Trans Threads in AH

L.Jenkins

I refer to this thread specifically: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747589, the latest in a line of threads on the topic.

I want to raise the issue, Should trans issues be discussed in AH, when we have a perfectly good LGBT forum for that purpose? Topics such as Soccer and Politics are banned from the likes of AH and R&R, Why not LGBT topics also, since there is forums for that purpose.

Links234

Itzy wrote: »

Should trans issues be discussed in AH, when we have a perfectly good LGBT forum for that purpose?

Do you really want to direct regular AH users to the LGBT forum?

and honestly, I'd rather discuss trans issues in AH than the LGBT forum, because at least on AH people seem to be receptive to trans posters' opinions.

also, these threads come up once in a blue moon on AH. I think part of the reason banning soccer related threads from AH is because it's a topic that would be constantly coming up otherwise. I also think the AH mods do a pretty good job on trans related threads too.

Dravokivich

I see you are a mod of LGBT, as well as a dedicated Transgender forum. How would you have approached this thread if you saw it in either of them?

You are referring to a thread, which wasn't started off in a serious manner at all and was never about discussing transgender issues. It was purely to take the piss out of the person who underwent it.

Links234

Dravokivich wrote: »

It was purely to take the piss out of the person who underwent it.

I'd say the premise "lets take the piss out of someone 'cos they're transgender!" is fairly problematic itself, wouldn't you agree? what if it were a thread about someone who had come out as gay and it was purely to take the piss out of said person because of their sexuality, would that be acceptable? of course, I don't think regular AH'ers are malicious and as soon as I mentioned that there are trans boards users who may be reading the thread the piss taking died down, which was nice.

AH is where you have a general discussion about things without it moving into anything serious and precise. I have to agree with links; the banning of discussing issues like transgender would likely be more problematic than anything else.

Dravokivich

Links234 wrote: »

I'd say the premise "lets take the piss out of someone 'cos they're transgender!" is fairly problematic itself, wouldn't you agree?

I didn't defend that thread in any way in the above post. I just replied saying I found it odd that someone would want such a thread, with that particular OP, to be put into a more topic related forum, considering all it was is taking the piss. It was not set out to be a thread about transgender issues.

Links234

I see what you're saying Dravokivich, but I think when a thread is discussing a transgender person, focusing solely on the fact that they're transgender, then that thread is defacto about trans issues. You can also appreciate why a thread that's only basis was "hey lets laugh at this wally 'cos they're different" was going to rub Itzy and other posters the wrong way.

Dravokivich

I get that, which is why I'm somewhat bemused as to why they'd want that thread in LGBT/Transgender.

I just read through that thread fully and there's nothing really malicious about transgendered people mentioned, bar one particular poster. The unfortunate thing is that you'll always get someone like that. All the other comments were more making light of the Wachowski's previous work.

The problem with issues that are against what is considered as the "norm" (as they currently stand), such as transgender, homosexuality, or many others, is that you'll always get ignorance towards it. Banning the discussion of these topics will likely do more harm than good towards the eventual goal, which I would imagine is acceptance?

Micky Dolenz

Politics isn't banned from AH and we can hardly compare LGBT to soccer. As long as comments are banter and are light hearted, I don't have an issue with them. Report the posts you find offense.

I think this thread illustrates how a lot of the AH community feel on the issue.

Links234

boneyarsebogman wrote: »

The problem with issues that are against what is considered as the "norm" (as they currently stand), such as transgender, homosexuality, or many others, is that you'll always get ignorance towards it. Banning the discussion of these topics will likely do more harm than good towards the eventual goal, which I would imagine is acceptance?

Couldn't agree more, I think what helps a lot is to nornalize these things, so that when they think of a gay person for example, they don't think of 'that puff off the telly' or whatever negative stereotype they have, they think that its someone's son, brother, friend. Same with trans people, I think a polite reminder that there are indeed trans posters on boards has gone a lot further to humanize us than banning the discussion could ever do. I think a great majority of AH users are pretty cool about trans issues, and I've often seen people change their minds completely when engaging in these threads. The mods have also done a good job of reigning in some particularly belligerent trolls who targeted trans threads.

Links234

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I think this thread illustrates how a lot of the AH community feel on the issue.

