Gender identity thread

km991148

I just want to throw something in here - I am one of the people who report the most no doubt. I have reported "both sides" as I would rather see off topic or offensive stuff actioned by the mods rather than drag the thread off in tangents. I don't think this is a campaign against one view point to even an attempt to close the thread down (the only such attempt is the recent on that's happened here in the last few pages).

I'd rather see civil debate.

I'd also like to point out - biology isn't the only science involved in this debate. Many other fields come into it and even biology itself is able to change (The scientific method doesn't exclude this). Any science is a moving target as new information and thoughts are discovered... its not like we are still fearful of walking off the edge of the planet now, is it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Just to clarify something:

It is NOT true that a UK judge ruled TERF to be a slur. This is misinformation.

That UK judge gave the opinion that it’s a slur. Though personally, I don’t need a judge to tell me what to think here. A prominent transgender rights activist rather gave themselves away lately by asking in a tweet what the term for a male TERF was. I thought this term wasn’t aimed at females?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Just to clarify something:

It is NOT true that a UK judge ruled TERF to be a slur. This is misinformation.[/QUOTE/]

Where is the misinformation that you have claimed ?

District Judge John Woollard acknowledged 'Terf' as a derogatory word aimed at, primarily, gender critical women. (Basildon Magistrate's Court on 01/03/2019 REGINA vs YARDLEY).

STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND:

Dundee Councillor Gregor Murray was suspended after the Commission found Murray "abused the complainer by referring to her as a TERF (a pejorative term which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’)."

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That UK judge gave the opinion that it’s a slur. Though personally, I don’t need a judge to tell me what to think here. A prominent transgender rights activist rather gave themselves away lately by asking in a tweet what the term for a male TERF was. I thought this term wasn’t aimed at females?

It is only aimed at females.


And a specific subsection of females who would consider themselves to be radical feminists at that.


Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. It is an acronym.

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That UK judge gave the opinion that it’s a slur. Though personally, I don’t need a judge to tell me what to think here. A prominent transgender rights activist rather gave themselves away lately by asking in a tweet what the term for a male TERF was. I thought this term wasn’t aimed at females?

Suppose when posters sit in denial of everything while spamming the report buttons what's else is even worth discussing with certain types

CtevenSrowder

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

To add to Tokyo's post above, misgendering is the act of labeling others with a gender that does not match their gender identity. We have been over this before and it is not permitted, simple as.

With regards to your questioning about using Boards as a platform for research, AllForIt, please bear in mind that there are real people behind the usernames that engage on thread (and those that don't), each with their own challenges and experiences. Some may be more willing to share their own personal experiences and you may get to see the world through their eyes briefly. I wouldn't say that Boards is necessarily the best platform for research (where you ask a question and get an answer), but instead is a place where you can share time with people from all sorts of backgrounds and walks of life and perhaps gain a greater understanding of what it is like to be that person.

To anyone interested in participating within the thread in question, if there are posts that contravene the rules of the forum and/or site, please report them. There are some rules set out in the opening post and Tokyo has indicated that opinions can be discussed civilly.

So why is labelling someone 'cis' acceptable. Many in the thread don't identify as a cis-man or cis male, and reject its usage, and if someone labels them as such, then they are misgendering them. Yet that is permitted. Why?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is only aimed at females.


And a specific subsection of females who would consider themselves to be radical feminists at that.


Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. It is an acronym.

That's a bit silly.

If you can't define female yet consider all feminists as female?

You're getting lost in a word salad there.

Terf can apply to men and women.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That UK judge gave the opinion that it’s a slur. Though personally, I don’t need a judge to tell me what to think here. A prominent transgender rights activist rather gave themselves away lately by asking in a tweet what the term for a male TERF was. I thought this term wasn’t aimed at females?

Can you link to the judgement?

Or a news story from a reputable source?

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

Just to clarify something:

It is NOT true that a UK judge ruled TERF to be a slur. This is misinformation.

Where is the misinformation that you have claimed ?

District Judge John Woollard acknowledged 'Terf' as a derogatory word aimed at, primarily, gender critical women. (Basildon Magistrate's Court on 01/03/2019 REGINA vs YARDLEY).

STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND:

Dundee Councillor Gregor Murray was suspended after the Commission found Murray "abused the complainer by referring to her as a TERF (a pejorative term which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’)."

