Gender Identity Thread Ban

GreeBo

Hi,

I have been banned from the "Gender Identity Thread" by Baggly for this post.
Below is the chain of posts (where I was partially quoted out of context by Gentlemanne)

GreeBo wrote: »

There is a big difference between a trans person doing something negative and trans transgenderism itself being negative. I personally can't understand how one could consider transgenderism positive, it's being born into conflict with your body.
Sure you can go on to live a positive life, but that's despite and not because. It's like being born downs or paralysed, you can go on to do great things despite your situation, but they are still negative things that nobody would ever wish for.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Originally Posted by GreeBo View Post
Yep, I'm pretty sure I didn't say being trans was like a disability.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GreeBo View Post
It's like being born downs or paralysed
Yes you did?

GreeBo wrote: »

I didnt compare it to having a disability.

What I actually said was that in both scenarios, i.e. being trans or having a disability people can go on to live normal, successful lives.

People can be ginger and go on to live a normal, successful life, does that mean that being trans is like being ginger in your mind?

Being trans is inherently negative, it means your own perception of yourself doesnt match the sex you were born. How can that be positive in any way?

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Are you kidding me with this? Lets have a chat via PM. Dont post in this thread again.

They have decided that comparing two things is equating them and have accused me of saying that being trans is equivalent to being disabled and thus banned me for being transphobic and/or trolling (the actual reason was not made clear to me)

I don't know how to explain any clearer that a comparison between two things is different to an equivalence than I already did, both on thread and multiple times via PM to the moderator.
IMO the real issue seems to be with my stating that being transgender (i.e. your gender not matching your sex) is inherently negative and the moderator having an issue with me posting this opinion (which has been echoed by other posters)

I am thus appealing for someone else to take a look.

Beasty

Apologies - just getting to this now. I'm currently discussing this with Baggly and will get back to you in due course

GreeBo

Thanks for the update.

Beasty

Apologies for the delay. Some real life issues got in the way, and I've also been spending some time looking at your other contributions to the thread in question

I'll try and get a reply posted later on today

GreeBo

Ok

Beasty

When I first started looking at this my view was you had made an effort to clarify your position. Perhaps your words were unfortunate in that they could and were interpreted differently than suggested by your clarification

However, as already mentioned, I've spent some time looking at your overall contributions to the thread. I noted 2 yellow cards picked up during March, with a comment from the mod on the second one that the next sanction would be a ban

The first card was for this comment

GreeBo wrote: »

As opposed to the deep voiced, Adams appled, bearded "ladies" we have seen in this very thread?

TBH, I think you were lucky to get away with a yellow for that

A week after the second card a mod intervened in the thread, here with the specific instruction aimed towards yourself

Let me do you a favour here; if you are going to claim to not engage with someone; do it. If you continue to bicker with other posters in this thread, you will lose your posting privileges.

Looking at your subsequent posts there was evidence of further bickering

For example see here, followed by this one, and then this

Looking at the two posts leading up to your threadban, and in the light of your prior contributions to the thread, it's clear to me that you are only focussing on, and indeed trying to emphasise, your own perceived negative aspects of transgenderism, and your continued presence in the thread would only create further issues.

In light of all the above I am upholding this threadban

GreeBo

Beasty wrote: »

When I first started looking at this my view was you had made an effort to clarify your position. Perhaps your words were unfortunate in that they could and were interpreted differently than suggested by your clarification

However, as already mentioned, I've spent some time looking at your overall contributions to the thread. I noted 2 yellow cards picked up during March, with a comment from the mod on the second one that the next sanction would be a ban

The first card was for this comment

TBH, I think you were lucky to get away with a yellow for that

A week after the second card a mod intervened in the thread, here with the specific instruction aimed towards yourself


Looking at your subsequent posts there was evidence of further bickering

For example see here, followed by this one, and then this

Looking at the two posts leading up to your threadban, and in the light of your prior contributions to the thread, it's clear to me that you are only focussing on, and indeed trying to emphasise, your own perceived negative aspects of transgenderism, and your continued presence in the thread would only create further issues.

In light of all the above I am upholding this threadban

So hang on, either my post broke the charter by being transphobic somehow, or it didn't, which is it?
If it did then I have to question why the poster who actually equated being transgender with a disability is still posting?

It rather seems that you have decided to "review my contributions to the thread" and decided that because I argue my opinion on what transgenderism is, I'm not welcome, despite every second post on that thread being the same thing, people on both sides "bickering".

Frankly this has been "resolved" exactly as I suspected, the whole thing was a complete waste of my time, as was the thoroughly pointless and un-professional interaction with the mod in question.

It's not "bickering" to point out illogical posts by others, I didnt make any personal attacks and purely attacked the "logic" of their posts.

Can you explain how these co-incidentally "trans-positive" posts are not considered bickering? I fail to see any difference between them and my posts, other than those posters are on the other side of the debate?

Gentlemanne wrote: »

In an alternate reality I feel like there would be a thread about stepfathers and stepmothers on here, and a sizable group would be advocating against their rights to raise their children - they're not real parents! they didn't contribute a cell or an egg! Biological essentialism is real and there is no nuance to human ideas or identity!!

LLMMLL wrote: »

The whole definition thing is nonsense.

Unfortunately most people are uneducated in how the mind works and how they understand concepts.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Considering that your chosen username is "Girly Gal" I would imagine you do have at least some affinity for your gender?

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Not sure the point of the posts that are like "I don't understand nonbinary" and pleading ignorance in general. Are ye proud of not getting It? Google exists

Gentlemanne wrote: »

A lot of this thread is back and forth about semantics and etymology so it's always amusing when this argument pops up. I'm willing to get out a venn diagram to explain why.

Perhaps it was simply illogical of me to expect a balanced debate on a thread started and heavily moderated by the same person?

Beasty

Are you suggesting I should not moderate any of the 43 threads I have started in the Coronavirus forum?

The moderator in question here initiated the discussion following closure of another long-running thread

They then made one further post to initiate discussion. All other posts they have made in the thread were as a forum moderator. They have not expressed any opinions whatsoever in the thread

Anyway this thread is about you and your appeal has failed

Marking resolved