Damn! I sure was a happy bunny! ah gots mah titty skittles a while after that

Annasopra

I think trans posters should not feel that they cannot post in any forum on boards.ie. (banning T discussions in AH might in fact make trans posters more uncomfortable to go in there. ) I can see why Itzy suggested this and I certainly sympathise with what Itzy is saying but I think Links makes some good arguments in response. The point made by Micky Dolenz is actually very important. If you find something offensive then report it.

I think sometimes posters can in some threads say stuff that is arguably ok but borderline offensive/transphobic. It's kind of a low level trolling that it can be hard to identify as trolling and/or transphobia.

I think Links is right - just going in there and pointing out that trans people are human beings with feelings reading these posts can often calm things down. Open discussion can be a good thing.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747589

"There is no willy."

I find the title suggestively transphobic. It sets the scene for ridicule and flippancy towards transgender issues. It'll go down the drain eventually.

I don't find an issue with discussing Lana Wachowski and her transition on AH I just have an issue with the way the OP and the title are worded.

In reply to the thread in After Hours:

There is a big difference between making light of something and actually being transphobic.

In the post linked here only one of those borders on being transphobic, but I would guess that's more-so because of that poster being a troll rather than trying to be transphobic. Unfortunately you're always going to get those, especially on the internet.

In reference to the thread title being "There in no Willy" - it is not opening up for ridicule. It's a reference to the Matrix movies, in particular to a quote, "There is no Spoon", so it fitted the thread.

philologos

Itzy wrote: »

I refer to this thread specifically: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056747589, the latest in a line of threads on the topic.

I want to raise the issue, Should trans issues be discussed in AH, when we have a perfectly good LGBT forum for that purpose? Topics such as Soccer and Politics are banned from the likes of AH and R&R, Why not LGBT topics also, since there is forums for that purpose.

Anything should be able to be discussed in AH. If we moved every thread about political parties in AH to politics, or every thread about Christianity to Christianity, every thread about atheism to Atheism & Agnosticism and everything that touched on life in Dublin to the Dublin forum there wouldn't be any discussion left.

How do we decide what is and what is not appropriate for ridicule on After Hours also? Personally, I think ridiculing someones identity irrespective of what it is based on is obnoxious and rude, but I've encountered many posts which are obnoxious and rude in After Hours before.

Are the mods going to be consistent and make sure that this isn't the case on every issue, or just certain issues? Whatever is done, I think it should be consistent and right across the board rather than confined to certain issues.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

In reply to the thread in After Hours:

There is a big difference between making light of something and actually being transphobic.

In the post linked here only one of those borders on being transphobic, but I would guess that's more-so because of that poster being a troll rather than trying to be transphobic. Unfortunately you're always going to get those, especially on the internet.

In reference to the thread title being "There in no Willy" - it is not opening up for ridicule. It's a reference to the Matrix movies, in particular to a quote, "There is no Spoon", so it fitted the thread.

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

The general rule of thumb re: threads being moved is:
Soccer gets moved automatically, mainly because of the hard work that these threads can impose.
If the thread is a proper discussion on topics such as Christianity and Politics, then it gets moved to the relevant forum. It's easy to tell the difference between proper discussions and keyboard experts.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

While that's true, it's possible that anything you say could potentially offend someone.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

While that's true, it's possible that anything you say could potentially offend someone.

Say the director of the movie "Up the Creek" came out as gay. Would it be appropriate to make a thread with the title "Up the Bum" to discuss the director's coming out just because it's a clever reference to the movie he directed?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Say the director of the movie "Up the Creek" came out as gay. Would it be appropriate to make a thread with the title "Up the Bum" to discuss the director's coming out just because it's a clever reference to the movie?

I don't see what is offensive about "Up the Bum". Maybe that's me. There's a difference between a thread being called "Up the Bum" and "Director of Up the Bum now a f*ggot". One is a humorous reference, the other is actual homophobia.

This is going back to what I said previously, if you ban and/or regulate what a person says with regards a certain topic, in this case because you're worried about offending someone who might choose to be offended no matter what you say, is that it's actually a step back from solving ignorance.

