Moderation of trans issue and terms

plodder

A couple of points, catching up on the discussion as I only heard about it yesterday.

I received a warning the other day for a post that included the term "biological male". It was part of a conversation trying to tease out exactly what was offensive about the term "trans identified male". What was significant is that the question was directed towards a poster who had just identified themselves as trans. That poster is not posting in this thread. So, my working assumption is that someone else reported my post, who is posting in this thread. That's not to say that the trans poster does not find these terms offensive (they do). But, they are not the ones calling for them to be banned on boards.

Second, where I believed the conversation I had with the mod ended up was that direct references to other posters who happen to be trans should not use terms like "biological male" or "trans identified male". But, the terms are not banned outright. IMO banning them is effectively censorship and taking sides in a highly contentious controversy.

Just to also say, that the discusssion on this topic here on boards is the closest thing to a real debate anywhere. Increasing polarisation seems to have resulted in the rest of social media separating into two camps. I don't think there has been any actual discussion on it, in the mainstream media, before or since the famous couple of days three years ago on Liveline.

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495371#Comment_123495371

I guess the real heroes are the ones angrily attacking, and demonising, one of the smallest demographics they wished didn’t exist. Parroting whatever fear, hatred and division is being pumped out of Tufton st that day.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495403#Comment_123495403

If you say so. I can not say I have met such people or even talked with any knowingly or read anything from any of them on this or any other forum. I must move in different circles to you. I simply have not come across such people at all. I can not think of many groups of people I wish did not exist (other than terrorists and religious extremists). And I have absolutely no idea where or what "Tufton St" even is. It's literally the first time I have ever read those words.

But to be honest the entire "Trans" discussion is one I personally have never engaged in - and have absolutely zero dogs in that fight. Though one "mod" on this forum got terribly antsy with me for saying exactly that a few years ago. He seemed to think that if you have ANY alternative thing in your life then you are automatically "all in" on all things "alternative". So because I have one very alternative thing in my lifestyle I must automatically be all in on whatever he thought of as Transgender ideology. Which was just a terribly weird and warped perspective for him to tout. But it was a user that tended to tout very weird things in general.

So I am not sure who these "heroes" you speak of even are. I haven't met or conversed with them. In fact in my life to date the only thing even remotely related to "Trans People" I have encountered was an absolute sub human parasite who used my Martial Arts club as a way to try to "Go Viral" on social media. Though I did not know that at the time. At the time I took this person to be exactly what they claimed to be - a Trans person who was trying to enroll in the "girls and women only" Jiu Jitsu class I had started.

But I see this person entirely as a bad actor and individual and in absolutely no way representative of Trans people in general. Regardless of whether this person actually was Trans as claimed - or was presenting as such for personal gain - I do not actually care. The individual was in and of themselves, pathetic.

So I really have on interest in entering any discussion on those issues at all. Rather I just enjoy pedantic discussions about linguistics and my post which you replied to was entirely about that - about words and their use - and not about Trans related issues whatsoever. And I do not whatsoever intend to be drawn into any such discussions. Not least because I know literally nothing about it and would just be waving my ignorance around for the sake of it.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495403#Comment_123495403

Since we're talking about boards.ie here, can you give us some examples of the "angrily attacking, and demonising" that you're referring to? All I've seen is a surprisingly civil discussion on the use of language.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495371#Comment_123495371

That's a really well laid out post - it covers a couple of things I had in mind but was struggling to express. I had the same pedantic response to "phobia" - there's nothing remotely phobic about many of the reactions that are labelled as such. And the word "normal" would have great utility if it wasn't for the negative connotations of "abnormal" or "not normal".

Also, recommending Transactual as the arbiter of language in this area is like deciding to set speed limits based on input from only one group of road users.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123494755#Comment_123494755

CA is the the grandchild of the Politics Forum. Political Café was it's mother.

Politics was killed by design, The Café was nuked and CA was born so you can have less than stellar debate with more hands off moderation.

What more hands off moderation morphed into was boards user being lawyered to death with no oversight and unappealable bans.

I knew it was fecked when I was sanctioned for calling Trump "Artificially Tanned".

A lot of what is in CA shouldn't be there and is dumped because other mods won't deal with it.

So instead of fixing CA, we have decided to ban the user base and turn it into a ghost ship, exactly like Politics Forum.

