Are too many threads here being closed?

JupiterKid

Is it just me or are a ridiculous amount of threads on this forum being closed and locked? Is this healthy for this forum in general? I know a number of non LGBT posters are coming on here who are questioning or even attacking the general narrative here but shouldn’t there be some room for debate without resorting to just closing discussions down?

In the case of clear trolling and outright homophobia, I fully understand the need to lock/close threads and certainly ban those posters who are abusive but it does appear to me that if the “consensus” is an any way challenged the reaction is to shut down the discussion.

What do others think? Shouldn’t forums have some debate instead of being an echo chamber of agreement?

JackTaylorFan

JupiterKid wrote: »

In the case of clear trolling and outright homophobia, I fully understand the need to lock/close threads but it does appear to me that if the “consensus” is an any way challenged the reaction is to shut down the discussion?

For the most part, I am in agreement, but why close down a thread because of trolling and homophobia? just red card them if they are obviously there to be disruptive and are not listening. I honestly believe the mods are too lenient on some of the **** non-LGBT users get up to here.


Anyways, one of my biggest issues on here is with tone-policing, to be honest. The majority of the time it is, again, non LGBTQ+ users who employ this tactic, but not always, I have to deal with this condescending crap from people inside the community on here too.

If you don't know what tone-policing is look it up. It's disruptive and belittling and is always used by those with more power in society to silence genuine hardships faced by those with less - the deeply flawed and harmful "angry black woman" trope comes directly from this sort of argument. And now it's the "angry transwoman" as I have been tarred as here so many times.

Ten of Swords

JupiterKid wrote: »

Is it just me or are a ridiculous amount of threads on this forum being closed and locked?

Not sure where this perception is coming from, a quick skim of the first few pages of the forum show a handful of threads locked, most of these are due to the op being against the rules, very few threads get so out of hand they need to be locked.

I stick by what I posted on this topic before - when a thread in this forum gets enough hits to be featured on the trending page it attracts posters who typically wouldn't bother with this forum, some are curious but some come to cause hassle, and the tone of the thread typically changes to something you may expect to find in AH (for example) - a poster, or small cadre, who simply shout the loudest and the same group of names thanking all their posts.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

why close down a thread because of trolling and homophobia? just red card them if they are obviously there to be disruptive and are not listening. I honestly believe the mods are too lenient on some of the **** non-LGBT users get up to here.

Frankly I agree with JTF on this. To my mind locking a thread should be a last resort. I saw no cards handed out despite one of the mods saying there had been a number of posts reported. A few of the posts I read would have, in my humble opinion, been card worthy but I only caught the tail end of that thread before it was locked.

I get that there was no mod available to properly weed through that particular thread at the time so a temporary lock was needed in that situation but no cards seems odd, it means there will be no deterrent for this to happen again, and it will.

One eyed Jack

JupiterKid wrote: »

What do others think? Shouldn’t forums have some debate instead of being an echo chamber of agreement?

There's plenty of scope for discussion (the word 'debate' implies an adversarial narrative as though all points are held as equally valid), and as has been made clear by the Moderators on numerous occasions, this forum isn't like other forums on Boards. The intent of this forum as I've always understood it is to provide a supportive environment for people who are LGB or T.

It has never been a place to 'debate' or question people's lived experiences, and even questioning opinions is often fraught with difficulty as it requires of people that they be considerate of other people, tactful, and respectful in expression of their opinions. In theory, that should sound like an easy thing to do, but in reality it appears to be a very difficult concept to grasp, for a few people. I know I've been carded when I've over-stepped that line, and I've had to hold my tongue many, many more times.

I don't envy the Moderators for a minute for their tireless dedication and amount of voluntary work they put in over the years to make this forum what it is, I actually appreciate the work they put in and I understand the direction they want to take the forum in - a supportive place for people who are LGB or T, and if that means locking threads because they're either non-starters, or because they've gone beyond worth salvaging, then I'm ok with that. It's about the only thing that isn't unique to this forum, as it's standard practice across all forums on Boards.