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

I agree in principle, but I think it needs to be done with a fine line. People need to distinguish between a genuine ad-hominem and a genuine debate.

1) How far would you take it?
2) Where would you draw the lines?
3) Would you consistently apply this topic right across the board? (e.g if posters were saying bigoted and derogatory things about any other grouping in society?)
4) Would you agree that debate should be permitted on LGBT issues (including whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, or scepticism to transgender issues?)

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see what is offensive about "Up the Bum". Maybe that's me. There's a difference between a thread being called "Up the Bum" and "Director of Up the Bum now a f*ggot". One is a humorous reference, the other is actual homophobia.

This is going back to what I said previously, if you ban and/or regulate what a person says with regards a certain topic, in this case because you're worried about offending someone who might choose to be offended no matter what you say, is that it's actually a step back from solving ignorance.

Again, it's not up to you what an LGBT person would find offensive. I imagine most gay people would find a thread title such as "Up the Bum" offensive if it was in reference to someone's coming out. Calling a thread title "There is no willy" is no different.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I agree in principle, but I think it needs to be done with a fine line. People need to distinguish between a genuine ad-hominem and a genuine debate.

1) How far would you take it?
2) Where would you draw the lines?
3) Would you consistently apply this topic right across the board? (e.g if posters were saying bigoted and derogatory things about any other grouping in society?)
4) Would you agree that debate should be permitted on LGBT issues (including whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, or scepticism to transgender issues?)

1 & 2) I'm not entirely sure, because I wouldn't be interested in political or Christian discussions, so I'm not the right person to ask.
3) If this was the case, then rather being moved, it would be locked in whatever forum it was currently in, because the rules on most forum charters would include don't be a dick, so being bigoted or saying derogatory things would fit into this.
4) Of course it should be allowed. Again, if you limit discussions, you'll likely be doing more damage than good. Discussions bring forward understanding and knowledge. Understand and knowledge lessens ignorance, though you're always going to get people that will be trolls/ignorant/assholes, so there's not much anyone can do.

Yes, it's not up to me to determine what one person finds offensive, but if you worry about that, then you are going to completely quash any chance of conversations, thus negating this website's purpose. If a person chooses to be offended, then they'll be offended regardless of what you say.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

philologos wrote: »

I agree in principle, but I think it needs to be done with a fine line. People need to distinguish between a genuine ad-hominem and a genuine debate.

1) How far would you take it?
2) Where would you draw the lines?
3) Would you consistently apply this topic right across the board? (e.g if posters were saying bigoted and derogatory things about any other grouping in society?)
4) Would you agree that debate should be permitted on LGBT issues (including whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, or scepticism to transgender issues?)

In terms of discussing LGBT issues, I have no problem with it. However, I think that the debate ought to be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset, regardless of what your views on LGBT issue are. For example, having a discussion on LGBT issue on a thread with the title "The is no willy" is completely inappropriate.

I would take a similar approach to most other issue. If there is a bigoted or derogatory comment about, say, people of different ethnic/racial backgrounds, then clearly it needs to be addressed in a similar fashion. E.g., just because you don't find calling a Chinese person a "chink" offensive doesn't mean a Chinese person shouldn't be offended, and so on.

If you want to discuss something like whether or not sexuality is biologically determined I think you ought to recognise and respect the fact that sexuality is not a choice, the same goes for transgenderism. There's nothing wrong with discussing their origins as long as you don't judge or be disrespectful to others.

Thing is you can't really compare saying "There is no Willy" to calling a Chinese person a chink or whatever else. Rather than choosing to be offended, you should take the opportunity to find humour in it.

Had the person that created the thread and called "There is no Willy" was a transgendered person, would you be equally as offended? Or the "Up the Bum" was a gay person, would you be up in arms?

Gummy Panda

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's not up to you to say what a transgender person finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the thread title was in reference to a Matrix movie, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.

If people keep getting offended by every little thing posted in AH, we'll have nothing left to talk about except the weather. And we have a forum for that!

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

In terms of discussing LGBT issues, I have no problem with it. However, I think that the debate ought to be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset, regardless of what your views on LGBT issue are. For example, having a discussion on LGBT issue on a thread with the title "The is no willy" is completely inappropriate.

Do you think any issue should be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset?