Who knows maybe we will get a great grand child out of it.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123493469#Comment_123493469

I realise you posted that link in good faith, and that the content aligns with your beliefs. I support your right to make the request of the mods. For balance perhaps I should post a link to Sex Matters or similar. I want a simple form of words that makes it clear I'm referring to the sex of the person being discussed. Most of the time sex doesn't matter, but when it does, it really matters. Nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity, but in some areas (women's sports, intimate medical examinations, police strip searches…) discrimination on the basis of sex is not only permissible, it is the right thing to do.

It would take many posts, or an extremely long one to do justice to the content of that link, but let's have a look at the five headings:

1. Attempting to remove trans people’s rights
2. Misrepresenting trans people
3. Abuse
4. Systematically excluding trans people from discussions about issues that directly affect them
5. Other forms of discrimination

No. 5 refers to employment and access to services so is n/a on boards. Regarding no. 1, people are often accused of attempting to remove trans people's rights when all they are doing is trying to protect women's rights (and yes, there are some conflicts, and that's without getting into the misogyny and homophobia that's inherent in trans ideology). I have not seen any examples of nos. 2-4 on boards, though tbf some people equate "abuse" with "not agreeing with me". I have seen a fair bit of abuse from trans allies, as well as misrepresenting of dissenters.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123494326#Comment_123494326

Absolutely.

Maybe people need to start a feedback thread on the Trans issue.

It's just going to result in the excuse needed to shut this one down.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495371#Comment_123495371

I chose to link to that site because I felt it presented a very comprehensive explanation of what constitutes transphobia and some of the terms being discussed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some other posters on this thread have given feedback that they found some (if not all) of the information at the link good, so I take that as a positive.

Thank you.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495639#Comment_123495639

It's a very comprehensive explanation given from one perspective - certainly not the full picture, though it's helpful in prompting debate.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495639#Comment_123495639

Exactly. But many many other sites also present equally verbose and comprehensive explanations for the very same words. But come to different conclusions. Sometimes subtly sometimes starkly.

So when one picks a single activist's site out of that plethora - there is an intentionality there whether conscious or subconscious.

You read the site before linking to it I assume - you agreed in yourself that the explanations fit with your position on those terms and words and felt the site described them comprehensively given YOUR position and understanding and impression of those terms - and so you linked to it. There is nothing inherently wrong with that - do not get me wrong here.

But - That's EXACTLY my point.

All I would say is that one can be forgiven if one finds that a little suspect and excercising due caution as a result. It's potentially a way to vicariously define terms without being prone to the accusation you are defining the terms. It's a simple process:

1. At some point consciously or subconsciously decide what you think/want those terms to mean.
2. Read a load of sites and find one that seems to articulate well what YOU think those terms mean.
3. Link to that site on a thread about what those terms mean.
4. Wash your hands of being the one who ever engaged in defining those terms.

I am not saying that EVERYONE who does this is being underhand. I am just saying one can be forgiven for finding it suss. It's an effective way of dictating the meaning of terms while washing one's hands of ever having defined the terms. One just has to find a site which agrees with your preconceived notions - and link to it. Simples.

It reminds me of a fun and VERY comical discussion I had with two rather irate and reactionary users on this forum. The discussion was about the terms "heterosexual" "homosexual" and "bisexual".

In the discussion all I did was cite dictionaries and wikipedia directly about what those terms are actually defined as, and what those definitions mean.

This drove the two users LOOPY. They cited anything and everything else BUT the dictionary to support what they wanted the words to mean. And I kept telling them "Thats fine! If thats how you want to use the words GREAT! No one wants to stop you doing that. All I am doing is telling you what the dictionary says the words mean. Not how you should use the words!".

But they could not accept that at all. They went absolutely Bat Sheet Crazy falling over themselves trying to negate any other definitions of those words but their own. I rarely laugh so much on this forum as I did during that thread :)

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495110#Comment_123495110

Strictly on semantics:

A trans woman is a biological male that identifies as a woman, that is, a trans identifying male. So I don't see any issue with this term which accurately describes what a trans woman is.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495702#Comment_123495702

And the entire intent is to ignore their preferred gender. It's absolutely misgendering. It's telling which posters have no issue with it tbh.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495679#Comment_123495679

My intention was not underhanded, and I actually don't appreciate that suggestion.