JackTaylorFan

Ten of Swords wrote: »

I stick by what I posted on this topic before - when a thread in this forum gets enough hits to be featured on the trending page it attracts posters who typically wouldn't bother with this forum, some are curious but some come to cause hassle, and the tone of the thread typically changes to something you may expect to find in AH (for example) - a poster, or small cadre, who simply shout the loudest and the same group of names thanking all their posts. .

Yes, there are a few that come over from AH or wherever and have no intention of actually listening, just a series of willful ignorance and denial. Coupled with dog whistling... And when I encounter them on other parts of this site, surprise! surprise! they are spouting a bunch of homophobic (et al) garbage there too. I don't understand how the mods in an LGBT+ forum just allow these users to keep raiding the forum when they have no intention of being educated on the issues we must deal with.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

LGB or T

Speaking of dog whistling (this guy again :rolleyes: )

baby and crumble

Guys I shut down the homophobic attack thread because I needed to respond to a reported post (well 8 actually) but I will need to read the entire thread to figure out who needs infractions and who doesn’t because honestly half the reported posts were kinda petty. I still
Haven’t had time to read the entire thing and figure it all out. I’m ridiculously busy at the moment as are my fellow mods. Like someone already said, we do all this on our own time and I’m personally working, doing a PhD, caring for a family member and trying to get some personal time that doesn’t involve constantly looking at a screen all at the same time. Frankly modding here and dealing with what can just be bitchy sniping because someone got their nose slapped by someone else for being a bit of an idiot is really aggravating.

I don’t routinely check boards anymore because I don’t have the time. I will check a notification about a reported post on my phone but honestly modding on a phone is a nightmare for various reasons.

I get that people get annoyed when threads are locked but in all honesty we don’t do it for small reasons.

baby and crumble

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Speaking of dog whistling (this guy again :rolleyes: )

Guys cool it with the snippy comments.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's plenty of scope for discussion (the word 'debate' implies an adversarial narrative as though all points are held as equally valid), and as has been made clear by the Moderators on numerous occasions, this forum isn't like other forums on Boards. The intent of this forum as I've always understood it is to provide a supportive environment for people who are LGB or T.

It has never been a place to 'debate' or question people's lived experiences, and even questioning opinions is often fraught with difficulty as it requires of people that they be considerate of other people, tactful, and respectful in expression of their opinions. In theory, that should sound like an easy thing to do, but in reality it appears to be a very difficult concept to grasp, for a few people. I know I've been carded when I've over-stepped that line, and I've had to hold my tongue many, many more times.

I don't envy the Moderators for a minute for their tireless dedication and amount of voluntary work they put in over the years to make this forum what it is, I actually appreciate the work they put in and I understand the direction they want to take the forum in - a supportive place for people who are LGB or T, and if that means locking threads because they're either non-starters, or because they've gone beyond worth salvaging, then I'm ok with that. It's about the only thing that isn't unique to this forum, as it's standard practice across all forums on Boards.

Your post comes across as quite reasonable and considered.....

..... but then you go to some weird special effort to separate the T out of the universally recognised acronym LGBT.

uck51js9zml2yt

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your post comes across as quite reasonable and considered.....

..... but then you go to some weird special effort to separate the T out of the universally recognised acronym LGBT.

You forgot QIA and + !!

But seriously all forums should be up for reasoned questioning and disagreement.
If you can't defend want you believe then I wonder do you actually believe.

I don't generally post here, (saw it on the first page, )totally disagree with what's believed here but I'm quiet open to challenging someone on it and being challenged.
If not, then why be on an open forum?

Goodshape

Raina Billions Heater wrote: »

I don't generally post here, (saw it on the first page, )totally disagree with what's believed here but I'm quiet open to challenging someone on it and being challenged.
If not, then why be on an open forum?

I think this has been discussed here before and, iirc, the consensus was that discussion is fine – but this shouldn't become a place where people are forced to defend their existence or argue against "opinions" which may seek to invalidate what they are going through.


Fwiw I think the mods to a good job in often difficult circumstances. Some threads (or posters) get closed a little earlier than I'd personally like, some others go on longer than I think they're worth. But the balance is mostly fine. IMO.


