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.
Excellent writeup! I love seeing these.
Minor spelling mistake: The heading
'Transgenerism'/Gender ideologyis missing a “d”.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 zero point five: absolutely butcher Latin
I think you mean “carnifico Latinum!”
Step two: Open an X account
Step 3: Buy a massive mouldy castle in scotland
Should we all be transphobic now father?
Thank you for this!
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
It’s always sad to see a baby born with a mustache, mirrored sunglasses, and a racial slur on its lips
I blame the parents for eating all those donuts
Come on. No one needs that image placed on the mind.
Thank you! I appreciate the work you’ve put in to this!
Glad to see blahaj is refederated with .uk now.
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.
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.
I imagine it would still depend on context. The guidelines don’t say that the 41% figure is inaccurate (and from some extremely light googling of the cited organisation, ASFSP doesn’t appear to be an anti trans pressure group so i’m inclined to take that figure on its face value). thus talking about that figure in the context of a wider discussion on trans issues, which absolutely includes a sky high suicide rate, is probably fine.
But as the guidelines say; using that figure to encourage someone to commit suicide is almost certainly a contravention. As is using it to justify ignoring a trans person or trans persons basic right to self determination
That said i’m not a mod, i’m not in their heads, so i could be wrong
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 😊
Thank you for addressing this!
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.
The week before feddit admins were caught being transphobic a tankie instance was defederated for the same reason
Keep up
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.
Good update, thank you for doing this
This is very helpful. Thank you.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 🙂
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.
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?
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?
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 @[email protected] @[email protected]
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.
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
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.
