I'm curious. If this thread was in AH, politics or CA forums, would the mods have stepped in with any of the discussion points raised? Or in any of the other forums here?
Is the level of discourse here valid, allowable and meeting boards' standards? What do mods say?
The point of the thread isn't to debate trans people and whether they should be allowed exist or not. It's to debate how that debate is moderated across boards. And I'm not certain if there's a steer available on this. Is there?
Thankfully, someone who gets the purpose of this thread.
A steer was originally given by the former Boards.ie Community Manager Niamh, back in 2019.
However, I believe standards have been allowed to slip considerably, since then.
Directed to the MODs then: The user above claims to want the thread to go back on topic (as would I, as the thread is about the language around discussing the Trans issue but has quickly become just ANOTHER thread only discussing the Trans issue).
So this post here might be a useful place to start. After all the thread is meant to be about asking the Mods if they should or should not update the site rules and moderation.
The thread was originally debating back and forth how some language (specifically but not wholly limited to, the phrase "Trans Identifying Male") is "offensive" to some Trans people. Specifically because it "misgenders" those people.
There appears to be a few issues here:
MODs if you are taking user feedback on the issue as a whole therefore - I would recommend the motion be rejected and not passed.
I asked you how you would know if a trans man was in your changing area. You didn't answer
Firstly, do not accuse me of lying.
Secondly , It was a question posed to a poster, not you, who claimed she would be happy sharing a changing area with a trans man. I asked her how she would know. That's it
Do you think that trans women would be offended by refering to their biological sex? And the same with trans men. Do you think that calling trans women, male or men or describing them using those terms could be upsetting and offensive to them?
I don't think it's anyway difficult, don't call transwomen, men, male or refer to their 'biological sex'
it is actually just 'being a dick' as far as I can see.
How could she not know, it's not that easy hide the physical and mannerisms of the sex you're born with, no amount of wishful thinking on their part will cover what they are by birth. Stevie wonder could pick them out of a big crowd
Well maybe you're not lying, but I think it suits your narrative to have a close relative who is trans, I guess we have no way of knowing
I have to step in here again.
Is their biological sex important and are there any instances where it is oky to refer to their biological sex? Are there situations where they may not be offended by it?
Really? My family member is male, has a beard, muscles, hairy chest, there is not one characteristic that you would see if he walked into a female changing room in his swim shorts that would make anyone think he is a trans man.
Which is why I don't believe that anybody in a female changing room would be completely happy to see him enter and change with them.
Not on boards, no.
I'll ask again.
I think context is everything myself . Which is why I am generally against policing or banning particular words or phrases outright. It is the context that defines whether a word or phrase should be deemed offensive or not - not the word or phrase itself.
There is a difference between shouting "Oi you! You are a trans identifying male!" at someone and discussing the "Locker Rooms" issue and discussing "Trans Identifying Males" going into them. Because A) it is not directed in an insulting manner and B) their biological sex rather than their gender IS the issue so its a perfectly coherent and applicable phrase.
It reminds me a bit about the stupid stories from the US where Professors in academia were sanctioned or even removed for discussing the "N" word in a literary context. The nuance between USING a word and DISCUSSING a word was lost entirely. The word existed in the text being discussed. The topic of the discussion was that very word. So the professor quite rightly said the word out loud. Saying a word and using a word are not the same thing. This nuance is analogous to what is being discussed here.
A slightly more tongue in cheek analogy but one that still highlights what I mean is to imagine a guy in a party with an enourmous weird mole on his nose. It would be offensive and insulting and uncomfortable for you to stand in front of that guy and point it out. Don't be a dick. Show respect and due care. The guy knows he has the mole. He knows everyone knows he has the mole. No one needs to go around highlighting it to him. However if the next day I am talking to someone about the guy and they can't quite remember who it is I am talking about so I say "You remember the guy with the big mole?" there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Context.
Talking to someone, talking about someone, talking to an individual directly, talking about a whole group of people in the context of societal norms, laws, and restrictions are all massively different contexts. And the context dictates what phrases are applicable or offensive or warranted or useful - not solely the words themselves.
