km991148 wrote: » I am prefixing this by saying I want discussion to continue, I really do, therefore I'm deliberately leaving out the he said she said stuff regarding the other posters. The mods can clarify who was banned, who quit and for what reasons. Two technical points that I think are not quite true and are somewhat clouding the discussion. I think cis is sometimes required in a conversation about trans people as sometimes you need to differentiate. People want to identify as 'man' or 'woman' but no one is in denial that someone was born something else. Therefore sometime cis is required, and I don't think it's misgendering (it might be clumsy language, or language you don't like, but sometimes required on the wider context).
km991148 wrote: » Science doesn't cover only biology (and maybe more specifically biology of reproductive organs or chromosomes). There are other fields of science that follow the scientific method and I don't think you can argue on these lines alone (I.e. 'scientific fact'. i.e. your logic that only biological science is the only logic is somewhat illogical, especially given that scientific knowledge is not fixed. We observe, learn and our knowledge evolves.
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » But it’s not “incorrect”. If we are discussing trans then logic dictates there is cis. Without that it would get too confusing as we would not be able to tell if someone was referring to a transgender or a cisgender person.
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » No, that would be misgendering. But you already know that.
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » See, I would regard the equal targeting as having balanced out now. Previously, I would have seen a number of pro-trans users getting banned. But they weren’t banned for no reason, they would have broken site, or thread, rules. The idea that the mods, collectively, are taking a “side” is laughable. The mods rely on either seeing a post that breaks the “rules” or a post gets reported. Can you honestly say that anyone has been banned without a reason. The best way to avoid a ban is post within the rules. From what I saw a number of posters ignored mod instructions, repeatedly, and got banned. As for one post being missed, come on, they got it in the end.
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » The rules are set, I don’t know what you want here. Be able to say whatever you want? In an ideal world but the rules are there and everyone has to abide by them. I would imagine that users with good disciplinary “records” might get more leeway than the rest of us but that’s understandable.
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » I would argue that science is not backing one side here. It seems that one side is steadfast in the belief that 1+1=2 but won’t stand for 1+1+1=3. I guess belief and feelings are not exclusive to any side but I would see the anti-trans side as also holding fear as a “cornerstone” to their belief.
km991148 wrote: » I don't use terf and I don't really want to get into that. Context is key with any terminology. I do find that highlighted part absolutely fascinating. If I understood correctly, the idea is that one cannot be anti trans because one wishes to include trans men in female spaces. A bit of a tricky situation, considering (I'd imagine) trans men are identifying as male because they no longer wish to be considered female. So they would only be included if their trans status was in fact denied. I mean, please tell me I have made a mistake in that logic, because really that does not conpute.
Tokyo wrote: » As a regular poster to the site, you have no visibility into what actions have taken place behind the scenes, or what discussions have been had over this between moderators. And considering you have posted prolifically in that thread, it's fair to say that confirmation bias might be a consideration there.
Tokyo wrote: » I didn't say "only 1 side is the problem here". But to say there wasn't a groundswell from one side on the day of posting that led to this thread is disingenuous.
Tokyo wrote: » So by extrapolation, trans negative views should hold an equal place here??
Tokyo wrote: » Either way, why should we sequester the discussion away to a 'safe space'? Why shouldn't the site as a whole be a safe space for all while still facilitating discussion? If that's how you feel threads about a marginalized group of people should be treated, rather than making not unreasonable concessions, then you may want to ask yourself exactly why that is.
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » Any “trans negative” article was posted
GreeBo wrote: » What's wrong exactly with posting things that are negative? If they are genuine articles or links aren't they valid? How do you have a fair debate if only positive articles are permitted?
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » It’s not that, it’s that there was no discussion, or debate, just a couple of users going around in circles demonising trans people.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » Haven't been paying attention to all this, but I think its ridiculous that the dunne was banned when the poster he was arguing with at the time conflates sex and gender, saying chromosomes / biology mean nothing, and that's where the issue arose.
AllForIt wrote: » Point taken Mark. But at the same time, we haven't had much input from transgender people themselves. And neither have we had much input from those to claim to be derivatives of transgender, i.e. non-binary, gender-fluid etc. So yes I am at times speaking randomly, 'thinking out loud'. But I would have thought that would be helpful, rather than not. I'm open to being corrected/informed, but not in an aggressive withering fashion. I am 'open-minded' which I was accused of not being, otherwise I would't pose such questions. I think as long as one makes a point civilly and within the charter rules, one should be able say what they like. It's only a discussion forum, and if ppl are really sensitive, maybe this isn't the place for them. I don't get why anyone would be here if they weren't up for debate which can often can evoke some degree of emotion.
Annasopra wrote: » But if people are allowed say what they like then why would trans people actually enter the discussion? If its a freeforall then its a debate often used to attack them and their identity.
GreeBo wrote: » No debate? Demonizing? I take great offence to that actually. Who did I ever demonize? The last few days has been one poster presenting as trans yet refusing to answer any of the difficult questions and accusing others of going around in circles and on merry go round. If questions were actually answered there might be fewer circles?
LLMMLL wrote: » I've never said chromosomes and biology mean nothing. Not going to debate it as it's not the point of this thread but I want to point out that this is inaccurate. In fairness the Dunne called me pathetic and his other posts were very aggressive. Just to support what other have been saying, I used to have a long list of the stuff I've been called during debates in trans threads. When I posted the list on thread I was told to stop whinging. It's been a fairly toxic debate and the thread seems much more balanced and calmer now. And for anyone who says the debate can't continue now... Well it is continuing. On both sides. There's been a good few pages of debate over the last week. So it's fairly wrong to state that no debate can take place because it's been turned into a safe space.
Gatling wrote: » That's not true , But you have touched on something ,in tra circles there is a well known tactic of claiming people are having hysterical reactions to toilets, changing rooms and or safe spaces for women, because all are claimed anti trans , it's used on social media and across other discussion forums ,and anyone who tries to speak up is put on the cancellation list or face threats of rape or other physical violence , It's a discussion forum not an echo chamber for a group of wannabe activists , Surely people should be engaging in discussion and voice their opinions ,not sitting on threads enmass reporting posts or thanking posts which are trolling or taking digs at people , If people people are happy to engage and discuss a topics let them do so ,this silly game of I'm reporting every post for one poster or several posters till no one wants to take part any more because the terminally offended are sitting teacher , teacher I think that person or persons said something they feel might have offended somebody , somewhere in the world and they are offended on their behalf,
LLMMLL wrote: » And let's be realistic. Whatever answer they gave to your questions is hardly going to get an "alright so" response. The usual arguments and nitpicking would of course follow on.
LLMMLL wrote: » Just tonight there's been a respectful discussion on the topics of sports and toilets. No sniping, no reporting, very civil.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
