Following on from the feedback thread...

smashey

... and as I said there, this is for feedback from all the members here and is inclusive of everybody. We are well aware that there have been problems and a certain amount of division so now seems like a good time to look at the forum as a whole and see where everybody stands. I should say straight away here that we will be listening to everybody and if anybody has issues with posting their thoughts in public, feel free to PM me. Any PM received will be treated with the strictest confidence.

Where to begin? I'll keep it relatively simple for now and we can add to it if need be.

What do you think of the forum as it is now?

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?

What is the future for this forum?

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?"

I would also ask that we try to keep this to a debate format and not try to get caught up in any "politics."

liah

What do you think of the forum as it is now?

At the moment, outside of the latest debacle I think it's a great place with a lot of compassionate, intelligent people with a wealth of advice and support to offer.

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?

I think a little more awareness when it comes to the phobic's way of veiling insults would help the situation, and knowing where to draw the line. Sometimes, regardless of whether or not the person is technically correct, the discussion just does not need to go any further and if it does it will lead down a bad road, and keeping a closer eye on those types of threads would hopefully curb some of the problems we've had as of late.

What is the future for this forum?

Hopefully a bright one once some rules are set to get rid of the sniping issues. I think the idea of adding tags is a very good one; it gives people a more immediate way of identifying what kind of discussion they're looking for and therefore avoiding anything potentially offensive or hurtful.

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?

I think the moderators should be fair, knowledgeable and unbiased, but compassionate and aware of where the line is and know when to catch phobia dressed up as debate. Just because something isn't glaringly offensive doesn't mean there isn't a malicious underlying intent; I think Boston's actions serve as a good example of the difference, especially with the immature sniping using signatures.

Azure_sky

What do you think of the forum as it is now?

Outside the debacle, I think there was a significant minority who didn't want the T, to be fair I don't think these people (Boston excluded) caused or are liable to cause any grief for transgenders in the future.
The charter needs to be changed. Discussions on whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not is an offence which may lead to a ban, not so with whether gender dysphoria is a mental illness or not. That is a double standard and should be addressed.

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?

I expect a forum to run smoothly, where everyone is made feel welcome and not have to defend their gender identity.


What is the future for this forum?

Ideally I would want it to remain LGBT and work. However in the vote on whether the T should be excluded or not there was a lot of people who voted against including the T. We can't force gays and bisexuals to accept us. New posters need to feel comfortable coming out or asking questions without the fear of being "attacked" or have a veiled "attack"-or feeling unwelcome but tolerated. I'm still very much open to the possibility of a dedicated transgender forum, though it would be sad if it came to that.

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?"

The moderators are excellent and do a fine job. However I strongly believe a transgender moderator is needed. One of the mods said he himself has a limited knowledge of gender dysphoria. A transgender mod would know what is and is not offensive to transgenders. Also, what better way to restore confidence to potential transgender posters than having a trans mod on the forum?

stephen_n

What do you think of the forum as it is now?
There are too many people posting who think people disagreeing with their opinion is insulting and in general too much looking for reasons to be offended. I think there has been a defenite change in the atmosphere of this forum in the last few months and not a very positive one. When the initial question about merging the trans section came up I had no strong opinion either way. I was of the opinion that the trans issue is not really one of sexuality and at the very least is more complex than that but didn't think it would cause as much disharmony as it has!

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?
I would like it to be run as an adult public forum, where people can respect that others have different opinions and use the ignore function if they don't like what certain people post.

What is the future for this forum?
Hopefully it will grow as an informative resource.

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?"
The moderators are fine for the most part but sometimes need to be more impartial. If a mod has an obviously strong negative feeling towards a poster it might be better if they don't moderate that persons post. This would probably require them using another moderators opinion and may possibly require there being more category moderators!

baby and crumble

What do you think of the forum as it is now?

I think it's a place where it's possible to have a number of very different experiences, depending on the day you arrive or who you are.

I think that there is a hierarchy of 'groups' on here, which tbh miror real life: gay men>lesbians>biexuals>transgender individuals.