And as a user above almost points out - we already have a "don't be a dick" rule on the site to cover that very thing. So specifically policing specific words is already superfluous to requirements. If one thinks a user is using language in a dickish and unjustifiable manner - report it and let the MOD decide.
I should actually have added this at point 5 in the post above so thanks for highlighting that. I will add it now. Thanks therefore for the help to further improve and refine and flesh out my petition to the MODs.
I've read the whole thread. You came out with a fairly absurd litany ridiculing "people who have respect for women" (apparently we're all Conor McGregor fans now too) and what you got in response was one of the best replies I've ever read on this site. You should have just shut up for a while and spent a bit more time reading and understanding it.
Instead here you are condemning her for blaspheming the woke religion. Pointedly referring to her as "they" as well. I suppose that's because she hasn't "declared" her pronouns'?
As if it wasn't obvious from post #216. LOL
So a man who had testicular cancer and had his testes removed should no longer be considered a man.
Ok.
And also:
Have they the physical ability of a man of similar weight and height?
WTF is this? I have a male relative who is 5'6 and maybe 50kgs, is he not a man? And have you ever seen some of the women who play rugby? ffs. You're really just showing yourself to be sexist* as well as transphobic.
*Sexist as in, "A woman could never have the physical ability of a man of similar weight and height" - LOL
That's not what I said tho, a man of 5 foot 6 and 50 kilos is still stronger than most women, and let's not equate cancer with someone choosing to have their genitals cut off, that's a nice bit of whataboutery
Jesus wept……. its basic understanding folks……. Be a decent person (a.k.a. Dont be a dick)!!!!
People getting hung up on irrelevant bullsh!t instead of having respect for one another. If we all just respect each other then there would be no need to change rules etc.
Would they be able to get naked and still convince the women and girls in the changing room he was still a man, I'd like to meet the surgeon that can craft a dick and balls to that level of authenticity
I'd actually say this thread is pretty easily proving that there is a transphobia issue on the site tbh. And frankly, I think it's been so heavily ignored by moderation that they're far more vocal and get away with far more than they would have previously.
I'd love to know how many gender reassignment surgeons you've met.
You are completely showing yourself up here.
As we've been reminded this is all off topic. I'm perfectly happy to discuss it in a relevant thread/forum.
I was just replying to a poster, why not quote that as irrelevant?
Could "don't be a dick" not be transphobic statement?
How?
A regular Boards poster who is an open trans woman did post in the "prison spaces" thread that as someone who is trans they find the term being used offensive and (politely) asked another poster to stop using it. The response they got was, to say the least, "uncivil". They also used the term AMAB as an alternative.
Also, there are already plenty of words "censored" on Boards by way of word filters. My suggestion was to add some new terms to those filters.
Maybe a solution would be to filter the offensive terms by replacing it with one that is more appropriate, such as the above, if that is possible.
Oh, and as for having "no skin in the game" - that is so dismissive. Basically you're saying if something doesn't affect someone directly, they should have no opinion.
Transgender rights are human rights. We are all humans.
I mentioned that, but didn't say you said it. It is an argument that is often used though, in trying to justify why trans women should be allowed into female spaces. Which was my point.
But again I feel that this is off topic here.
Change it to Dont be an Ass then, why on earth are people hell bent on finding a problem with every last thing. As I said previous, be respectful to each other regardless of anything and everyone will get along!
Having an issue with biological men using women's changing rooms is not transphobia. Having an issue with biological men competing in women's sporting events is not transphobia. Having an issue with biological men being housed in women's prisons is not transphobia. Agreeing that gynecologists have the right to decline to perform medical exams of private parts of biologic men is not transphobia. Agreeing that beauticians have the right to refuse to wax the twig and berries of a biological man if they choose not to is not transphobia.
Just because the minority that believe all of the above are transphobic can screech the loudest doesn't mean they are right.
There were half a dozen I could have quoted. I didn't think it was important to go back to the original sinner: I'm not a mod.
I did also reply to one I saw after that (I'm just catching up here), because it was addressed to me.
A man and a woman.
Gender is meaningless because nobody can define it. You can identify as anything you want. There are literally an infinite amount of genders. Feel free to define yourself as you wish. That doesn't change biology.
So most people just tend to mostly use definable, undoubtable biology as a way of identifying people.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