I think the best policy is to look to all issues and apply this policy instead of making rules specific to particular subjects.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I would take a similar approach to most other issue. If there is a bigoted or derogatory comment about, say, people of different ethnic/racial backgrounds, then clearly it needs to be addressed in a similar fashion. E.g., just because you don't find calling a Chinese person a "chink" offensive doesn't mean a Chinese person shouldn't be offended, and so on.

I've seen people post rather bigoted stuff about people from religious groups differing to their own on After Hours. Do you think this should be dealt with in a similar manner to the above topics?

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

If you want to discuss something like whether or not sexuality is biologically determined I think you ought to recognise and respect the fact that sexuality is not a choice, the same goes for transgenderism. There's nothing wrong with discussing their origins as long as you don't judge or be disrespectful to others.

I think it should be up for discussion. Much in the same way as I think that atheists should be free to openly disagree with the claims of faith groups without attacking individuals, or making bigoted claims about faith groups.

Much in this manner, I think it should be open to discuss the factors behind sexuality (there is no reason to suggest that it is biologically hardwired) or transgenderism as long as it is done with the respect that is deserved in that discussion.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Gummy Panda wrote: »

If people keep getting offended by every little thing posted in AH, we'll have nothing left to talk about except the weather. And we have a forum for that!

It's easy for you to say that if you're not transgender, but someone who is may find it a title such as "there is no willy" extremely offensive. Remember, it's people's identity you're dealing with, it's far from being pedantic.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It's easy for you to say that if you're not transgender, but someone who is may find it a title such as "there is no willy" extremely offensive. Remember, it's people's identity you're dealing with, it's far from being pedantic.

My point of whether the person was transgendered or not still stands. It's very likely that someone that is transgender could find something like "There is no Willy" funny. You tell me I can't decide what someone finds offensive. You, in turn, can't decide what someone finds funny.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

philologos wrote: »

Do you think any issue should be discussed only from a position of respect from the outset?

I think the best policy is to look to all issues and apply this policy instead of making rules specific to particular subjects.

Look, it should be very simply put, if you're discussing things like LGBT rights, people of different ethnic background or people of different religious conventions, etc., then perhaps a certain level of decorum and respect is needed as you are dealing with real people's identities. You don't have to make specific rules for specific subjects, it should be universal. If you wanted to discuss something about Chinese people, you're not going to have a thread with the word "chink" in the title, or if you have a thread on something to do with Jews you shouldn't have a phrase like "snipped cock" in the OP, and so on. It's disrespectful and offensive.

philologos wrote: »

I've seen people post rather bigoted stuff about people from religious groups differing to their own on After Hours. Do you think this should be dealt with in a similar manner to the above topics?

Yes.

philologos wrote: »

I think it should be up for discussion. Much in the same way as I think that atheists should be free to openly disagree with the claims of faith groups without attacking individuals, or making bigoted claims about faith groups.

Much in this manner, I think it should be open to discuss the factors behind sexuality (there is no reason to suggest that it is biologically hardwired) or transgenderism as long as it is done with the respect that is deserved in that discussion.

Yes, as long as it is respectful. I think mods need to give a firm eye on the wording of OPs and the thread titles and be able to gauge whether or not the thread will go out of hand from the outset as the first thing people read when their introduced to a new thread are the thread title and the OP.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

In reply to the thread in After Hours:

There is a big difference between making light of something and actually being transphobic.

In the post linked here only one of those borders on being transphobic, but I would guess that's more-so because of that poster being a troll rather than trying to be transphobic. Unfortunately you're always going to get those, especially on the internet.

In reference to the thread title being "There in no Willy" - it is not opening up for ridicule. It's a reference to the Matrix movies, in particular to a quote, "There is no Spoon", so it fitted the thread.

I'll be honest, I found some of the comments to be quite transphobic, and downright hurtful even. But that's not really what this thread is about, it's about whether or not these threads should even be allowed to take place at all.

Interesting bit of trivia about The Matrix though, did you know that the character of Switch was meant to be played by two actors, one male and one female, where one actor portrayed the real world character and the other the character's perception of themselves inside the matrix, hence the name switch. But this was cut from the script because the producers thought it might be confusing for audiences.