Now, I am of the belief that transgender issues are not a sexuality, per se; however I think that most definitely the transgender community has a place in the LGBT community, and that should be celebrated and accepted here. What I mean by that is that you can be transgendered and not in any way gay, lesbian or bisexual. I myself am not trans, so obviously i can't speak for anyone who is.

I have personally noticed that there are one or two individual transgendered posters who do seem to look for offensive material, and who don't take comments personally at all, even if they are meant that way. Therefore, a comment about being easily offended, for example, is then picked up to mean someone is implying that all tg people are easily offended. I think this, coupled with the recent poster who got pretty agrressive, has meant that things have taken a crazy turn around here.

what i would like to see is this forum moving out from being an offshot of PI to being a place where we can talk about anything and everything. I know when I was coming out in college I thought I was weird because i didn't always think and talk about 'gay stuff', and tbh all my experience in the gay community seemed to say i was supposed to- it would have been nice to have a place like this where it's not 'all gay'.

I will also note that of the stickies, the majority are related to trans issues. Again, not saying that's a bad thing at all, but it's something to note. whether or not that's indicative of over modding, or of a clearly more active user base, I don't know.

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?

I like the forum to be a place where you can say what you think without being over-modded. I think this is pretty good at the moment, but it's almost like there is no room for actual debate at times. I understand that there should be no truck gievn to someone coming in here from AH going "yis are all going to HELL YE ******S!" or whatever the case may be. But by not allowing these debates here, you simply move them to places like AH where a) you can't have a reasoned discussion and b) we're easily ganged up on. It also gives the impression that us gays are too easily 'got' and we simply run away when the fight is on. We won't engage in debate, so why should anyone else?

What is the future for this forum?

Hopefully it can stay a place where members of the community, such as it is, can come for a bit of chat, some advice from people who might have some experience in what people are dealing with, and somewhere where not every thread has to be about an 'issue'.

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?"

I'm not too sure. I think that some of the debates that spring up could be allowed to continue, while some obviously need to be shut down before they get nasty. However, too heavy a hand does not serve any kind of good in here. More on thread warnings from mods may be appropriate before there are calls for bans etc. I also think it's not a good idea for a mod to engage in the on thread discussion while moderating it too. At times it's possible for the 2 to get mixed up and personal feelings to become involved in the modding side of things.

Thanks for reading the full length of the rambling feedback post... :rolleyes:

bodice ripper

smashey wrote: »

What do you think of the forum as it is now?

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?

:seems to be sliding towards a value based system, where your contibution's worth is based on what you have personally suffered or can expect to suffer

What is the future for this forum?

:screwed

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?"

:We'll get a token trans mod, but no lesbian or bisexual mod. i think this will address nothing"

just to be clear, i had my serious concerns about this forum before now, but it appears to have gone super-nova

Chuchoter

What do you think of the forum as it is now?
I like the forum a lot and I've made good friends here. The main issue I see is the lack of differentiation between discussion and support. These should be clearly labeled, either by tagging or two separate forums (I'd prefer the second option). The reporting function needs to be used more. The other issue I see (totally unrelated to the recent fighting) is that people come in every single week with the exact same problem. We should have a sticky thread for 26 year old guys and a youth thread.

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run
I would like people either not to engage in debate at all or do it properly. In my opinion, there were issues on both sides of the trans argument. Some people were out to cause a fight and blew things way out of proportion. Reporting needs to be used more.

What is the future for this forum?
I would like to see this forum become a lot bigger and this can only be done by being more inclusive of smaller groups/vulnerable groups. I know loads of gay people my own age who don't use this forum, there are also weirdly few girls on here. An introduce yourself or chat thread would be good. I think that separating the forum into debate/fun things and support would be good. As zoegh said, it would be nice to separate the PI offshoot-ness from the debate/general banter. It can be very intimidating posting some big massive issue in your own life into a forum not specifically stating thats what we're here for. Or a general advice thread. After reading what others have said a trans subforum may lead to further fights and just divide the whole forum

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?
I like the current mods, however we could probably use a few more as the forum gets bigger. Its a big job for 3 people. I don't know if a specific trans mod is the answer unless a clear, levelheaded choice is obvious, not just because they are the most prominent transperson on here.

baby and crumble

i actually really like the idea of separate support and discussion subfora. would make things a lot clearer and probably encourage debate...