What you are quoting is a tweet. Tweets are not facts. Can you confirm with a reputable source?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you link to the judgement?

Or a news story from a reputable source?

It was posted twice in the main thread which you then repeatedly denied was said

Bannasidhe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a bit silly.

If you can't define female yet consider all feminists as female?

You're getting lost in a word salad there.

Terf can apply to men and women.

Given that Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists believe they can define female take it up with them.
And if you think they would accept anyone they consider male to be a radical feminist you might get them to explain their version of feminism too.

Now, I was simply explaining in the context of this thread what TERF means. I'm not here to be the focus for you to continue your word salad bickering.
This is the help desk thread. Clarifying the terms used given they seem to be upsetting people is relevant.

As for 'cis' while it's a bit of a blah word that is also a shorthand way of saying 'identifies as the gender assigned at birth '. It's an adjective not an invective.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

It was posted twice in the main thread which you then repeatedly denied was said

No Gatling you never posted a link to a reputable source because there is none. At no point did a judge say this or anything like it.

But you can easily prove me wrong by posting this official source you claim to have posted twice in the main thread. So please do so.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists believe they can define female take it up with them.
And if you think they would accept anyone they consider male to be a radical feminist you might get them to explain their version of feminism too.

Now, I was simply explaining in the context of this thread what TERF means. I'm not here to be the focus for you to continue your word salad bickering.
This is the help desk thread. Clarifying the terms used given they seem to be upsetting people is relevant.

As for 'cis' while it's a bit of a blah word that is also a shorthand way of saying 'identifies as the gender assigned at birth '. It's an adjective not an invective.

Female is a word that has gotten its meaning through scientific endevour. It has a precise meaning as a result. Same as male. Can you tell us what the new definition should be, that a) doesn't either appeal to stereotype or b) render the word meaningless, in order to be trans-inclusive.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists believe they can define female take it up with them.
And if you think they would accept anyone they consider male to be a radical feminist you might get them to explain their version of feminism too.

Now, I was simply explaining in the context of this thread what TERF means. I'm not here to be the focus for you to continue your word salad bickering.
This is the help desk thread. Clarifying the terms used given they seem to be upsetting people is relevant.

As for 'cis' while it's a bit of a blah word that is also a shorthand way of saying 'identifies as the gender assigned at birth '. It's an adjective not an invective.

This indeed a feedback thread.

Cis gendered. That implies that via is a gender.

And a male can be a feminist so TERF isn't explicitly referencing females.

I won't address you any more.

Again I ask the mods, there is obviously more a discussion to be had, and I hope that some sort of amnesty, allowing all good faith posters return to the thread, with clear guidelines of what is allowed and not allowed, would be considered.

Otherwise you may as well close down this help desk thread

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

No Gatling you never posted a link to a reputable source

Yes I did .

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is only aimed at females.


And a specific subsection of females who would consider themselves to be radical feminists at that.


Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. It is an acronym.

You regard only females as feminists according to the above? I mean, I guffaw inwardly whenever anyone calls themselves a male feminist (because LOL) but I don’t tell them they can’t be one. Interesting. Well, at least we have some acknowledgment here that the term is pointed.

However, another forum member pointed out that the term TERF makes little sense.

TE = trans-exclusionary. But those of us interested in preserving female spaces want transgender men to be able to use them too. So that’s trans-exclusionary how exactly?

RF = radical feminist. Personally, I’m not a radical feminist or a feminist at all. I overlap with radical feminists on this topic. Many people who support the preservation of female spaces are men. Most or none of those men will be feminist. So the RF part makes the kind of sense that doesn’t too.

Therefore none of this moronic acronym makes sense at all when you think about it. It’s just something to spew at women, often by other women. But usually by the male of the species.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You regard only females as feminists according to the above? I mean, I guffaw inwardly whenever anyone calls themselves a male feminist (because LOL) but I don’t tell them they can’t be one. Interesting. Well, at least we have some acknowledgment here that the term is pointed.

However, another forum member pointed out that the term TERF makes little sense.

TE = trans-exclusionary. But those of us interested in preserving female spaces want transgender men to be able to use them too. So that’s trans-exclusionary how exactly?

RF = radical feminist. Personally, I’m not a radical feminist or a feminist at all. I overlap with radical feminists on this topic. Many people who support the preservation of female spaces are men. Most or none of those men will be feminist. So the RF part makes the kind of sense that doesn’t too.

