals within.

'It's not up to you to say what a public service union member finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the comment was in reference to an organisation, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.'
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80674129&postcount=17
You see how that works?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

'It's not up to you to say what a public service union member finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the comment was in reference to an organisation, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.'
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80674129&postcount=17
You see how that works?

Nah, you can choose to be a member of an union or most other organisations. You don't have a choice in the matter when it comes to things like race/ethnicity, your sexuality or if you're transgender or cisgender. There's a difference. That wasn't in reference to any organisation, maybe I'll minus religion because religion is a choice most of the time. To be honest, bringing up what I said about unions or any other organisation in any other thread is just detracting a little from the actual subject at hand and doesn't really take away from the validity of what I said on this thread earlier. Judge my comments on this thread based on their truths/merits, not on what I said in a completely unrelated thread. That, I believe, is a straw man. Just because I may be a bit hypocritical in some instances doesn't mean what I have said on this thread so far should be shot down. Perhaps my comments here ought to be said by someone else, but they're certainly valid.

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Nah, you can choose to be a member of an union or most other organisations.......

So its ok to offend people by slagging off their choices then?