L.Jenkins

I was going to write an indepth post according to the questions posed by smashey, but I'll keep it brief. I like the forum the way it is, but we do need some changes to the charter.

Post and sig reporting from now on shouldn't be an issue, it should be second nature. The moderators are great and good at what they do. I'm alittle sceptical at the moment about the forum growing, but the mods we do have are under alittle pressure and we could do with a few more. As for splitting up the forum, I don't know. Would that not cause further segrogation? If it relates to youth issues specifically, then I'd be all for it. I'm just not sure how we could split the forum at the moment.

Azure_sky

Just want to add something myself regarding splitting the forum with tags. I really don't like the idea. It seems very messy and maximalistic. I also find it hard to visualise how it would work well. If people want an open debate then why not just take it to the AH forum, as Links did-or the humanities forum, as Curly did?

Aard

What do you think of the forum as it is now?
Bland. I'd like more discussion.


How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?
It can be heavy-handed at times. More laissez-faire modding, with an unambiguous, yet fairly relaxed charter.


What is the future for this forum?
If the forum is to grow, then its remit needs to be expanded. Otherwise it'll just become a place for transient posters, and an endless stream of one-off advice threads. For "community" to be fostered, there needs to be opposing views, arguments, blow-outs. It's unreasonable to expect everybody to live here all lovey-dovey just because we have one aspect of our lives in common.


What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?
The number of mods is fine. It's not even a particularly big forum on the site, yet we have three mods. Other, bigger forums get by with two.

Some people have suggested a trans mod. If a suitable candidate happens to be trans, then all the better. But that's academic: there are only about four regular trans posters here, one of whom has categorically stated that she doesn't want to do it. The others don't have enough experience on Boards for the job, imo. This is somewhere where postcount and longevity mean something, as it gives a better gauge of a potential mod's temperament and impartiality. So while having a trans mod may be desirable for some, practicality has to come into it.

smashey

Some good input here so far and if I may play Devil's advocate with this point...

Aard wrote: »

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?
It can be heavy-handed at times. More laissez-faire modding, with an unambiguous, yet fairly relaxed charter.

Would a relaxation in the charter not go against what has been highlighted recently? (Just throwing this in here)

Also, and I speak as an outsider here with regards to LGBT issues, where does this forum stand in the greater scheme of things with regards to LGBT issues nationwide?

Azure_sky

smashey wrote: »

Also, and I speak as an outsider here with regards to LGBT issues, where does this forum stand in the greater scheme of things with regards to LGBT issues nationwide?

Not sure if your question was directed soley towards Aard or to the forum in general but I'll throw in my two cents for what it's worth.

If you mean does the culture, attitudes and issues of this forum represent the LGBT scene on other Irish websites and in real life ,gay bars etc, then I would have to say yes-very much so from my own first hand experiance.

deirdre_dub

OK - I'm still a bit nervous about posting in public about these issues, but I'll take the risk.

What do you think of the forum as it is now?

I think the forum is a reflection of the general LGBT community in Ireland, which is to say (as someone else put it) Gay is more important than Lesbian which is more important than Bisexual which is more important than Transgender. As a transgender person, I have a problem with that.

For instance, there are only two mentions of "transgender" (or its abbreviation "T") in the forum charter -

This board relates to LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning) issues.

(snip)

Many people have mentioned various LGBT organisations that perform good work for the gay community.

The third post in the charter mentions the subjects that "are not kosher for discussion". The only subjects that aren't open for discussion on transgender issues are paedophilia and bible bashing.

It seems to me that transgender was accepted into this forum some time ago (before my time), but insufficient infrastructural changes (particularly to the charter) were made to accommodate transgender.