I have gone to the trouble to make myself clear time and again, that I have no interest in engaging in any debates in an attempt to disabuse anyone of their "personal beliefs".

I offered the link and have stated my reasons why I chose it. Nothing more, nothing less. As always, posters are free to read or not, accept or not, if they wish.

(Though I appreciate anyone who did take the time to read it, as it is long).

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495739#Comment_123495739

And I am not saying it is OR is not underhanded. So the suggestion you do not appreciate is not one that I ever actually made. Nor is "disabusing anyone of the personal beliefs" anything I have done or am interested in doing here. So I fear you may be swinging your sword at shadows there and finding offense where none exists or was intended.

No - What I AM saying is that people (in general) can and should be forgiven for being suspicious or at least cautious in the face of someone who cherry picks a link to activist definitions and quickly washes their hands of being engaged in creating those definitions.

This does not suggest any one person doing so (such as your good self) is or is not being underhand. Consciously or Subconsciously even. It just suggests that caution IN GENERAL in the face of this is well warranted. It's simply worth proceeding with caution when it happens.

In fact as I described in the last post - one can even link to such an activist's site with absolute well meaning good faith intention and heart absolutely in the right place. You very likely did so yourself. But there is a reason you chose that one, whether you realize it yourself or not. Whether it just happens to be the first and only such site you found - or the one you chose after reading several - it struck you as useful likely because it seemed to describe well what you already thought the terms mean or should mean.

So the caution I recommend is not just for the people who get sent such links. But also for the person, such as yourself, sending them. It's a trap we can all fall into. I am not immune to it myself by any means - but I try to stay actively mindful about it and avoid it. Often I fail.

Which is why I found my anecdote about the sexuality thread so comical at the time. How they could become so invested in negating the perfectly valid, dictionary based, usage of three simple words - that they were willing and intent on citing ANY and ALL links they could find EXCEPT an actual dictionary of any kind. They tried so hard. It was adorable.

And I fear I see some users on this thread (not you in particular, just a general point) erring in the same direction.

Just like on the other thread in my anecdote - no one is telling them how they should or should not use any word. THEY are doing that. They are just being entirely correctly told that as per the dictionary ONE particular usage is perfectly linguistically valid and coherent. And it drove them DEMENTED. They simply could not accept it on any level. Their usage/definition was the only one and all the dictionaries were simply wrong. Sometimes backed up with the claim that the (linguistically valid) usage of the word is "offensive" to THEM. I am afraid in general when it comes to linguistics I am with Stephen Fry on that: youtube.com/watch?v=NzdpxKqEUAw

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495702#Comment_123495702

Describing a trans woman as a man is clearly designed to upset and offend a small minority of people. Not sure why anyone feels the need to do that.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495702#Comment_123495702

If you call a trans woman, a "trans identifying male", you are specifically misgendering them as you are not calling them a woman.

It's really not complicated.

Ezeoul

You are implicity implying that I "cherry picked" what link to provide in order to push a particular angle, when I have already given clarification of exactly why I provided that link. The link provided was for information purposes only.

In reality, it would be impossible to provide links for every source that attempts to provide clarification on the terms under discussion. If posters want to, they can seek out as many alternative sources as they wish, for themselves.

Nor am I interested in any in-depth psychoanalysis of posters on boards, but thanks.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495837#Comment_123495837

The term used was "male" not "man", and if they are upset by people reminding them what they really are then that's more of a them problem, although I admit that people who feel the need to constantly remind them what they really are are also a problem.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495925#Comment_123495925

reminding them what they really are then that's more of a them problem

They are transwomen. Why do you feel the need to remind them 'what they are' seems like an unnecessary upsetting thing to do to a small minority of the population. Are you afraid they don't know their own history?

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495870#Comment_123495870

Again I am NOT doing that. I am using your post as a spring board to make the GENERAL point that when people link to an activist's site to explain the definitions of terms - that it is useful to approach that with well deserved caution.

A person can with all the well meant intentions in the world provide a "Link for information purposes only". But who's information?

Did you read that link before posting it? I assume you did, right?

If you had read it and deemed it not to be informative of YOUR understanding of the terminology - or even positively wrong or misleading compared to YOUR understanding of the terms - would you have still posted it? Likely not, right? You'd likely have moved on to another site you found better.