And this may be an "open forum", but it's one with rules and moderation. There's also an active community here. Wandering in off the homepage and "challenging someone" does not always need to be tolerated.

eviltwin

I've always seen this as a space for LGBT posters, and their loved ones, to talk about stuff, to vent, seek info etc. Unfortunately you can't have even a simple discussion without someone turning it into a moral debate or judging etc. Certain fourms are prone to it, Ladies Lounge and Parenting being two I see similar stuff happen. I think the mods here do a good job, yes sometimes it's slow but given they do this voluntarily I think they are doing the best they can. The problem is the trolls who act the maggot in the first place and that's a site wide issue.

JackTaylorFan

baby and crumble wrote: »

Guys cool it with the snippy comments.

And this is tone-policing

Red carded - quit arguing with moderators

Goodshape

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

And this is tone-policing

But you weren't making any constructive point? Just a snippy comment and condescending emoticon.

To be honest, that's not what I have in mind when I think of tone policing. It would be more, if you were making a point or outlining an argument, and used a few expletives or got a little "too" passionate, and I chose to argue against your use of language rather than the points you're making. That's tone policing.

Asking you not to post offhand snippy comments is just asking you not to post offhand snippy comments.

JackTaylorFan

LLMMLL wrote: »

..... but then you go to some weird special effort to separate the T out of the universally recognised acronym LGBT.

Given my previous encounters with that particular user, and whenever I have seen them post on Boards on the subject, they has exhibited, in general, an awful attitude towards transgender people, using a lot TERF logic in the process. Their attempt to separate the T from the rest of the community is not at all surprising.

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

But you weren't making any constructive point? Just a snippy comment and condescending emoticon.

To be honest, that's not what I have in mind when I think of tone policing. It would be more, if you were making a point or outlining an argument, and used a few expletives or got a little "too" passionate, and I chose to argue against your use of language rather than the points you're making. That's tone policing.

Asking you not to post offhand snippy comments is just asking you not to post offhand snippy comments.

Again, you don't understand tone policing. Look it up.

Fact is I was making a very valid point: Separating the T from the rest of the community is dangerous. The tone in which I addressed the obviously phobic comments, is what you are focusing on though - i.e. tone policing. But thanks for the condescension

baby and crumble

Guys I really hate writing with my mod hat on but if you make a personal comment or a pointless one, I’ll ask you to tone it down. That’s because I don’t really want to card people for silly things but guess what? It’s in the charter not to make personal comments.

My request to cool it with snippy comments was a general ask, not singling out individual posters.

Goodshape

JackTaylorFan wrote:

But thanks for the condescension

Sorry. I'm no expert – wouldn't pretend to be. Only trying to have a conversation and learn.

Again, you don't understand tone policing. Look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

"It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself."

From your subsequent clarification I see what you mean (although I didn't read that into the "LGB or T" statement myself) but it wasn't clear to me what your point was from your initial "Speaking of dog whistling (this guy again :rolleyes:)" statement.

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

From your subsequent clarification I see what you mean (although I didn't read that into the "LGB or T" statement myself)

Then I suggest you look into LGBT+ history and the attempts to delete the T from the movement, rather than attacking me. In fact, if you go back about 8 years ago on this forum, the debate was raging on whether Transgender people should even be allowed into the - as was previously called - LGB forum. This place was rife with people conveniently forgetting the part T people played in fighting for LGBT+ rights in the first place.

Goodshape

I'm well aware of that, thanks.

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm well aware of that, thanks.

Really, well then it baffles me how you can't see the subtle attack the user was making...

Honestly, I do wonder...

Goodshape

I try to make a point of not assuming the worst in people's intentions. User could have just left out the commas (L, G, B, or T), rather than purposefully including the 'or'.

But I see your point. I'll leave it there.

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

I try to make a point of not assuming the worst in people's intentions. User could have just left out the commas (L, G, B, or T), rather than purposefully including the 'or'.

But I see your point. I'll leave it there.

As I said, I know the user to use TERF logic as well as other transphobic rhetoric on Boards.

And again, dog whistling is called dog whistling for a reason, so maybe I should be more understanding of the subtlety being lost on you. After-all, unless you are the T in the acronym, the attack isn't aimed at you.

JackTaylorFan

Raina Billions Heater wrote: »

You forgot QIA and + !!

