Goodbye (LGBT forum feedback)

Azure_sky

I'm sick of hearing about Boston. He's caused enough chaos as it is and every time his names is mentioned it just.....

Can we all just focus on the best way to deal with the issue of whether a a trans mod and a forum charter or a dedicated transgender forum, or another solution, is the best for all of us?

bodice ripper

Links234 wrote: »

you know well it's not a direct quote bodice ripper, but you seem to just be sticking up for him, so there's little point in arguing semantics over it.

I am not. i genuinely am wondering if I missed something - there are a number of threads on the go and I easily could have missed something.

in the event that that was what you were refering to with your statement, it is not ok to pretend that is what he said. I would be waving a pitchfork too if he had.

bodice ripper

Links234 wrote: »

you know well it's not a direct quote bodice ripper, but you seem to just be sticking up for him, so there's little point in arguing semantics over it.

also, why is it a problem to argue against this whole debacle, but not for it? could I not alos say "you seem to be gunning for him, so there is little point in arguing semantics over it?"

I won't reduce you to that, if you will afford me the same courtesy.

Azure_sky

bodice ripper wrote: »

also, why is it a problem to argue against this whole debacle, but not for it?

Because you (in the hypothetical sense) are then supporting transphobia, which would make such a person a bigot and a hypocrite.

Wolfe Tone

Stoop to that level with the sigs, well done.

bodice ripper

Azure_sky wrote: »

Because you are then supporting transphobia, which would make a person a bigot and a hypocrite.

that is wildly offensive. I did nothing of the sort. at no point did I support, or say anything personally that indicated that I feel anything that could be called that.

show me, or apologise for screwing with my character.

Wolfe Tone

You could at least stick to sig guidelines and not take up half the page. It also appears to be a personal attack on another poster. This isnt the way to fight your fight chara.

Azure_sky

bodice ripper wrote: »

that is wildly offensive. I did nothing of the sort. at no point did I support, or say anything personally that indicated that I feel anything that could be called that.

show me, or apologise for screwing with my character.

Chill. I never said you did. I said if someone agreed with Bostons position on transexuals being mentally ill it would make them tranphobic, bigoted and if they were gay, a hypocrite.

bodice ripper

Azure_sky wrote: »

Chill. I never said you did. I said if someone agreed with Bostons position on transexuals being mentally ill it would make them tranphobic, bigoted and if they were gay, a hypocrite.

which post? show me here he said that, or quit blowing smoke. I will happily do a u turn if he did that - it would be reprehensible

Azure_sky

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You could at least stick to sig guidelines and not take up half the page. It also appears to be a personal attack on another poster. This isnt the way to fight your fight chara.

I concede that you might be right on that one. Please appreciate that it's damn frustrating for me and Links etc.

smashey

This has been a long day and what has happened now is that Boston has been site-banned permanently. Regarding the LGBT forum and following on from what Darragh said earlier, I will be starting a thread in there seeking feedback and suggestions from the posters there. I have also removed Azure_sky's sig as it breached every sig rule as well as it poured fuel on an already roaring fire here.

Azure_sky

smashey wrote: »

This has been a long day and what has happened now is that Boston has been site-banned permanently. Regarding the LGBT forum and following on from what Darragh said earlier, I will be starting a thread in there seeking feedback and suggestions from the posters there. I have also removed Azure_sky's sig as it breached every sig rule as well as it poured fuel on an already roaring fire here.

My apologies for signature. That was wrong and I hold my hands up.

Links234

bodice ripper wrote: »

which post? show me here he said that, or quit blowing smoke. I will happily do a u turn if he did that - it would be reprehensible

he had it in his signature that trans people were mentally ill, and yes, that is inherently transphobic. are you serious that you missed that?

Wolfe Tone

Links234 wrote: »

he had it in his signature that trans people were mentally ill, and yes, that is inherently transphobic. are you serious that you missed that?

Was that the WHO thing he linked to?

Azure_sky

bodice ripper wrote: »

which post? show me here he said that, or quit blowing smoke. I will happily do a u turn if he did that - it would be reprehensible

Read Links' post and use a little intuition.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69823090&postcount=148

It's all a moot point now, as Boston has been permanently site banned.

Lets all please focus on the best way forward: A change of charter and a trans mod, a dedicated transgender forum or another option.

I've been thinking and, sadly, I'm going to opt for a dedicated transgender forum. There's been too much drama and I for one would feel alot more comfortable starting a trans related thread in a transgender forum.
Transgenders could still post in the gay forum and vice versa-almost like "sister forums". I think it's the best option for all of us in the long run.

Links234

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Was that the WHO thing he linked to?

Yes, but while the WHO list it as a disorder, the worlds mental illness are his.

bodice ripper

lookit, if you can be evicerated by something you didn't actually say, but was read, then what hope can I stand here, really.

