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 part of a thread.

Show Context

95 comments

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?
  
  Fair enough in terms of protecting trans users
  I wouldn't see an NHS study/report as "politically motivated", and I don't think it's right if that's the position of this instance. People claim that the science in favour of the COVID-19 vaccine being safe and effective as "politically motivated". Some claimed that the dangers presented by COVID-19 were actually just politically motivated as well. Some real lunatics claim that science showing the earth is round is "politically motivated". To me, it kinda just feels the same, I hope you understand. And in a way, I am concerned that an admin is using their rejection of a report that was produced by the National Health Service, and supported by the elected Government and His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition to write rules.
  For the questions, I'm just presenting edge cases where discussion can be respectful about certain topics if they come up. I think it'll be just that- an edge case. I don't think regular discussion every week about "can a man be a woman" is productive or helpful, and I understand that.
  Apologies if I use wrong terminology here:
  I think people with gender dysphoria should be afforded a comfortable life, and should be able to have their mental health respected as well. Right now, it appears the best treatment for severe gender dysphoria appears to be cosmetic (if you could call it that, due to the mental health aspect) operations to make their body resemble the opposite sex and for society to accept them as the gender they identify with, so they "pass". Bullying transgender people is not acceptable at all. However, on the flip side, I don't think everything can be weaponised and discussion about topics halted because it may upset someone's mental health- so it's a tricky situation to navigate. For example, I see people mocking my religion on Lemmy constantly. I can protest that in a reply and even downvote if I wish, but I wouldn't go as far as to call for their instance to ban them over it. They should have the right to criticise it, and if I get overly upset over it, then I should either go elsewhere or grow a thicker skin. Anti-immigration rhetoric actually does affect my mental health- my girlfriend is a foreign national who had to leave the UK because of strict immigration rules and that has turned my life completely upside down. But I don't think it should be banned unless if it's got racist motivations behind it.
  I do understand that context matters, though. I moderate a religious forum over at lemmy.world (which by the way- faces constant downvote brigading unfortunately), and our policy is to remove any mocking content. That's just not the place.
  I appreciate your work in navigating such a landscape - moderating isn't easy. And I'll do my best to follow whatever regulations you choose to put in place, regardless if I protest the regulations themselves. This is a good and well-run instance.
  
  I wouldn’t see an NHS study/report as “politically motivated”, and I don’t think it’s right if that’s the position of this instance. People claim that the science in favour of the COVID-19 vaccine being safe and effective as “politically motivated”. Some claimed that the dangers presented by COVID-19 were actually just politically motivated as well. Some real lunatics claim that science showing the earth is round is “politically motivated”. To me, it kinda just feels the same, I hope you understand. And in a way, I am concerned that an admin is using their rejection of a report that was produced by the National Health Service, and supported by the elected Government and His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition to write rules.
  I don't know what to say, the Cass review is just a bad piece of medical literature, it wasn't peer reviewed and Cass herself isn't even an expert in this area. From a peer-reviewed critique of it:
  Using the ROBIS tool, we identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified methodological flaws and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews.
  […]
  We have demonstrated that the Cass report’s application of EBM to GAC for children and young people is deeply flawed. Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews and primary research that undermine the validity of the Cass report’s recommendations. During our review of the report and supplementary primary research, we found insufficient statistical rigor, unreliable datasets, claims presented without evidence, and misrepresentation of quotes from primary research participants. These flaws highlight a potential double standard present throughout the review and its subsequent recommendations, where evidence for gender-affirming care is held to a higher standard than the evidence used to support many of the report’s recommendations. Considering this, and the Cass report’s poor understanding of transgender identities and experiences, it is vital to question the integrity and validity of the Review’s recommendations and the appropriateness of basing health policy on them. To uphold its commitment to evidence-based medicine, future gender-affirming care research must generate robust observational data, involve transgender communities, and prioritise patient-centred outcomes, ensuring validity, generalisability, and cultural relevance.
  I can understand how with no context my comments look conspiratorial, but come on, my problems with the Cass review are clearly more substantive and based in reality than people who burned down 5G towers over a microchip injection conspiracy.
  I do understand that context matters, though. I moderate a religious forum over at lemmy.world (which by the way- faces constant downvote brigading unfortunately), and our policy is to remove any mocking content. That’s just not the place.
  That makes sense and I do wish people wouldn't just downvote a community because they disagree with the idea of it, I hate AI slop with a unrivaled passion but I don't mass downvote stuff in the "Stable
  <noun>
  " communities. Religion isn't important to me, but it is to many and there should be space for it here.
  I appreciate your work in navigating such a landscape - moderating isn’t easy. And I’ll do my best to follow whatever regulations you choose to put in place, regardless if I protest the regulations themselves. This is a good and well-run instance.
  Thank you, we set out here from Reddit with big dreams of building a better social media, I just wish better wasn't such a murky term. I do genuinely believe these guidelines are a part of achieving that.

95 comments