Therefore none of this moronic acronym makes sense at all when you think about it. It’s just something to spew at women, often by other women. But usually by the male of the species.

This is a helpdesk thread so no point expecting me to get into a debate with you here.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Yes I did .

You did not.

And the fact that you're not posting one now is confirmation of that.

There are many reputable reports on that case and not one of them says what you claim. It's misinformation and should be deleted.

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Therefore none of this moronic acronym makes sense at all when you think about it. It’s just something to spew at women, often by other women. But usually by the male of the species.

Silencing women who don't agree while trying to delete women thats all it is

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

TE = trans-exclusionary. But those of us interested in preserving female spaces want transgender men to be able to use them too. So that’s trans-exclusionary how exactly?

I don't use terf and I don't really want to get into that. Context is key with any terminology.

I do find that highlighted part absolutely fascinating. If I understood correctly, the idea is that one cannot be anti trans because one wishes to include trans men in female spaces. A bit of a tricky situation, considering (I'd imagine) trans men are identifying as male because they no longer wish to be considered female. So they would only be included if their trans status was in fact denied.

I mean, please tell me I have made a mistake in that logic, because really that does not conpute.

EmmetSpiceland

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So why is labelling someone 'cis' acceptable. Many in the thread don't identify as a cis-man or cis male, and reject its usage, and if someone labels them as such, then they are misgendering them. Yet that is permitted. Why?

Why wouldn’t it be? Cis is a perfectly acceptable “identifier”. If you’re discussing trans then you need a cis.

It’s like if we were “discussing” homosexuals we would have identifiers such as heterosexuals, or straights. Using “normal”, as has been done, as the opposite to these is just crass and repugnant.

For what it’s worth, from what I’ve seen in the thread, both sides seem to have been sanctioned equally. The real “issue” is that one side is set in their beliefs. They can’t, or won’t, accept anything else and get quite angry, and aggressive, if anyone puts forward an alternate viewpoint. Then there’s a bit of a pile on until they back off.

Also, I thought Terf was just what feminists who didn’t like trans people called themselves, as a way to “distinguish” themselves from other, more general, feminists.

Would be great if the thread could continue in a civil fashion, with genuine discussion.

AllForIt

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

To add to Tokyo's post above, misgendering is the act of labeling others with a gender that does not match their gender identity. We have been over this before and it is not permitted, simple as.

With regards to your questioning about using Boards as a platform for research, AllForIt, please bear in mind that there are real people behind the usernames that engage on thread (and those that don't), each with their own challenges and experiences. Some may be more willing to share their own personal experiences and you may get to see the world through their eyes briefly. I wouldn't say that Boards is necessarily the best platform for research (where you ask a question and get an answer), but instead is a place where you can share time with people from all sorts of backgrounds and walks of life and perhaps gain a greater understanding of what it is like to be that person.

To anyone interested in participating within the thread in question, if there are posts that contravene the rules of the forum and/or site, please report them. There are some rules set out in the opening post and Tokyo has indicated that opinions can be discussed civilly.

Point taken Mark.

But at the same time, we haven't had much input from transgender people themselves. And neither have we had much input from those to claim to be derivatives of transgender, i.e. non-binary, gender-fluid etc.

So yes I am at times speaking randomly, 'thinking out loud'. But I would have thought that would be helpful, rather than not. I'm open to being corrected/informed, but not in an aggressive withering fashion. I am 'open-minded' which I was accused of not being, otherwise I would't pose such questions.

I think as long as one makes a point civilly and within the charter rules, one should be able say what they like. It's only a discussion forum, and if ppl are really sensitive, maybe this isn't the place for them. I don't get why anyone would be here if they weren't up for debate which can often can evoke some degree of emotion.

Tokyo

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The real “issue” is that one side is set in their beliefs. They can’t, or won’t, accept anything else and get quite angry, and aggressive, if anyone puts forward an alternate viewpoint. Then there’s a bit of a pile on until they back off.

This was my experience of moderating that thread, for what it's worth.

AllForIt wrote: »

I think as long as one makes a point civilly and within the charter rules, one should be able say what they like. It's only a discussion forum, and if ppl are really sensitive, maybe this isn't the place for them. I don't get why anyone would be here if they weren't up for debate which can often can evoke some degree of emotion.