How do you like the forum run or expect it to be run?

I believe it's past time for those infrastructural changes. I think the charter needs to have proper mention of transgender and of the needs of transgender.

One of my pet peeves is the way that the LGB community says (correctly) that "gay is not transgender", yet the forum charter says things like "Many people have mentioned various LGBT organisations that perform good work for the gay community" without mentioning the work done for the transgender community. If "gay is not transgender", then transgender is not gay, and if you are commending the work of LGBT organisations, then you need to have seperate mention for the work those organisations have done for the transgender community. You can't have it both ways - you cannot say "gay is not transgender" when it suits you, and then not give seperate mention for transgender when it is warranted.

Of course, the above also applies for the bisexual (in particular) and lesbian communities. It's part of the whole "gay is more important than ... " that I mention above. Such an heirarchical attitude towards the LGBT community makes this an unnecessarily unwelcoming place for transgender people.

What is the future for this forum?

I don't know - I don't have a crystal ball. The future of the forum is something the forum members need to decide.

There are two sets of options, which will be decided by the fundamental question of whether this is an LGBT forum or whether it is just an LGB forum. I believe the consensus is generally on the former, so I'll address that.

Quite simply, if it is an LGBT forum, then there needs to be a proper LGBT charter. There may also need to be some work done on moderation - I'll address that here.

What do you think your moderators should be and how should they be and what do you want?

My understanding of the job of the moderator is to uphold the charter.

There were, for me, two phases to the recent trouble - the phase before Links took a break, and the phase between that and when I left. After Links left, I was reminded that I should report offensive posts. I have to take responsibility for the fact that I did not do report such offensive posts to the extent that I should have before Links left, so I was determined to report any and all offensive posts after she took her break.

Unfortunately, there was only one such post that I felt I could report. There was only one post that I felt broke the charter that I could then report to the moderators. So we are brought right back to the problem that the charter is not good enough.

Since then, "Derailing for Dummies" has been added to the charter. I think this is a significant improvement. If "derailing for dummies" had been in the charter earlier, I suspect I would have been able to report a lot more of the posts that were made.

I note that there has been significant discussion on whether there needs to be a transgender moderator (especially in the feedback forum). I was the originator of that suggestion.

I see that one of the respected moderators has pretty much asked for a transgender moderator, admitting that he feels that his understanding of transgender issues isn't quite comprehensive enough. To be honest, I don't think understanding of transgender issues is as important as an understanding of what I believe is the core issue behind what happened here recently.

I believe the core issue is that there is a very significant privilege gap between LGB and T.

This year, as a result of the Lydia Foy victory last year, the Government is (hopefully!) going to introduce gender recognition legislation. This legislation is our "decriminalisation of homosexuality" - something that happened for the LGB community 18 years earlier. In short, the transgender community is (at least) two decades behind the LGB community - hence the privilege gap between LGB and T. So, the question of moderation is - can the moderators either remember what it was like for the LGB community over 2 decades ago, or are they clued in enough about the kind of social exclusion issues the LGB community faced over 2 decades ago. If the moderators understand those issues, and understand how the priviledge gap can manifest itself on the forum, then there might not be an actual need for a transgender moderator.

This is why I am so very relieved to see "derailing for dummies" in the charter - it puts the issue of privilege into the charter.

So where do I now stand on the issue of a transgender moderator? I still believe there is great merit in the idea, but I'm now more hopeful (and it's only a hope!) that it might not be necessary. At the end of the day, it is something for the group to decide.

Would I be interested in the job of moderation? I don't know enough about the job, and I don't know how a moderator gets into the position of being a moderator. However, given the battering my character has recently taken on this forum, I suspect my chances of getting elected are pretty nil!

Aard

Azure_sky wrote: »

If you mean does the culture, attitudes and issues of this forum represent the LGBT scene on other Irish websites and in real life ,gay bars etc, then I would have to say yes-very much so from my own first hand experiance.

And now the rub: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

smashey

deirdre_dub wrote: »

OK - I'm still a bit nervous about posting in public about these issues, but I'll take the risk.

