Transphobia guidelines

Good day all, in response to the increase in transphobia we've experience since the For Women Scotland v Scotland Supreme Court decision, seemingly a mix of genuine malice and people tripping up with a topic they're unfamiliar with, I've taken the initiative to write some guidelines on how to engage in the topic and clearing up some common misconceptions.

https://guide.feddit.uk/politics/transphobia.html

I'm not all that happy with them, I want something more comprehensive but my time has been pretty taxed lately and I don't want my perfectionism to stand in the way of having these out. If there's any issues, glaring omissions or whatnot, then please let me know or make a pull request here.

You're viewing a single thread.

95 comments

As long as you keep blocking and banning anyone that doesn't tow the line, your bound to create the appearance that you've accomplished something!
- You really accomplished something with that comment, didn't ya, buddy?
- I understand this. I think what kind of annoyed me the most is
  Just as it's racist to believe that black people are inherently less intelligent, even if you don't necessarily hate them, it's transphobic to believe that a trans person's identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person's, even if you don't feel any malice for trans people.
  I don't really think it's fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.
  I don't really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they're not comfortable with agreeing with.
  I'd rather if there was a more clear-cut "this is a controversial issue - please don't talk about it". I wouldn't expect a transgender person to have to care about anyone else's moral convictions except their own. As long as they're treated equally. So I think I can moreso accept a "please don't talk about it" as I think any such discussion about "what is a man/woman" isn't actually a productive way of looking at things. Because moreso what concerns me isn't if people should be given gender affirming care, but at what stage is it appropriate and who should pay for it.
  Another thing I don't really like about it:
  For a more in depth look at the question, and why anti-trans activists are wrong about it, see the Lonerbox video "What Is A Woman?" A Response to Matt Walsh. (Fair warning contains a lot of Twitter lefty shitposter jokes/language).
  Is this really unbiased if it's what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I've found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.
  But apart from that, the guidelines are quite clear on how to act on the instance. I just wish there was more dialogue about the issue.
  
  This is the bit you object to?
  it’s transphobic to believe that a trans person’s identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person’s, even if you don’t feel any malice for trans people.
  So invalidating a trans person's whole identity doesn't count as transphobic in your view, and you go on to object to moderation actions being taken on these grounds! You claim you want more dialogue but what you actually want is moderators to tolerate your transphobic pontifications without consequences for you, never mind the affect on other people's mental health.
  
  What sort of effect on other people's mental health are you referring to here?
  
  Being invalidated upsets trans people. Suicide rates are alarmingly high in the community because of that kind of whole-being rejection. Your transphobic pontifications are idle speculation for you but can be powerfully upsetting for trans people. I don't know how you can be so devoid of empathy or emotional intelligence that you don't get that or so low on reading comprehension that you couldn't deduce it from context. Trans people need protecting from people discussing whether they have a right to exist.
  
  I see the misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about discussing if transgender people have a right to exist, nor speculating on individual people's identities. I'm talking about respectful philosophical discussion around the subject.
  
  Yet this is what you object to, what you want to debate, what you want to discuss philosophically:
  even if you don’t necessarily hate them, it’s transphobic to believe that a trans person’s identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person’s, even if you don’t feel any malice for trans people.
  Your "respectful philosophical discussion" about whether trans identities are valid or worth as much as other people's is deeply and profoundly disrespectful and hurtful.
  Why can't you just accept that some people are different to you, and you can just let them be without telling them that they're wrong about who they are?
  
  It's not about telling people that they're wrong about who they are. Just about philosophical discussion surrounding ethics on the subject
  
  You hide your hate behind clever sounding words.
  
  This is why I struggle to take things like this seriously. Probably why I struggle to engage with leftists as a whole. Any time I try and have dialogue, someone has to make a remark like this.
  
  Oh, you're a conservative! No wonder you didn't pay attention to anything I said, ignored all the main points I made and showed all the empathy of a two year old.
  
  I don’t really think it’s fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.
  I don’t really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they’re not comfortable with agreeing with.
  This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one, the rules and guidelines are going to reflect this. Part of that is setting the boundaries for what opinions are and aren't acceptable, and what the working definitions of what we consider bigotry are. Saying these opinions aren't allowed is necessarily going to exclude people who actually believe them.
  Besides, epistemologically, there is no reason to see a trans person's "I'm a man" as less than a cis person's "I'm a man". If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn't really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you're trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.
  Is this really unbiased if it’s what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I’ve found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.
  That video is mostly an application of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblances to the 'what is a woman' debate, should be right up your ally if what you want is philosophical discussion.
  
  This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one
  What is? Feddit.uk?
  
  Yes, feddit.uk.
  
  That seems a bit presumptuous? What if someone creates some [email protected] community?
  Why dictate the purposes to which feddit.uk can be put? Why declare any purpose, "social discussion" or otherwise?
  
  That seems a bit presumptuous? What if someone creates some [email protected] community?
  That wouldn't really change the fact this is a place for discussion of things with other people. It would just be another place to have social discussion, but with a narrower range of topics than, say, an ask-a-question community.
  Instance-level rules and guidelines are going to be general purpose.
  
  Instance-level rules and guidelines are going to be general purpose.
  So if someone created a linguistic philosophy community on feddit.uk and in that community members held a discussion on 'a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”', is that prohibited or not?
  
  One, that would be a bad subject for a linguistic philosophy community, and two, no as that's pretty clearly within the stated definition of transphobia. I'm not going to let bigotry propagate because someone obstinately rule lawyered a comment I made an hour after waking up.
  
