Trans Threads in AH

Links234

Links234 wrote: »

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.

It would have been somewhat confusing though from the onset.

Outside of Confab, who it could be said was being a troll, which comments did you find offensive?

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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.

I think this rule is already in the charter for any discussion. It's up to the moderators to ensure that they are enforcing the charter, and indeed it's up to posters on After Hours to report posts.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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.

I agree. I'm just making sure that your suggestion won't stifle genuine discussion on either.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Who is to say that some black people don't find the 'n' word offensive? It's not the point, most probably would. Similar most transgender people would find words such as "tranny", "shemale", or flippant references to their genitalia offensive, it doesn't mean that all would, but most would.

If there was a tragic plane crash and there was a thread on AH about it and then you decided to joke about it, do you think the moderator has a right to kick you off the thread because you thought it was funny and no-one else did? Of course. The fact is, it's inappropriate, it doesn't matter whether you find it funny or not.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

Outside of Confab, who it could be said was being a troll, which comments did you find offensive?

I think what I may or may not have found offensive is immaterial to the discussion, which is whether or not there should be effectively a blanket ban on all these threads. My point is that while I do have issues with that thread, that in no way should trans related threads in general be forbidden, and that such a ban could in effect make transgender boards users feel as if they are persona non grata here.

Annasopra

Links234 wrote: »

I think what I may or may not have found offensive is immaterial to the discussion, which is whether or not there should be effectively a blanket ban on all these threads. My point is that while I do have issues with that thread, that in no way should trans related threads in general be forbidden, and that such a ban could in effect make transgender boards users feel as if they are persona non grata here.

I think that for people to understand why Itzy suggested a ban in the first place that perhaps a discussion on what was offensive in that thread might be material to this discussion.

mango salsa

mango salsa wrote: »

I think that for people to understand why Itzy suggested a ban in the first place that perhaps a discussion on what was offensive in that thread might be material to this discussion.

I was about to come back and suggest that. As someone who is neither gay or transgendered, it is hard for me to tell what someone might deem as offensive, if it is not blatant. The comments Links suggested were offensive might have been something that I found humourous.

The reason I asked what you found offensive was so that I could make an attempt to try and understand it, in an effort to not be ignorant, which I admittedly am with regards to these issues.

minidazzler

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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.

Offense is something that has to be intended. Taking offence to something is a choice if it's something that was not meant in a harmful manner.

Of the 6 posts you called transphobic the only ones that actually were were posts 3 and 4. The others are jokes. Telling trans jokes is not the same thing as hating trans people or being afraid of them. It may be bad taste but it doesn't mean the joker hates you.

I'm sure there are a few posters on here who do hate Trans people, but you'll find that everywhere you can't stifle discussion just because some bigoted piece of sh1t might offend someone.

There is no Willy is an obvious and blatant reference to a movie Wachowski directed, it's relevant.

The only reason the thread was there in the first place anyway is because she is famous, so maybe it should have gone to celebrities? Why specifically should it go to trans only? There are other factors to consider.

That said, AH is right for it.

I think the biggest problem with this is that what is humourous and offensive is sometimes completely subjective of the person and how they decide to take it up, unless it is a blatant attempt at being offensive or crude; in the previous example, one person could see "There is no Willy" as humourous, given that it is in reference to something, while one person could see it as offensive, because it is in reference to a particular person. Yet calling a transgendered person a trannie or a gay person a f*ggot is a blatant attempt at being offensive and has absolutely no humour in it at all.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well right now, so that sentence possibly didn't make much sense.

minidazzler

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the biggest problem with this is that what is humourous and offensive is sometimes completely subjective of the person and how they decide to take it up, unless it is a blatant attempt at being offensive or crude; in the previous example, one person could see "There is no Willy" as humourous, given that it is in reference to something, while one person could see it as offensive, because it is in reference to a particular person. Yet calling a transgendered person a trannie or a gay person a f*ggot is a blatant attempt at being offensive and has absolutely no humour in it at all.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well right now, so that sentence possibly didn't make much sense.

It makes sense alright.

Offensive statement made to incite violence or hatred - Ban it

Offensive statement made to denigrate a person or group - Ban it

Humorous statement made that can be seen as offensive - Case by case, but generally allowed.

If people weren't allowed make any statements on here that might offend some people then there would be fcuk all discussed.

I'm a huge fan of free speech, but realise this is a privately run website so free speech technically doesn't exist. But neither does censorship for the most part. You can't ban all humour related to potentially offensive topics that's not how the world works. You can ban outright dickery, but not stifle discussion to spare someones feelings.