As I said elsewhere on the site, I can promote a very civil and logical debate as to why it would be beneficial to exterminate all the humans in China and Asia because it would reduce the world population by about 25%, alleviate the strain on resources and ease social/political tensions and problems. It doesn’t change the fact that I’d be promoting genocide. You can "hate speech" without the hateful rhetoric.

That doesn't preclude discussion on sensitive topics, but to say that "as long as one makes a point civilly and within the charter rules" then we're still good, is reductive. There are plenty of “just innocently asking a question” posts that have the disguised (perhaps also to the poster) intention of proving that a class or group is inferior in some way.

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

Again I ask the mods, there is obviously more a discussion to be had, and I hope that some sort of amnesty, allowing all good faith posters return to the thread, with clear guidelines of what is allowed and not allowed, would be considered.

The reason so many people were banned from that thread is that they weren't good faith posters. I don't see the need to go back on that to be honest. What I would ask is that posters consider their style of posting more carefully moving forward.

People are looking for bright lines to be painted for them here, as if the fuzzy rules we have somehow led to this point. They didn't. We arrived at this point because some of the arguments put forward in that thread allows for a subset of posters can make the legitimate argument that "I’m not your toy who needs to prove it’s worth as a human." That's not okay.

I've spoken on this already. As has Mark. In very clear terms. There really aren't any other nuances to be explored here.

CtevenSrowder

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Why wouldn’t it be? Cis is a perfectly acceptable “identifier”. If you’re discussing trans then you need a cis.

It’s like if we were “discussing” homosexuals we would have identifiers such as heterosexuals, or straights. Using “normal”, as has been done, as the opposite to these is just crass and repugnant.

For what it’s worth, from what I’ve seen in the thread, both sides seem to have been sanctioned equally. The real “issue” is that one side is set in their beliefs. They can’t, or won’t, accept anything else and get quite angry, and aggressive, if anyone puts forward an alternate viewpoint. Then there’s a bit of a pile on until they back off.

Also, I thought Terf was just what feminists who didn’t like trans people called themselves, as a way to “distinguish” themselves from other, more general, feminists.

Would be great if the thread could continue in a civil fashion, with genuine discussion.

Because it's an incorrect identifier for those posters. It's misgendering. Which is purported to be against boards policy.

By your logic, saying a transwomen is a man should be fine as man is the correct identifier (as they are adult, human, and male).

As regards to being targeted equally. I agree that WAS the case. However, over the previous week, gruff, ODB, Thedunne, cestmoi, me have all been banned, and mostly for quite spurious reasons. Those supposed sanctions were all picked up but the infamous comment from bannhaisde (apologies for spelling) magically slipped through the net for nearly a week.

There was also an update to the mod OP that essentially made the discussion near impossible unless you towed the TRA line.

And again, the incessant claims against 'our side' of being anti-trans, transphobic, bigots are never actioned. Not that I really think they should, but since what is deemed acceptable is forever decreasing in the thread, the question is why is it only towards one side of the debate? It's a double standard.

Finally, to suggest only one side is set in their beliefs is quite simply laughable, and it's not as if you are an unbiased observor. Both sides are mostly set in their beliefs. One side, however, relies on usage of logic and scientific fact, whereas the other relies on belief and feeling. When it comes to law, their is of course room for the latter, however, when it comes to how things actually are, the former takes (or should, because it doesn't in that thread) take precedence.

GreeBo

Tokyo wrote: »

This was my experience of moderating that thread, for what it's worth.

It has not been my experience at all. What I have seen is that there are posters on both sides who are entrenched in their view and won't allow for a differing view to be raised.

Is honestly concerning that you would think only 1 side is the problem here and lends credence to the idea that the moderation is not balanced.

If this is what is desired, and it already exists in other fora, then move the thread to a trans space where only trans positive views are permitted and this problem goes away.

Tokyo

GreeBo wrote: »

It has not been my experience at all. What I have seen is that there are posters on both sides who are entrenched in their view and won't allow for a differing view to be raised.

Is honestly concerning that you would think only 1 side is the problem here and lends credence to the idea that the moderation is not balanced.

As a regular poster to the site, you have no visibility into what actions have taken place behind the scenes, or what discussions have been had over this between moderators. And considering you have posted prolifically in that thread, it's fair to say that confirmation bias might be a consideration there.

I didn't say "only 1 side is the problem here". But to say there wasn't a groundswell from one side on the day of posting that led to this thread is disingenuous.