I think Boston has been a jerk, but the internet is full of them. are we really going to ban any dissenting voice?

you can't tell me to read some one else's post and tell me to "use intutition" to see boston's posts. that is assinine.

this has been a witch hunt, and will probably continue to be. nuts to that.

Aard

Links234 wrote: »

he had it in his signature that trans people were mentally ill, and yes, that is inherently transphobic. are you serious that you missed that?

Whatever is in his signature happened AFTER the event of the "transphobia". I use quotes because I still haven't seen any evidence that there was any actual in-thread transphobia. Sigs are a different issue that have been dealt with.

Nobody has yet risen to my challenge of linking to the specific posts exhibiting transphobia. The reason, I think, is that there are none. People say it was implied; if that's the case then the only one who implied anything was Boston, as evidenced by his sig. He's gone, so is the issue now over? If it's over, then we might as well close this thread and go back to business as usual. If it's not over, then there must have been an issue with another poster's posts. If so, please link.

Links234

Aard wrote: »

Whatever is in his signature happened AFTER the event of the "transphobia". I use quotes because I still haven't seen any evidence that there was any actual in-thread transphobia. Sigs are a different issue that have been dealt with.

Nobody has yet risen to my challenge of linking to the specific posts exhibiting transphobia. The reason, I think, is that there are none. People say it was implied; if that's the case then the only one who implied anything was Boston, as evidenced by his sig. He's gone, so is the issue now over? If it's over, then we might as well close this thread and go back to business as usual. If it's not over, then there must have been an issue with another poster's posts. If so, please link.

You're arguing about semantics here, and I think it's very unfair because because you know that it's been his intentthat was primarily transphobic, and that a lot of what was specifically said wasn't quite that overt, but veiled comments that would rub people the wrong way, and a lot of transphobia dressed up as debate. and that's quite clear citing this post, where his intent was to derail yet another transgender thread, but he posed this as having a "discussion".

bodice ripper wrote: »

this has been a witch hunt

Absolutely rubbish!

Boston was incredibly deliberate in his bullying, he's sent out messages and used his sig in order to try and get Johnnymcg to resign, if there's any witch hunt it was his one against a good moderator. he's been very deliberate and underhanded in the way he's been bullying people here

I don't think I can mention it in this thread, as other private messages were deleted, but he was also messaging people, goading them and spreading lies about the LGBT moderators. these have been reported to the admins.

I can't believe there's ANYONE standing up for him after what he's done.

bodice ripper

Links234 wrote: »

Absolutely rubbish!

Boston was incredibly deliberate in his bullying, he's sent out messages and used his sig in order to try and get Johnnymcg to resign, if there's any witch hunt it was his one against a good moderator. he's been very deliberate and underhanded in the way he's been bullying people here

I don't think I can mention it in this thread, as other private messages were deleted, but he was also messaging people, goading them and spreading lies about the LGBT moderators. these have been reported to the admins.

I can't believe there's ANYONE standing up for him after what he's done.

show me the posts. like I said, I will happily turn on a dime, I just still haven't seen the proof

also, it would be good to see something that wasn't defendable by "to be fair, it was in response to something that was said to him..." as that defence has been use in this thread to defend other peoples posts...

Aard

@Links1234:
You never answered the question: now that Boston is gone, is it all over? Or was there more to it than just what he said and implied.

Annasopra

I think a bit of calmness is required

We all just need to step back and calm down and relax a little bit. I do think it might be worthwhile to link back to posts where transphobic stuff is said so that we can all learn from that. also some of the objectionable posts from boston were personalised attacks - not direct transphobia per se

Links234

bodice ripper wrote: »

show me the posts. like I said, I will happily turn on a dime, I just still haven't seen the proof

Just like when you asked where Boston said trans people were mentally ill, and that if it was pointed out to you, you'd do a U turn. then when I pointed it out to you that it was in his signature, you seemingly haven't done that U turn?

And are you now disputing that Boston tried to bully johnnymcg into resigning? the messages he sent out to loads of different people and that he called for it in his signature too confirm this, but you want me to show you a post? I can't show you a post, he's done it over PM and in his signature. but you know this already.

Aard wrote: »

@Links1234:
You never answered the question: now that Boston is gone, is it all over? Or was there more to it than just what he said and implied.

No, I don't think it's over, I think he's caused a lot of upset and disruption in the forum and it's going to take time to get over that

bodice ripper

Links234 wrote: »

Just like when you asked where Boston said trans people were mentally ill, and that if it was pointed out to you, you'd do a U turn. then when I pointed it out to you that it was in his signature, you seemingly haven't done that U turn?

show me a post where Boston said "trans people are mentally ill". don't refer to it, quote it. Quoting other sources isn't it, take it up with the sources.