Please don't feel in any way nervous here. Your comments are much appreciated.

Azure_sky

Aard wrote: »

And now the rub: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Does everything have to be black or white?

Most gays are cool with transgenders, or at least indifferent, some are very supportive; a signifcant minority are not and make it difficult at times. Deirdre summed it up pretty well when she said there is a hierachy within the LGBT community; with gay males at the top, lesbians below them, bi/pan sexuals below gays and lesbians and transgenders at the bottom.

Aard

The reason I asked, Azure sky, was that for some people the scene and the bars has negative connotations.


====


IRT a social hierarchy, I don't think the gays are putting this forward. The media does, sure, as does society in general. But, to say that it goes "gay men > lesbians > bisexuals > transgenders" implies that it is the gays at the "top" who are making it happen. Somebody mentioned recently that there are comparatively few women here. There are also few transgenders. And there are comparatively more gay men on this forum. But that doesn't mean there's a hierarchy, it's just numbers. Hierarchy would be if all the gay men were looking down on the rest (in that order at that!), something that I've never seen on Boards LGBT.

Azure_sky

Aard wrote: »

The reason I asked, Azure sky, was that for some people the scene and the bars has negative connotations.

Well my partner and I have been subjected to transphobic abuse in gay bars by gay men, which is why we don't frequent them anymore. So I know it exists.


====

Aard wrote: »

IRT a social hierarchy, I don't think the gays are putting this forward. The media does, sure, as does society in general. But, to say that it goes "gay men > lesbians > bisexuals > transgenders" implies that it is the gays at the "top" who are making it happen. Somebody mentioned recently that there are comparatively few women here. There are also few transgenders. And there are comparatively more gay men on this forum. But that doesn't mean there's a hierarchy, it's just numbers. Hierarchy would be if all the gay men were looking down on the rest (in that order at that!), something that I've never seen on Boards LGBT.

While it doesn't prove there's a hierarchy it also does not prove it's merely a matter of numbers. Perhaps the reason there is more gay males on the forum is that others, especially transgenders feel less welcome. Not saying that is the case but there is the same evidence for that hypothesis as there is for the one you just gave.

I have not been posting on the LGBT forum much so I can't say I've seen gay men looking down on the the rest in that order but Boston certainly looked down on transgenders-and he had quite a few apologists.
The gap in privilage is evident in the forum charter, as Deirdre pointed out.
Also why is it called "Gay Pride", why not " LGBT pride"? Another example of the hierarchy within the Irish LGBT community, imo.

Aard

I'm talking about hierarchy on this forum. A couple of people have said it goes "G > L > B > T". On this forum. And I'm saying it doesn't exist. It's not up for me to disprove it, you are suggesting it's there so it's up for you to prove it. If you haven't actually seen any of this "G > L > B > T" other than Boston's antics, then please retract it because it's not helping matters.

Annasopra

smashey wrote: »

Also, and I speak as an outsider here with regards to LGBT issues, where does this forum stand in the greater scheme of things with regards to LGBT issues nationwide?

Actually this is an interesting point - I think the forum is a bit too transient in recent times - There are lots and lots of people coming in looking for advice but they don't seem to stick around on the forum. I tried to maybe create a more social side by organising queer beers - perhaps we need more of those.

We discuss LGBT issues in terms of politics but I'm not quite sure how interested some people are. The LGBT communities are incredibly diverse in backgrounds and opinions and lifestyles and politics and generally everything. E.g. We started an off topic thread and I lost interest in it cause it turned into nerdy type discussions.

LGBT issues nationwide are kind of odd and strange. The politics of LGBT activism is very fractured (sort of like peoples judaen front etc) there are lots of groups and individuals that simply hate each other and wont work together although cooperation over time has improved.

I think that LGBT issues nationwide are changing. In the past there was an exodus to Dublin and other cities. This is radically changing with social and support groups springing up in almost all of the 26 counties.