If not, then why be on an open forum?

It's an open forum for people in the community who need support who may not be registered or comfortable posting in the group, but are still able to view the topics without having to sign up... Not for straight people to come along with their willful ignorance and deny obvious attacks on our existence.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your post comes across as quite reasonable and considered.....

..... but then you go to some weird special effort to separate the T out of the universally recognised acronym LGBT.

There's about as much special effort required on my part to use the term 'LGB or T' as there is special effort required to refer to people by their preferred pronouns; that is to say - no effort necessary on my part whatsoever. I've previously explained exactly why I use the term, only recently in fact, in this forum -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Gender and sexual orientation are not the same thing is all.

Another point I want to pick up on is this idea that you suggest the LGBT acronym is a universally recognised acronym. It really isn't, not by a long shot. In cultures and societies which do not share Western mainly English speaking concepts of gender and sexuality, the LGBT acronym isn't recognised at all, and even within Western culture itself, the term has been the subject of conflict and discussion -

The initialisms LGBT or GLBT are not agreed to by everyone that they encompass. For example, some argue that transgender and transsexual causes are not the same as that of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people. This argument centers on the idea that transgenderism and transsexuality have to do with gender identity, or a person's understanding of being or not being a man or a woman irrespective of their sexual orientation. LGB issues can be seen as a matter of sexual orientation or attraction. These distinctions have been made in the context of political action in which LGB goals, such as same-sex marriage legislation and human rights work (which may not include transgender and intersex people), may be perceived to differ from transgender and transsexual goals. Another problem associated is that people may not always identify with the given labels. One study conducted in Australia discovered that all the participants had experienced microaggressions, bullying and anti-social behaviours. However, not all of the participants believed their victimisation to be motivated by anti-LGBTIQ beliefs. What it did establish is that many of these microaggressions occurred due to misconceptions and conflicting opinions on what these labels entailed (in particular, transsexual and bisexual). Evidently, by placing blanket labels on many people, who all experience difference narratives, there are inconsistencies.

To suggest that the term you use, is universal, is just WEIRD.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Given my previous encounters with that particular user, and whenever I have seen them post on Boards on the subject, they has exhibited, in general, an awful attitude towards transgender people, using a lot TERF logic in the process. Their attempt to separate the T from the rest of the community is not at all surprising.

Given that you aren't an authority on the subject, I'll regard your opinion of my opinions with as much credibility as it deserves - not a whole lot tbh. If by 'TERF logic' you mean that I argue that transgender fathers should have an equal legal right as any father to be named as the legal guardian on their children's birth certificate, then you'd be right -

Transgender man wants to be named as father...


If by 'TERF logic' you mean that I argue that 'the cotton ceiling' is nothing more than an insidious attempt to demean and diminish women's agency over their own bodies, an attempt to coerce and shame women into having sex with people they don't want to have sex with, then yeah, I can understand why you might consider that 'TERF logic'. However, my argument against the concept of 'the cotton ceiling' is that nobody, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender, has an entitlement to violate another person's sexual integrity for their own gain. My arguments may indeed correlate with what you call 'TERF logic', but I see the issue as a matter of a small number of people who argue that they should have the right to violate other people's rights as though those people should comply with their demands.

In what world are you living that you think that should ever be acceptable? You talk about acceptance of people who are transgender, yet your tone suggests that you want compliance with your world view. That's definitely not the same thing, because acceptance goes both ways and allows for the fact that people have the right to disagree with your opinions. Compliance means people no longer have that right. If refusing to comply with your demands infers by your standards that I am somehow transphobic, I can live with that. Your opinion is only representative of, well, yourself. It doesn't mean you either represent, or speak for, a whole community, thankfully.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's about as much special effort required on my part to use the term 'LGB or T' as there is special effort required to refer to people by their preferred pronouns; that is to say - no effort necessary on my part whatsoever. I've previously explained exactly why I use the term, only recently in fact, in this forum -

A special effort doesn’t mean physical effort. It doesn’t have to be exhausting. For instance when you hear a young person using an archaic grammar construction. Living in a society where it’s used incredibly rarely usually means they’ve gone to a “special effort” to use it. There’s a specific reason behind it.