And as my last before I step out of this; AH is the stuff you talk about in a pub*, a famous director getting a sex change is just the type of thing that would be talked about there.



*My personal opinion is Religion and Politics should not be talked about in the pub

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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. ..........

So when you were posting "die unions die!!!!!" along with a video of a guillotine in the "Public sector unions" thread, it was with decorum and respect?

L.Jenkins

Why start a thread and fail to respond. To be honest, I was sitting patiently, reading much of the replies that ensued.

The whole issue I have with posting Trans topics is not the people who genuinely want to talk about it and poke some harmless fun out of it, but some people who are genuinely fúcking nasty and back handed.

I suppose I started this thread not to have the topic banned from AH, but to raise such points as stealth trolling and those who tempt people into debate with the idea of decending the whole thread into choas by causing offense.

And as pointed out during the thread, some people might take offense to different things. I can certainly take a joke and there is a humourous side to the thread, but some comments may have gone a bit too far.

Nodin

On any forum with a few hundred users, you can start a thread on weather, plants, cats - anything - and lo and behold, a few gobshites will appear.

Humour, as often stated here, is a very personal thing. Just because somebody thinks its unfunny, doesn't mean it is, or that its an insult.

LoLth

I dont think any ONE poster on boards has a right to decide what is and is not universally offensive or acceptable for a group of RL individuals. What you find funny, another may find abhorrent, what you use as a standard internet meme another may take as a personal insult.

If you have a problem with a post, report it to the mods.

The mods are made mods because we trust in their ability to differentiate between deliberate insult and personal opinion and we try to help all users maintain a level of posting that at least hovers above the "internet troll/arsehole/bigotted gasbag", unfortunately we cant pro-actively stop this category of poster from poster, we need to react to it which will be done faster if people report the posts they find offensive.

Now, just because you find a post to be offensive, doesnt mean it is actually outside of the realms of acceptable discussion on boards.ie , maybe the individual reporting the post is too sensitive to certian topics to participate in discussions with anonymous* internet people who have a layer of abstraction between them and their audience allowing them to say things that they would never, ever, say to someone's face.

IMHO (and not with an admin hat on) , ANYTHING should be up for discussion on a relevant forum unless its illegal in the real world (injunctions / inside details of a court case / slanderous accusations etc). As Nodin says, you cant stop the gob****es from appearing and trying to get a reaction from the crowd but we can try to ensure they only get to do it once and that the price of such attention is as high as possible. If I want to discuss racism, I should be able to as long as that discussion stays within acceptable levels and stays on topic. If if descends into users posting their racist ideals or encouraging/inciting racial hatred, then those posts should be dealt with appropriately and in a manner that shows boards.ie's disapproval. Similarly, if I want to discuss a Wachowski Brother becoming a Wachowski Sister then I should be able to do so, even with a bit of light humour. To me, its not the discussion thats the issue, its the off topic ****e that gets posted in any of these threads that I have an issue with, the seagull posters that post something "witty" and completely off topic in an attempt to get attention. For example, a thread about a transgender individual who is very much in the public eye and a moron takes it as an opportunity to soapbox about their opinion of transgender people as a whole - thats off topic, its not a post about the public figure. The same logic could be applied to any subject imho and would cut down the insulting/offensive posts, it wouldnt eliminate them.

As already said, humour is subjective BUT if something can be joked about, surely thats better than it being ignored or taboo ? It's at least being noticed by the public and its being brought to the attention of readers who were probably unaware of its existence beforehand. Its the fine line between a humorous comment and a mocking statement that needs to be observed.

I am not saying that its OK to poke fun at any minority. I am saying that in the interests of equality, all minorities and majorities should be equally open to humour and all should be equally protected from abuse.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

I was about to come back and suggest that. As someone who is neither gay or transgendered, it is hard for me to tell what someone might deem as offensive, if it is not blatant. The comments Links suggested were offensive might have been something that I found humourous.

The reason I asked what you found offensive was so that I could make an attempt to try and understand it, in an effort to not be ignorant, which I admittedly am with regards to these issues.

Well first of all "offensive" isn't really a very useful term because what's offensive or not is completely subjective, I mean to some people I am offensive. and this is true, to some people my very being offends their sensibilities, but you know what I say to that?



I think hurtful is a more useful term in this situation. and I could point towards specific comments, but I won't because it's not any one comment that makes the thread hurtful, it's the whole thread itself. It's the idea of "Hey, this person is transgender! LOLOLOLOLOL!" that's problematic, you know? and if you happen to be trans, it's hard not to read that as being transgender itself is a joke, and that's certainly hurtful. I still think my response seemed to work because there was only one crass comment after that.

