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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
This comment along with others like
This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one
That wouldn’t really change the fact this is a place for discussion of things with other people.
make it clear that feddit.uk has an agenda: it’s for lefty social discussion.
Adding @tom@feddit.uk @Emperor@feddit.uk
Can I suggest making that agenda clear in the “Who are we?” section of feddit.uk 's front page so that people are aware of what they’re signing up for and that this isn’t just a general UK instance? In particular, it seems egregious to me that there is no mention of the fact that conservatives aren’t welcome.
conservatives aren’t welcome.
That’s a very dishonest reading of what I wrote, but not surprising coming from you. This not being a conservative forum isn’t the same as conservatives not being welcome, I believe we even have some around. But they still have to follow the rules.
This is getting very tiresome for what is a very little ask, don’t be transphobic. This has been a rule on the site literally from inception.
This not being a conservative forum isn’t the same as conservatives not being welcome, I believe we even have some around.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whatever it is that feddit.uk is not, please state that up front in the “Who are we?” section. If feddit.uk is not a conservative forum, please state “feddit.uk is not a conservative forum” in the “Who are we?” section. That would at least give people more clarity on what feddit.uk is, who is here and what they can expect when they post from here.
This is getting very tiresome for what is a very little ask
By the same token, clarifying what feddit.uk is and is not in the “Who are we?” section seems to me like a very little ask.
don’t be transphobic. This has been a rule on the site literally from inception.
But the new “guidelines” and more importantly the statements from an admin (yourself) in comments under this post about what feddit.uk is not, are all new. As far as I know, philisophical discussion of trans issues had never been prohibited before.
My understanding of feddit.uk until this post was that it would reflect general wider social mores of British society: tolerance, even of those who have what we feel to be reprehensible views, up to the point where it’s clear a person is uncivil or unreasonable. Now my understanding of feddit.uk is different: there are some areas of discussion which are not tolerated under any circumstances, regardless civility or reasonableness. There is now an ideological component, not to the makeup of the user population (which has always been obvious), but to the governance of the instance which is a whole different kettle of fish and very new. Now, feddit.uk has an official ideological position: not a conservative forum, social discussion, no philosophical debate about trans issues, etc.