Transgender issues are about to radically change in this country with proposed new laws. I wonder myself if the LGB communities have given those issues enough support - e.g. what will happen if the proposed new legislation has something like enforced sterilisation in it? I also wonder are the LGB communities really committed to transgender causes? In the US they abandoned the T in pursuit of employment equality legislation for T.

I also wonder will LGBs become so normalised or become so pushy in desires for normalisation that they start to push away the T as kind of deviant and 'nothing to do with us' - let us not forget that Transgender is an umbrella term for transvestites, transsexuals and others

Where does this forum stand in all of that?

Hmm - hard to say - at the moment the forum doesn't go into some of the discussions above too much

Rev Hellfire

Aard wrote: »

I'm talking about hierarchy on this forum. A couple of people have said it goes "G > L > B > T". On this forum. And I'm saying it doesn't exist.

I'll have to say as someone outside of the catchment groups for this forum I've never received the impression that one group is more highly regarded than the other when it comes to majority posters in this forum.

Azure_sky

Aard wrote: »

I'm talking about hierarchy on this forum. A couple of people have said it goes "G > L > B > T". On this forum. And I'm saying it doesn't exist. It's not up for me to disprove it, you are suggesting it's there so it's up for you to prove it. If you haven't actually seen any of this "G > L > B > T" other than Boston's antics, then please retract it because it's not helping matters.

I don't believe I said it is the case on this forum specifically. I said I have not been posting on the LGBT forum much so I can't say I've seen gay men looking down on the the rest in that order. It may be the case or it may not. But Boston and his apologists, as well as the fact that a significant minority of this forum did not want the T, as shown in the poll-combined with the double standards of the forum charter- shows that the transgenders are second class members on this forum. Which is what caused all this drama to begin with.

Chuchoter

I don't think its that gay mens views are held in higher regard, it just feels like they make up most of the forum (and representation in real life, different subject for a different day). I can count the regular female posters on my hands, and I refuse to believe there are that few gay/bi women on the whole of boards.

Another major issue someone else has put into words earlier is the recent transience of all the members. There is no real sense of community as there might be on other forums, this could be rectified by bringing together groups of people who come back every week, chat threads, pop culture etc and separating this from the endless stream of anonymous posters with various problems (nothing wrong with them, just this is a very multipurpose forum and it can get disorganized or look like we are PI but gay)

I just think that if we are giving the forum an overhaul we shouldn't just focus on trans things. The whole trans argument could be sorted with separating the forum into support and debate and an addition to the charter about trans things.

Azure_sky

Just to add, for those complaining about too much censorship and heavy handed moderating, as well as supposed transgender hypersensitivity, I point you to how fast this chaps free speech and desire to debate was censored.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056134328

The timing was ironic. I found it most amusing.

Rev Hellfire

Azure_sky wrote: »

combined with the double standards of the forum charter shows that the transgenders are second class members on this forum.

The omission of transgenders from the charter is simply an innocent oversight. When you consider that forum was populated by primarily those in the lgb posters its an understandable one.

I'd be amazed if the issue isn't addressed soon.

Aard

Crayolastereo puts it well.

Gay men may make up most of this forum, but that doesn't say anythink about rank. Nonetheless, I can see how it may annoy other posters. I have a feeling now that that's what Zoegh and Deirdre_dub meant by "hierarchy", and not the absolute literal sense of the word.


And yes, CS, I think now would be a good time to look at other aspects of the forum and not just trans ones.

Aard

Azure_sky wrote: »

Just to add, for those complaining about too much censorship and heavy handed moderating, as well as supposed transgender hypersensitivity, I point you to how fast this chaps free speech and desire to debate was censored.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056134328

The timing was ironic. I found it most amusing.

That guy's thread had nothing to do with transgenderism, so I don't know why you mention "supposed transgender hypersensitivity". Also, it's a thread started by a troll. There's a difference between that and insensitive/ignorant replies.

Azure_sky

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The omission of transgenders from the charter is simply an innocent oversight. When you consider that forum was populated by primarily those in the lgb posters its an understandable one.