GreeBo wrote: »

If this is what is desired, and it already exists in other fora, then move the thread to a trans space where only trans positive views are permitted and this problem goes away.

So by extrapolation, trans negative views should hold an equal place here??

Either way, why should we sequester the discussion away to a 'safe space'? Why shouldn't the site as a whole be a safe space for all while still facilitating discussion? If that's how you feel threads about a marginalized group of people should be treated, rather than making not unreasonable concessions, then you may want to ask yourself exactly why that is.

EmmetSpiceland

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because it's an incorrect identifier for those posters. It's misgendering. Which is purported to be against boards policy.

By your logic, saying a transwomen is a man should be fine as man is the correct identifier (as they are adult, human, and male).

As regards to being targeted equally. I agree that WAS the case. However, over the previous week, gruff, ODB, Thedunne, cestmoi, me have all been banned, and mostly for quite spurious reasons. Those supposed sanctions were all picked up but the infamous comment from bannhaisde (apologies for spelling) magically slipped through the net for nearly a week.

There was also an update to the mod OP that essentially made the discussion near impossible unless you towed the TRA line.

And again, the incessant claims against 'our side' of being anti-trans, transphobic, bigots are never actioned. Not that I really think they should, but since what is deemed acceptable is forever decreasing in the thread, the question is why is it only towards one side of the debate? It's a double standard.

Finally, to suggest only one side is set in their beliefs is quite simply laughable, and it's not as if you are an unbiased observor. Both sides are mostly set in their beliefs. One side, however, relies on usage of logic and scientific fact, whereas the other relies on belief and feeling. When it comes to law, their is of course room for the latter, however, when it comes to how things actually are, the former takes (or should, because it doesn't in that thread) take precedence.

But it’s not “incorrect”. If we are discussing trans then logic dictates there is cis. Without that it would get too confusing as we would not be able to tell if someone was referring to a transgender or a cisgender person.

No, that would be misgendering. But you already know that.

See, I would regard the equal targeting as having balanced out now. Previously, I would have seen a number of pro-trans users getting banned. But they weren’t banned for no reason, they would have broken site, or thread, rules. The idea that the mods, collectively, are taking a “side” is laughable.

The mods rely on either seeing a post that breaks the “rules” or a post gets reported. Can you honestly say that anyone has been banned without a reason. The best way to avoid a ban is post within the rules. From what I saw a number of posters ignored mod instructions, repeatedly, and got banned. As for one post being missed, come on, they got it in the end.

The rules are set, I don’t know what you want here. Be able to say whatever you want? In an ideal world but the rules are there and everyone has to abide by them. I would imagine that users with good disciplinary “records” might get more leeway than the rest of us but that’s understandable.

I would argue that science is not backing one side here. It seems that one side is steadfast in the belief that 1+1=2 but won’t stand for 1+1+1=3. I guess belief and feelings are not exclusive to any side but I would see the anti-trans side as also holding fear as a “cornerstone” to their belief.

km991148

I am prefixing this by saying I want discussion to continue, I really do, therefore I'm deliberately leaving out the he said she said stuff regarding the other posters. The mods can clarify who was banned, who quit and for what reasons.

Two technical points that I think are not quite true and are somewhat clouding the discussion.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because it's an incorrect identifier for those posters. It's misgendering. Which is purported to be against boards policy.

I think cis is sometimes required in a conversation about trans people as sometimes you need to differentiate. People want to identify as 'man' or 'woman' but no one is in denial that someone was born something else. Therefore sometime cis is required, and I don't think it's misgendering (it might be clumsy language, or language you don't like, but sometimes required on the wider context).

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Finally, to suggest only one side is set in their beliefs is quite simply laughable, and it's not as if you are an unbiased observor. Both sides are mostly set in their beliefs. One side, however, relies on usage of logic and scientific fact, whereas the other relies on belief and feeling. When it comes to law, their is of course room for the latter, however, when it comes to how things actually are, the former takes (or should, because it doesn't in that thread) take precedence.

Science doesn't cover only biology (and maybe more specifically biology of reproductive organs or chromosomes). There are other fields of science that follow the scientific method and I don't think you can argue on these lines alone (I.e. 'scientific fact'. i.e. your logic that only biological science is the only logic is somewhat illogical, especially given that scientific knowledge is not fixed. We observe, learn and our knowledge evolves.

km991148

One point on the warnings actually. I've received a few and also let a few personal attacks go. It's not all one sided in my opinion..