Calhoun

LoLth wrote: »

As already said, humour is subjective BUT if something can be joked about, surely thats better than it being ignored or taboo ? It's at least being noticed by the public and its being brought to the attention of readers who were probably unaware of its existence beforehand. Its the fine line between a humorous comment and a mocking statement that needs to be observed.

I am not saying that its OK to poke fun at any minority. I am saying that in the interests of equality, all minorities and majorities should be equally open to humour and all should be equally protected from abuse.

This thread and the quote above reminds me of the episode of south park and the sea manatees (Cartoon wars), the writers are talking about free speech and what happens when we make something taboo. To paraphrase either everything is open for discussion or nothing is.

This is important to remember because in my view after hours is the all inclusive forum, everything within reason is up for discussion and as such is a useful tool for educating the masses (or as mass as AH gets).

Personally in the past I would not know much about trans issues and would have prejudged to an extent. However seeing this discussed in AH has gone a long way in challenging my own misconceptions and although sometimes i feel some folks come across too preachy or to harsh the open debate about it is good.

If these threads are moved to the LGBT forums/sub forum the chance to educate and be included would be lost as you would move it back into its own little domain.

mcmoustache

Calhoun wrote: »

Personally in the past I would not know much about trans issues and would have prejudged to an extent. However seeing this discussed in AH has gone a long way in challenging my own misconceptions and although sometimes i feel some folks come across too preachy or to harsh the open debate about it is good.

If these threads are moved to the LGBT forums/sub forum the chance to educate and be included would be lost as you would move it back into its own little domain.

I'd be the same. Some of Links123's threads on the topic have been really eye-opening for me.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

So when you were posting "die unions die!!!!!" along with a video of a guillotine in the "Public sector unions" thread, it was with decorum and respect?

The organisations, not individuals within.

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

The organisations, not individuals within.

'It's not up to you to say what a public service union member finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the comment was in reference to an organisation, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.'
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80674129&postcount=17
You see how that works?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

'It's not up to you to say what a public service union member finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the comment was in reference to an organisation, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.'
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80674129&postcount=17
You see how that works?

Nah, you can choose to be a member of an union or most other organisations. You don't have a choice in the matter when it comes to things like race/ethnicity, your sexuality or if you're transgender or cisgender. There's a difference. That wasn't in reference to any organisation, maybe I'll minus religion because religion is a choice most of the time. To be honest, bringing up what I said about unions or any other organisation in any other thread is just detracting a little from the actual subject at hand and doesn't really take away from the validity of what I said on this thread earlier. Judge my comments on this thread based on their truths/merits, not on what I said in a completely unrelated thread. That, I believe, is a straw man. Just because I may be a bit hypocritical in some instances doesn't mean what I have said on this thread so far should be shot down. Perhaps my comments here ought to be said by someone else, but they're certainly valid.

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Nah, you can choose to be a member of an union or most other organisations.......

So its ok to offend people by slagging off their choices then?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

So its ok to offend people by slagging off their choices then?

If it's a stupid choice that effects other people (and yes, unions do effect others as you may have noticed) then I don't see a problem with it. It's different when you come to things that you have no choice in and you being that way isn't a fault of your own or anyone else's.

There's a fine line between choice and no choice. Elementary really. Perhaps you'd like to get back to the topic at hand and quit these pathetic cheap shots at me. We aren't discussing unions here.

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

If it's a stupid choice that effects other people (and yes, unions do effect others as you may have noticed) then I don't see a problem with it. It's different when you come to things that you have no choice in and you being that way isn't a fault of your own or anyone else's.

There's a fine line between choice and no choice. Elementary really. Perhaps you'd like to get back to the topic at hand and quit these pathetic cheap shots at me. We aren't discussing unions here.

We're discussing attitudes. You seem quiet trenchant about it not being for others to tell people what they should and shouldn't find offensive, but are here doing this yourself.

Considering that people have dedicated their lives to the Union movement, don't you find your statement "perhaps a certain level of decorum and respect is needed as you are dealing with real people's identities" a tad hypocritical?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

We're discussing attitudes. You seem quiet trenchant about it not being for others to tell people what they should and shouldn't find offensive, but are here doing this yourself.

Considering that people have dedicated their lives to the Union movement, don't you find your statement "perhaps a certain level of decorum and respect is needed as you are dealing with real people's identities" a tad hypocritical?