I'd be amazed if the issue isn't addressed soon.

Fair enough, if there's one good thing to have come from this whole mess its that consciouness of transgenders have been raised. I don't doubt the issue will be addressed.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

I'm talking about hierarchy on this forum. A couple of people have said it goes "G > L > B > T". On this forum. And I'm saying it doesn't exist. It's not up for me to disprove it, you are suggesting it's there so it's up for you to prove it. If you haven't actually seen any of this "G > L > B > T" other than Boston's antics, then please retract it because it's not helping matters.

I believe I gave evidence in support of "G > L > B > T". To recap, the evidence is -

1. Boston's antics, and the support he had (and continues to have)

2. The lack of barely even a mention of transgender in the charter

3. The lack of necessary elements in the charter to make this a safe space for transgender people

4. The pet peeve I mentioned in my post (and there is more than one example of it in the charter and in the LGBT community as a whole)

Aard

No Deirdre. That's not G > L > B > T. What you've just described is LGB > T.

Azure_sky

Aard wrote: »

Also, it's a thread started by a troll. There's a difference between that and insensitive/ignorant replies.

How is he a troll? Because he is religious? I know atheists and agnostics who believe there is no biological component to gender dysphoria and homosexuality.

Aard

Azure_sky wrote: »

How is he a troll? Because he is religious? I know atheists and agnostics who believe there is no biological component to gender dysphoria and homosexuality.

Look at the second post in that thread. He trolled the Atheism forum, and then came and trolled this forum.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

That guy's thread had nothing to do with transgenderism, so I don't know why you mention "supposed transgender hypersensitivity". Also, it's a thread started by a troll. There's a difference between that and insensitive/ignorant replies.

I think this is where we are coming up against privilege issues and/or issues of lack of understanding of transgender.

Much of what Boston posted, from the point of view of trans, was trolling. If there were better understanding of trans and/or privilege by the moderators, Boston would probably have been stopped in his tracks as a troll a lot quicker than he was.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

No Deirdre. That's not G > L > B > T. What you've just described is LGB > T.

True. So you agree with me that LGB > T? As for G > L > B > T, I see evidence of that too. But you are right - I'm actually talking about LGB > T.

Aard

@Deirdre:

Azure sky mention the troll thread in relation to my complaint of "too much censorship and heavy handed moderating". Now you're talking about Boston again. My complaint above was in reference to the whole forum, not just the recent upset.

In addition, you're quoting a post that I wrote that has nothing to do with transgenderism, yet you start up about trans privilege again.

Azure_sky

Aard wrote: »

Look at the second post in that thread. He trolled the Atheism forum, and then came and trolled this forum.

I did. His argument against atheism was precipatated by his religious beliefs, he admitted this himself.
His question as to whether homosexuality is a learned behaviour or not is one which has been asked by the non religious too. He may have been influenced by his religion, but that does not effect the validity of his question in the greater scheme of things.

He was censored, which was the right thing to do under this circumstance. A privalage for gays. I point this out for those who complained about transgender hypersensitivity and asked less heavy handed moderating.

Aard

deirdre_dub wrote: »

True. So you agree with me that LGB > T? As for G > L > B > T, I see evidence of that too. But you are right - I'm actually talking about LGB > T.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said I agree with you that LGB > T. The only exhibition of that was Boston and the Charter. Boston is an individual, so a generalisation makes no sense, and the Charter is simply outdated.

Aard

Azure_sky wrote: »

He was censored, which was the right thing to do under this circumstance. A privalage for gays. I point this out for those who complained about transgender hypersensitivity and asked less heavy handed moderating.

I would have no problem if the thread wasn't locked. I really don't know what you're trying to prove, Azur sky. You're being tedious.

stephen_n

Aard wrote: »

Crayolastereo puts it well.

Gay men may make up most of this forum, but that doesn't say anythink about rank. Nonetheless, I can see how it may annoy other posters. I have a feeling now that that's what Zoegh and Deirdre_dub meant by "hierarchy", and not the absolute literal sense of the word.