If you answered yes to both: That's all my point is. Nothing more. Nothing less. And certainly nothing to take offense at.

This does not mean one is automatically being willfully or intentionally underhand. I never suggested such and you came to this yourself and found offense where none existed.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495957#Comment_123495957

I don't feel the need and I use transwoman because it's the best term, short and perfectly accurate.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495966#Comment_123495966

You say you're not doing something, then go on to do it again.

You're now just belabouring this, so I'll leave you to it.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495925#Comment_123495925

Except that this complaint was made in the context of a discussion as to which prison someone like Barbie Kardashian or similar should be sent. It's really not possible to make the case that Kardashian should be sent to a male prison if one is expected to ignore the fact that they are biologically male.

Otherwise you're saying that one category of woman should be sent to a male prison - which would of course be called out as discriminatory, and understandably so.

So it was not "a need to constantly remind someone" - it was a need to be clear about what was being discussed. And there are a number of posts above where the confusion about whether a trans man is male etc is striking. It's not possible to discuss anything when the language used is misleading.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123496022#Comment_123496022

I say I am not doing it only for you to go on pretending I am doing it again. You're the only one be-labouring anything. Again in the hope it sinks in: I used your posts as a spring board to make a general point that was not even particularly about you at all. A point that in no way accuses you of anything but promotes a warranted general caution overall. Especially to the Mods (remember this is a feedback thread!) who may be using such links to help decide on future forum rules!

In fact the original post I made had what I personally feel were much more interesting aspects than simply the one you invented offense out of nowhere for.

For example YOU started an interesting point about the Latin etymology of the words being used here. I followed that with a supporting side point about the Greek etymology of another word. And also lamenting the undeserved hard time and demonization the word "normal" gets, like in your link. And I made a few paragraphs about compelled speech and the difference between using words as a signal and using words to be UNDERSTOOD.

I would much have preferred we had run with any of all of THOSE as the follow on conversation. But out of my 9 paragraphs you focused on 2 - found offense where none existed and where I subsequently clarified how and why none existed - and ran with that as the imagined victim at the expense of the rest. There are much better follow on conversations we could have been having and could even still have! But if you want to dig down on the victim thing then I too will leave you too it. :)

But as a Boards user better than I once joked - the signal "I am out" too often actually means "I'll be right back" :) Though he wrote it funnier and more elegantly than I. We'll see when you grace us with your next reply if the joke holds.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123496063#Comment_123496063

Fully agree - kindness doesn't exclude honesty and truth, and it should not be a problem to state that a transwoman is not a woman (i.e. an adult human female).

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495977#Comment_123495977

Except it's confusing to many people, and there are times when that matters.

A third of Britons don’t know that transgender women were born male

Even more amusing - or terrifying, if you care about accuracy in a census, is what happened in the latest UK census:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3030519849o

While only 10% of people said they did not speak English as their main language on the census, it appeared they made up 29% of the total number of transgender people, Prof Biggs said.

For example, the London Borough of Newham had the highest proportion of people who identified as transgender (1.51%). The area also has one of the highest rates of non-English speakers - 35%, compared to 9% nationally.

The Office for Statistics Regulation has downgraded the data from "accredited official statistics" to "official statistics in development" to reflect the possible flaws.

So they spent millions carrying out a census only to find that (as they'd been warned might happen by those nasty transphobes in Sex Matters and elsewhere) so many people didn't understand the "inclusive language" used in the questions that the data became unreliable. They should have just saved the money!

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123496111#Comment_123496111

Exactly. Yet that's exactly what gave rise to this discussion - the claim that even to say what you've said above is harmful and needs to be censored.

I must also say, like @plodder I'm finding this thread to be of a much better quality than most of what happens elsewhere, including on the trans threads themselves! A pleasantly sane and reasonable conversation, for the most part, and yet there is also real debate going on.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495957#Comment_123495957

I think it's ironic that you use the term "transwomen", instead of the preferred "trans women", while complaining about people using the term "biological male".

Wikipedia says many transgender people find the "transwomen" spelling offensive. That's what fuelled my suspicion the other day that it's not really about the terminology itself, more about who is using it, and trying to assert some control over them.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123496267#Comment_123496267

What is the difference in those two words you wrote? Cos they look exactly the same on the post I'm reading.

Maybe just don't call them men/male?