Similarly you’ve clearly gone to a special effort to use this term. The vast majority of people casually use LGB or LGBT out of habit. Even if some forget the T or the QIA+ it’s not signalling any political opinion just habit.

You seem to have some kind of thoughts on why it should be separated out of the acronym with an “or”. All you’ve mentioned is that gender identity and sexuality are different. I’m pretty sure we all knew that.

As for it’s universality, what’s striking about the Wikipedia article you posted is that for the entire article where it discusses the various acronyms that are in use, it never uses “LGB or T” itself. It mostly uses LGBT or LGBTQIA+. It gives two examples of “LGB&T” but it’s not clear whether the two groups using that are doing it to separate out the T or if it’s just because T is at the end and whatever initial came last got an & before it.

So yes there’s debate around these acronyms but you’ve taken an extreme minority position as a non trans person on a board (which does bring together gender identity issues and sexuality issues) which a trans person has told you they find offensive and an attempt to separate trans people out of a movement. I still find that weird.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I still find that weird.

You appear to have missed the point of my post then, and I would only be repeating myself were I to explain to you again the difference between acceptance, and compliance.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point of my post then, and I would only be repeating myself were I to explain to you again the difference between acceptance, and compliance.

I get your point. And if there was actual competing views about LGBT vs LGB or T then I might have some sympathy with your point about acceptance vs compliance.

However it seems you are completely committed to using an acronym that pretty much nobody else uses and don’t care if it causes offence. I don’t think this is an acceptance/compliance issue.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given that you... blah... blah... blah...

In what world are you living that you think that should ever be acceptable? You talk about acceptance of people who are transgender, yet your tone suggests that you want compliance with your world view. That's definitely not the same thing, because acceptance goes both ways and allows for the fact that people have the right to disagree with your opinions. Compliance means people no longer have that right. If refusing to comply with your demands infers by your standards that I am somehow transphobic, I can live with that. Your opinion is only representative of, well, yourself. It doesn't mean you either represent, or speak for, a whole community, thankfully.

Just to clarify, I have never once argued in favour of the cotton ceiling theroy, or that women should be forced to sleep with anyone they don't want to. And I would suggest the nebulous assumption that I would impose such a thing merely because I am a transwoman is in itself a gross generalistion of how all trans women think.

If I recall correctly, the user tried to crowbar the cotton ceiling into an argument about a pornstar who refused to work with bisexual men in an obvious attempt to muddy the waters and malign all trans women as sexual predators. When in fact the thread had nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.

I, quite frankly, regard this user as nothing more than a disengenuous troll of all LGBTQIAP+ threads and issues. And literally nothing he says I can take seriously. I mean, just look how he is trying to argue the LGBT acronym is not universal. ****ing laughable. Pathetic and laughable.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Just to clarify, I have never once argued in favour of the cotton ceiling theroy, or that women should be forced to sleep with anyone they don't want to. And I would suggest the nebulous assumption that I would impose such a thing merely because I am a transwoman is in itself a gross generalistion of how all trans women think.

I never said you did, on either count.

If I recall correctly, the user tried to crowbar the cotton ceiling into an argument about a pornstar who refused to work with bisexual men in an obvious attempt to muddy the waters and malign all trans women as sexual predators. When in fact the thread had nothing whatsoever to do with trans women.

Then you don't recall correctly as I have never and would never suggest any such thing.

I, quite frankly, regard this user as nothing more than a disengenuous troll of all LGBTQIAP+ threads and issues. And literally nothing he says I can take seriously. I mean, just look how he is trying to argue the LGBT acronym is not universal. ****ing laughable. Pathetic and laughable.

I'm here, you can reply to me directly, that's generally how a discussion tends to work. Otherwise what you're at I would simply refer to as soapboxing.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said you did, on either count.





Then you don't recall correctly as I have never and would never suggest any such thing.





I'm here, you can reply to me directly, that's generally how a discussion tends to work. Otherwise what you're at I would simply refer to as soapboxing.

Literally, have no interest in debating you on any subject other than your suspect character. Won't play along with your or any other cishet's games on here, sorry.