Annasopra

The site admins and a lot of forum members asked me to stay on as a moderator. I will be doing this. Can I just generally ask members to step back and lets all figure out what is best for the forum going forward. We should be able to acknowledge that there has been problems and discuss them and try and learn from them without having more rows.

Scofflaw

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The site admins and a lot of forum members asked me to stay on as a moderator. I will be doing this. Can I just generally ask members to step back and lets all figure out what is best for the forum going forward. We should be able to acknowledge that there has been problems and discuss them and try and learn from them without having more rows.

Can I second that call, and add that I'm delighted that Johnnymcg is staying on as moderator.

There seem to be two issues here, one of which was the poster in question - having read through his posts, I don't doubt that this was a rather deliberate attempt to set the forum back to something the particular poster felt comfortable with, and I wouldn't have any hesitation in considering a link to a definition of gender dysphoria as a mental illness anything other than transphobia - and the other of which is the more general issue of whether the LGBT forum is quite the right forum for transgender issues and whether the LGBT forum is currently properly set up for discussing transgender issues.

Boston used what were, in effect, a couple of loopholes in the forum - one in the charter, and the other in the treatment of threads. It wasn't explicit in the charter that trans posters and issues are to be treated with the same respect as LGB, and it wasn't explicit that the trans FAQ thread was intended for trans posters to answer honest questions. The former is certainly implicit in the inclusion of trans issues in the forum, and the latter, while a gentleperson's agreement, was working quite well until Boston chose to breach the implicit rules of the thread.

In a sense, then, you can view this as a very specific instance of trolling, by someone with enough of an established reputation as a poster, and enough subtlety, for it not have been immediately actioned. That's unfortunate, and damaging to the confidence of other posters, but it's also pretty rare, and also hard for mods to handle - it's worth remembering that such a poster has been, and may still be, a valuable resource for others who don't fall within the ambit of their prejudices.

Because incidents like these are rare, and because while it has been difficult it nevertheless largely boils down to the actions of a particular poster, I would personally recommend a relatively minimal approach to changes - make explicit in the charter that transgender is to be treated the same way as all others, and if you're going to use thread tags (which I think is a good idea) make the use and meaning of the tags explicit in the charter too, as well as making it explicit that using a 'support' or 'advice' thread for attacks is a big no-no, as is misuse of the tags themselves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Ive been thinking about this, and if people like Boston want to have a debate over trans issues, ie if it is a mental issue or not,all that jazz, I think it should occur in a different forum than the lgbt forum. I am sure trans posters would be willing to engage in such debates, as links has done in the past.

I think it may be best for the forum if the whole trans thing, ie is it "legit" or not, is approached in the same way the question of homosexuality being natural or not is, ie, work under the assumption that it is.

If such cannot be the case a separate trans forum is in oder.


Thats my 2 cents for what its worth.


Oh, and happy new year.

rainbow kirby

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ive been thinking about this, and if people like Boston want to have a debate over trans issues, ie if it is a mental issue or not,all that jazz, I think it should occur in a different forum than the lgbt forum. I am sure trans posters would be willing to engage in such debates, as links has done in the past.

I did state to him that such a debate would be better off in the Humanities forum.

Azure_sky

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ive been thinking about this, and if people like Boston want to have a debate over trans issues, ie if it is a mental issue or not,all that jazz, I think it should occur in a different forum than the lgbt forum. I am sure trans posters would be willing to engage in such debates, as links has done in the past.

I think it may be best for the forum if the whole trans thing, ie is it "legit" or not, is approached in the same way the question of homosexuality being natural or not is, ie, work under the assumption that it is.

If such cannot be the case a separate trans forum is in oder.


Thats my 2 cents for what its worth.


Oh, and happy new year.

That sums up my position perfectly. It's the most fair and logical course of action.

Happy new year you to you too Il Duce;)

Scofflaw

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I did state to him that such a debate would be better off in the Humanities forum.

Which wasn't the answer he wanted, so he ignored the suggestion. Again, something worth making explicit in the charter.

That's part of the point of Boards having such a diversity of forums - there's always somewhere you can go to discuss an issue if it's off-limits in a particular forum. That, in turn, means that it's entirely possible to have forums which are 'protective' in particular ways. It's worth having such forums because without them, you can't actually have fully free speech, because a vocally opposed minority can drown out the voices of another minority.

When someone calls for the ability to remove 'politically correct' protection from a minority position in a particular forum under the banner of free speech, they either don't understand what free speech actually is, or they want the freedom to shout loud enough to drown out someone else's voice. Unfortunately, it's relatively easy for one of the latter group to gather a group of supporters from the former group.

cordially,
Scofflaw