  Is this about protecting the instance though or enforcing an opinion? This wasn't a problem before Blahaj got upset. "Bigotry" seems to be a buzzword these days without clear definition, and it doesn't really seem like it's helping from such an important topic to discuss, as the cass report seemed to show.
  If someone were to be in a hospital, and the nurse needed to know if they were a man or a woman for medical purposes, an AMAB person saying "yes" would be different from an AFAB trans man saying "yes". I don't think it's fair to claim their identity socially is less than or different, or that he is a second class man when it comes to drinking with his mates down the pub. But if it comes to let's say, a discussion of men's rights issues, and it's someone who started identifying as a man yesterday claiming that male mental health issues are overblown, compared to an AMAB person talking about life being a struggle, wouldn't there be a difference there, even though it doesn't make the trans man any less of a man?
  
  Is this about protecting the instance though or enforcing an opinion? This wasn’t a problem before Blahaj got upset.
  It's about protecting a vulnerable minority. One in four trans people report experiencing abuse online personally directed at them and hate crime against trans people is at record highs. I don't want this place to be a contributor to these statistics and I'm going to prioritise the safety of our trans users over some notion of neutrality. That rise in transphobia I mention in the post we have experienced is real and I would've introduced these guidelines regardless of if they got use LBZ federation back, I didn't even know beforehand that it would.
  cass report seemed to show
  I cannot express how little respect I have for the Cass review, it is a piece of politically motivated sophistry mostly disconnected from the medical science it tied itself in knots to discredit. Like seriously, double blind puberty blocker trials? The participants are going to know they're on the placebo when they start growing facial hair/tits.
  If someone were to be in a hospital, and the nurse needed to know if they were a man or a woman for medical purposes, an AMAB person saying “yes” would be different from an AFAB trans man saying “yes”. I don’t think it’s fair to claim their identity socially is less than or different, or that he is a second class man when it comes to drinking with his mates down the pub.
  That just sounds like a bad question on the nurse's part, they should ask specifically if they're AMAB or not. I'm AMAB and I've been asked if I'm pregnant by nurses plenty of times, even before I realised I was trans, so it's not like this is out of the norm for the NHS. AMAB/AFAB are also term the NHS uses all over the place.
  But if it comes to let’s say, a discussion of men’s rights issues, and it’s someone who started identifying as a man yesterday claiming that male mental health issues are overblown, compared to an AMAB person talking about life being a struggle, wouldn’t there be a difference there, even though it doesn’t make the trans man any less of a man?
  That does sound like a lack of intersectionality on the trans man's part, and sure, a day is hardly long enough to understand the nuances of living as a particular group. I doubt a trans man would do this though, as from my experience, trans people are overly conscious about fitting in.
  It also interesting how you frame society's lack of attentiveness to men's mental health as a men's rights issue, would you agree that society's lack of attentiveness to trans mental health is a trans' rights issue?
  
  If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn’t really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you’re trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.
  And so following from your other comments, the appropriate contexts you're referring to are outside of the feddit.uk instance entirely? The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?
  
  Yes, there is no appropriate place on feddit.uk to discuss if a trans person's gender identity is less valid than a cis person's.
  The part you quoted was aimed at a Flax's comment as a whole, who expressed a disinterest in this particular debate.
  
  Are detrans discussions prohibited?
  
  I don't think such a discussion on a trans forum is appropriate. But what if it's a discussion on a more conservative forum or on a post about theology?
  What do you mean by epistemologically?
  
  This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum, so I don't really see your point. If you want to discuss the Biblical definition of man/woman and whether that includes trans people in a theology post then sure? That would be appropriate context.
  What do you mean by epistemologically?
  I mean that fundamentally, there is nothing more true about a cis person saying they're a man than a trans person saying they're a man.
  
  This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum
  What is not?
  
  Ah, this makes sense now, thanks for clearing it up, and the work you do!
  I think as the fediverse grows, conservative forums will start to appear and sprout up eventually.
  
  So is it black peoples or trans peoples identities that you believe are worth less?
  What more discussion is there to be had?
  You know what, I don't even want to know.
  
  I don't think you read at all what I said correctly.
  
  You said you don't like people telling you how to think. But no one is.
  They are just telling you that your an arsehole if you think a certain way.
  You have the right to think how ever you like. But we will also judge you based on that thinking.
  
  It's less telling you that you're an arsehole and moreso a threat of a ban. I think the downvoting is usually enough to ward away arseholes
  
  Are you under the impression the admins can read your mind?
  
  I wish people could understand me better
  
  Then learn to write more transparently.
  
  Easy to say if you're neurotypical
  
  I’d rather if there was a more clear-cut “this is a controversial issue - please don’t talk about it”
  Ah yes, sweep it under the carpet and hope it all just goes away. Such a mature way of dealing with a difficult subject.
  
  I think it's better than censoring one side of a controversial subject
  
  Not everything needs to be up for debate. Admins are saying "here's the rules, no transphobia, here's what that means for us". So no debate on whether trans identities are inferior or invalid
  
  Flamingos clarified for me 🙂
  
  That's the problem. You're trying to equate being trans, which is something internal, that your mind manifests, with something like being black. A physical trait that is external, that one cannot hide, or run from.
  You pervert the nature of the discussion when trying to base truth off false equivalence
  
  You're trying to equate being trans, which is something internal, that your mind manifests
  I thought that's what a lot of it was? Someone who chooses to identify as another gender
  If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.
  
  Yeah, being trans is either a choice, or an internal mental manifestation that someone has no control over, but regardless, it's not something others see immediately, unless you choose to draw attention to it
  
  It comes from gender dysphoria, doesn't it?
  If it's someone making a choice, then why should we respect that in the same way we should respect people with gender dysphoria identifying as their selected gender?

95 comments