And yes, CS, I think now would be a good time to look at other aspects of the forum and not just trans ones.

Funnily enough I don't see that as being true although maybe I don't pay close enough attention to posters sexual identities! However a lot of the regular posters in this forum are female from my estimation and there are seemingly a good few bisexual males posting, there seems to be an automatic assumption that any male who posts is gay!

Chuchoter

We are going round in circles. Boston caused problems, so he was banned. The charter is outdated, so it will be updated, people wanted stricter moderating, you got it and now thats privilege or something.

The thread in question that was locked is an interesting topic, but was started by someone who was a troll. Like Boston. So either we allow all trolls or none.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

Gay men may make up most of this forum, but that doesn't say anythink about rank. Nonetheless, I can see how it may annoy other posters. I have a feeling now that that's what Zoegh and Deirdre_dub meant by "hierarchy", and not the absolute literal sense of the word.

Nope - I am actually talking about rank and literal hierarchy.

Note that rank/hierarchy is a different thing to transphobia. The former is a type of "ignorance", the latter is malicious. I do not believe that the lack of transgender in the charter is due to transphobia - I believe it is an oversight due to a sort-of non-understanding of transgender.

No - I am not "annoyed" that there are numerically so many gay men here. It may be useful to read "you're just suffering privilege envy" from derailing for dummies. This has nothing to do with the numbers of people here - yes, the trans contingent is numerically quite small, but we seem to be holding up quite well!

The fact that gay men make up most of this forum doesn't say anything as such about rank, but it could be a consequence of rank.

And yes, CS, I think now would be a good time to look at other aspects of the forum and not just trans ones.

Agreed.

Annasopra

Ok point taken about the charter needing reform - The mods will work on that

deirdre_dub

crayolastereo wrote: »

We are going round in circles.

Agreed.

So - what does the charter need to say? I'll answer that question from my own point of view later on (I've got real-world stuff I need to do).

Chuchoter

No questioning of the validity of trans identities would be a start and no bringing up chromosomes, some idiot always brings up chromosomes like they're some genius when its only valid if you never got past junior cert science.

Links234

kinda stressed, so I'll probably get back later and have more input, give a better response, but for now I'll just say something quick.

I think one thing we need to do is to have more of a social aspect to the forum as well, we should get to know each other a bit better and actually converse about things not just related to LGBT. I know I proposed an off topic thread, and that went well for a while but drifted off again, maybe we can dig that up and have another go at it? I also recently bumped up the funny side of not being straight recently because I think this was a really great thread and allowed us to laugh at ourselves and not take things too seriously.

bodice ripper

Azure_sky wrote: »

. But Boston and his apologists, as well as the fact that a significant minority of this forum did not want the T, as shown in the poll-combined with the double standards of the forum charter- shows that the transgenders are second class members on this forum..

Sorry, i have to take issue with this. Am I being refered to here? If so, i need to defend myself - if not i don't.

Azure_sky

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sorry, i have to take issue with this. Am I being refered to here? If so, i need to defend myself - if not i don't.

What makes you assume I was referring to you? Do you consider yourself a Boston apologist? Anyway, this tit for tat drama is dull and is distracting from the core issues at hand.

Links234

Hey, lets not let this get into another argument, stay focused on the forum and leave particular individuals out of it.

bodice ripper

Azure_sky wrote: »

What makes you assume I was referring to you? Do you consider yourself a Boston apologist?

you need to relax with putting words in other people's mouths, you really do.

no, I don't, but i also know there were only a handful of people who argued against the majority of the posts and i am one of them.

and you did not answer the question.


since you edited - its only tit for tat when someone talks back is it? there have been three pages of vague accusations about people who post on this forum - apologists, gay men looking down on people etc. If you have a problem with someone spit it out. if not, then don't refer to these amorphous people.

Azure_sky

bodice ripper wrote: »

you need to relax with putting words in other people's mouths, you really do.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. At least no more than you put in mine.

bodice ripper wrote: »

and you did not answer the question.

Nor do I have to.