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.

95 comments

I've been hiding in a builders merchant for the last month, but thought I'd poke my head out to say thankyou for writing this up.
Giving a framework for discussion, but making it clear that using it as a stick to beat trans people with will not be tolerated, is a very good way to organise things.

the title makes it sound like this is a post on how to be transphobic. it's very funny pls don't change it.
- Step One: write a harry potter book
  
  Step two: Open an X account
  
  Step zero point five: absolutely butcher Latin
- Should we all be transphobic now father?

Thank you! I appreciate the work you've put in to this!
- Glad to see blahaj is refederated with .uk now.

I appreciate the care you've put into this. By choosing a neutral tone, you have created a framework that allows for opposing viewpoints to exist in discussions of the topic so long as the participants stay within established guidelines. I believe that this approach is an even-handed way to limit fanaticism and promote acceptance.
Perfection, though sometimes alluring, is an exhausting pursuit. What you've accomplished is realistic, immediately applicable, and amendable. In my opinion, that is infinitely more useful than the ever-fleeting notion of attainable perfection.
Well done, in both the creation of the document and in your personal effort to not allow perfectionism to stand in the way of something good.

Great initiative. Looks pretty well written from my point of view.
What's going to happen to repeated guideline breakers ?
- Depends on which guideline they break. The 41% one will probably be an insta-ban. Others will likely be an initial warning followed by temp bans escalating to a permaban.
  
  I'm trans and I learned a lot myself from this. I might have brought up the 41% thing and not knowing its use, miscommunicated what I meant in support of trans rights. Glad to have read this, being trans doesn't automatically make you aware of every aspect of the conversations.
  
  Just want to point out that suicide rates/attempts are more a reflection of the way transgender people are treated than a some kind of pervasive mental illness. High-functioning autistic people also have very high rates of suicidal ideation and attempts, because--much like transgender people--they (we) tend to be socially isolated and ostracized. Transgender people that are in accepting communities and who have non-shitty parents tend to have much, much lower rates of suicidal ideation and attempts.
  
  Good 😊

That's a really concise, clear and well written guide. Worth reading for general life, not just for feddit.
Thanks for taking the time to put that together :)

This is generally very clear and well written, but I would clarify that while using 'biological man/woman' may be a misinformed/malicious may to refer to cis people, using 'biological male/female/intersex' to refer to one's own biological sex is in fact a relatively common term that many trans people (such as myself) prefer to AGAB
- Good point, that's definitely something I see fairly often. I don't like it myself (also trans), but should be on here.
- Especially as all A*AB terms easily mistaken for "All * are Bastards" ala ACAB.
  
  I do it the other way around, Assigned Cop At Birth

Really great to see this. You’ve clearly put in some serious thought and reflection to come up with something that draws a sensible line in the sand.

Thank you for addressing this!

Love to see this - far too many people perpetuating transphobia :(
- Not sure trans phobia and perpetrated are correct terms. The purpetrrate tends to indicate a choice. Where phobia dose not tend to.
  A phobia is an irrational fear but normally not one that can be controlled.
  Transfasism may be a better term.
  
  I said perpetuating not perpetrating and transphobia is the correct word
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/transphobic
  coming from or having a fear or dislike of transgender or non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with)
  related to policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to cisgender people (= people whose gender matches the body they were born with) and unfair or harmful treatment of transgender or non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with)
  Anti-trans fascism is a different word choice you could use, sure

Thank you for this!

I was going to facetiously say
Step 1: don't be a bigot
Step 2: there is no step 2
But those guidelines are a pretty good description of how to follow step 1 on this issue, so let's adjust it to
Step 1: don't be a bigot
Step 2: if in doubt, read those guidelines
Step 3: see step 1
- It's crazy we even need guidelines to not be an asshole lol

That is awesome! I can't even find anything to complain about, and I'm a whiner.
No bullshit, doing that is an act of goodness, and I'd hug your neck if we ever met.

Well written and well judged. You and others in the feddit.uk admin team continue to be an exemplar.

Very well written, clear and concise! Thanks for putting the time and effort into creating this.

Good update, thank you for doing this

This is very helpful. Thank you.

Always nice when an instance doesn't need to be defederated
- What an absurd comment. As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility? I'm struggling to understand what point you were even trying to convey here.
  Did the previous lack of transphobia-specific guidance somehow negate the fact that abuse and bigotry, including transphobic bigotry, was already against the rules and banworthy in this instance? Do we constantly having our finger hovering over the 'defederate' button, just in case an instance is not deemed ideologically pure enough?
  Well apparently, yes! In spite of the fact that this guidance takes a very sensibly neutral tone, it is precisely that neutral tone (predating this specific guidance, but as a response to the same neutrality that it embodies) that has directly resulted in this instance being defederated by at least one major instance already.
  That the fediverse supports defederation does not mean that it's acceptable for everyone to bring it up at every opportunity, as if it should be the action of first response. Defederation is a last resort for rogue instances, and to bring it up outside of that context is dreadfully gauche.
  
  As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility?
  I believe one instance already has defederated from feddit.uk because of a perceived tolerance of transphobia.
  
  The week before feddit admins were caught being transphobic a tankie instance was defederated for the same reason
  Keep up

Excellent writeup! I love seeing these.
Minor spelling mistake: The heading 'Transgenerism'/Gender ideology is missing a "d".

Are detrans discussions prohibited?
I asked before but didn't get a response.
- I don't even know what 'detrans discussions' means. As long as you don't just use the fact some people transition as a cudgel against the idea of medical transition, then I don't see why not.
  
  I don't even know what 'detrans discussions' means
  I mean discussions similar to those in Reddit's /r/detrans, /r/actual_detrans, /r/ask_detransition, etc. or in fact any discussions around detransitioning. In my experience, such communities and discussions very much do not toe the trans party line.

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.
  
  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 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.
  
  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’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.
  
  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

95 comments