If someone decides to dedicate their lives to the Union movement, that's their choice, no-one elses so please don't policitise or hijack this thread with that nonsense. I could make similar arguments about business owners dedicating their lives to their trade only to be bogged down by bureaucracy of Union influenced red tape in government, or something along those lines.

Or, perhaps when Unions try and foul mouthing capitalism and/or businesses, who should or should not be offended in that case. Your argument is a slippery slope. Shall we make a similar arguments for those who "dedicate their lives" to the Nazi Party?

Or how about different political parties foul mouthing or "offending" each other. What if Labour packs cheap snide shots at Fine Gael or vice versa? Who should or should not be offended?

To be honest, being a transgender and/or gay/bi person is completely different from being a Union member or a member of a political party. Please don't try and associate the two.

This thread is about those who don't have choices in their respective identities.

PC CDROM

Society decides what is acceptable.

Pleases adjust your policy's to suit.

Thanks.

You being society btw. Are we there yet? One love and all that?

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

If someone(.............) their respective identities.

So we can forget all about the "level of decorum and respect" thats needed when "you are dealing with real people's identities" when it suits?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

So we can forget all about the "level of decorum and respect" thats needed when "you are dealing with real people's identities" when it suits?

What level of decorum and respect would you offer a Neo-Nazi if he/she came onto AH to offer his/her opinions?

Now I thought I clarified myself on this earlier but I shall do so again for you, Nodin; I meant identities such as sexual identities, gender identities and/or race/ethnicity, not secondary identities such as political and religious leanings which are mere choices and are not necessary permanent. I know I said earlier that religious identities ought to receive the same unanimous respect and decorum, but thinking about it religion is just an individual choice, in the same way political opinions are just an individual choice, and therefore shouldn't be given priority treatment, sorry philologos.

Now please stop beating around the bush and get back on with the topic at hand, i.e., transgender related threads in AH, instead of trying to prove some belated point of yours just because I said someone against your precious Unions. Political opinions are fluid and can change over time, but race/ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity cannot.

At this point, I think maybe mods could intervene to make sure that this thread doesn't continue to go off topic, because the topic at hand is so much more important than my little debacle with Nodin over what I said about Unions on AH.

philologos

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

So we can forget all about the "level of decorum and respect" thats needed when "you are dealing with real people's identities" when it suits?

What level of decorum and respect would you offer a Neo-Nazi if he/she came onto AH to offer his/her opinions?

Now I thought I clarified myself on this earlier but I shall do so again for you, Nodin; I meant identities such as sexual identities, gender identities and/or race/ethnicity, not secondary identities such as political and religious leanings which are mere choices and are not necessary permanent. I know I said earlier that religious identities ought to receive the same unanimous respect and decorum, but thinking about it religion is just an individual choice, in the same way political opinions are just an individual choice, and therefore shouldn't be given priority treatment, sorry philologos.

Now please stop beating around the bush and get back on with the topic at hand, i.e., transgender related threads in AH, instead of trying to prove some belated point of yours just because I said someone against your precious Unions. Political opinions are fluid and can change over time, but race/ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity cannot.

At this point, I think maybe mods could intervene to make sure that this thread doesn't continue to go off topic, because the topic at hand is so much more important than my little debacle with Nodin over what I said about Unions on AH.

I disagree. At all times there should be an attitude of respect in discussion. Its the job of the mods to ensure that.

Sexual identities and gender identity and so on shouldn't be regarded as any more important than any other identity. By all means criticise Islam, Christianity, the philosophies surrounding atheism and LGBT issues. There are philosophies behind these discussions and I don't believe any topics should be sacred cows on boards.ie. I don't expect boards.ie to champion my views, just to give a platform to discuss them. Likewise I wouldn't want boards.ie championing any other point of view.

As soon as one makes bigoted comments about any grouping, claiming that as humans they are inferior or so on. Then lines need to be drawn.

Nodin

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

What level (.........)what I said about Unions on AH.

It's not that you mentioned unions, its that you did the exact opposite of what you're advocating here.

So essentially what you want is protection for your herd of sacred cows, but none for other peoples. Thus "decorum and respect" go out the window when it suits you.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Nodin wrote: »

It's not that you mentioned unions, its that you did the exact opposite of what you're advocating here.

So essentially what you want is protection for your herd of sacred cows, but none for other peoples. Thus "decorum and respect" go out the window when it suits you.

Perhaps, but as has to be drill into you head Nodin, it's completely different when you're talking about things where there isn't choice involved.

philologos

It's hard not to agree with Nodin when he's clearly identified an inconsistency in your argument. There should be no topic held up as a sacred cow. Criticism and debate should be encouraged. Ad-hominems shouldn't be.