Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread
Hello everyone. I've closed the previous mod thread, and opened this to capture all issues related to moderation policies and actions going forward. I'll kick it off by reposting my intro post from the other thread. Again, I'm happy to be here and look forward to hearing from you.
Browser
Hello everyone.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to serve as a moderator in Politics and Society. I asked for this position because I believe we are experiencing a polarization in our politics and society unseen since the 1960s. We may well be at a juncture from which we will either make great progress or suffer great setbacks in regards to our democratic foundations and civil rights over the next few years. So I believe it is important to maintain a forum for discussing these important topics. When the other mods had to step back a bit due to their real life time obligations, I asked to join the mod team to help keep the forum going.
I have not followed this forum in the past, though I have been reading through threads the last few days and made a few posts. This has allowed me to get a sense of the initial impression the forum likely makes on new readers who are deciding if our forum is a place they would like to visit regularly and participate in. While I see some familiar names from the live poker forum, many of you I have not had any interaction with to date. I have no preconceived notions of anyone's posting behavior and will essentially start from a clean slate.
I will shortly post more about my modding approach and give my initial impressions of the forum based on my observations over the last several days. I will be soliciting your input on things you like about the forum that you want to remain, and things you don't like that you would like me to change. Your candid input and feedback is very important to me. Especially, please don't hesitate to let me know if you think a policy or a proposal is a bad idea. I'd rather hear it before it goes into effect than after.
My overall modding principle is simple: Be Nice. Disagreement need not be disrespectful, and everyone must be treated with respect. Calling a poster derogatory names or hurling snarky insults never usefully advances a discussion. It just bogs things down and turns off many would be participants. And it's not nice. Don't do it.
My goal is to have a forum where people with a wide variety of opinions along the political spectrum enjoy expressing and debating their views in a spirited manner, free from insults, bigotry and denigrating comments. If you enjoy discussing these important and often polarizing issues in a passionate, yet respectful manner, I look forward to getting to know you and working with you to create a forum people will enjoy visiting and contributing to. You can be as committed, determined and relentless as you like in advocating for your position. Be persuasive, thought provoking and challenging. But be nice.
I want to thank tame_deuces and King Spew for their support in bringing me onboard and for all the time and effort they have put into making the forum better. While I am taking over most of the day to day modding responsibilities, both are retaining their mod status and superpowers, and will be supporting the forum as their availability permits. And I personally welcome their continued advice and feedback.
Again, I am happy to be here and look forward to getting to know you.
Browser
When you have WPATH declaring eunuch a gender, then I think it's pretty clear that the activists have at least taken over some of the hen houses ..so he doesn't seem to be wrong. But those are our hen houses now so we have to listen to them..
What exactly is the big problem here?
Q: Why is there a WPATH chapter on eunuchs?
A: Based on what’s written in the Soc 8, the primary medical rationale for including eunuchs seems to be their risk of self-injury. Guideline 9.2 states “We recommend health care professionals consider medical intervention, surgical intervention, or both for eunuch individuals when there is a high risk that withholding treatment will cause individuals harm through self-surgery, surgery by unqualified practitioners, or unsupervised use of medications that affect hormones.” This section references a 2014 paper in the journal Nature which describes self-identified eunuchs and “eunuch wannabes” who self-castrated or intentionally injured their testicles in order to necessitate a surgical removal.
In other words, it’s a harm-reduction rationale.
Yeah, we all can't live in fantasyland where everything is a social construct and we spend all our time questioning the validity of people's death while birdwatching.
But I imagine that rule was created so that when the experts agree the yahoos like you don't just make up their own "facts".
Is it acceptable to not wish trans people to face discrimination and not have a problem with their preferred pronouns, but simultaneously not regard trans women or men as real women or men, indistinguishable from biological women and men? Or is that bannable?
Sometimes the rules work that way. At a trial, juries decide the facts and the credibility of witnesses, including experts.
However, if opposing experts agree on an expert opinion of a fact, like a brain injury is permanent, the jury isn't allowed to determine the injury isn't permanent.
The need for expertise and agreement by opposing experts allows the judge to tell the jury they must accept that certain fact as true.
We find ourselves
It looks like I wasn't making my point well. My only objection (probably too strong a word) was the use of "get to decide". Just because the organizations form an opinion doesn't make it so. Their only authority is what a consensus of relevant professionals give them. Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks it's a point worth making.
It looks like I wasn't making my point well. My only objection (probably too strong a word) was the use of "get to decide". Just because the organizations form an opinion doesn't make it so. Their only authority is what a consensus of relevant professionals give them. Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks it's a point worth making.
I wasn't really countering your point but I felt it was in a similar vein to my post.
I didn't weigh in the issue because I think there are plenty of political issues surrounding the integration of the transgender community that are worth discussing that don't require an analysis of the origin theories every time. We never get to these other issues because we always backtrack to mental illness/protect children/not real.
Is it acceptable to not wish trans people to face discrimination and not have a problem with their preferred pronouns, but simultaneously not regard trans women or men as real women or men, indistinguishable from biological women and men? Or is that bannable?
this, there's a number of people here who disagree that they "are their stated gender" while also respecting them and their given pronouns
i will call her lia thomas and be respectful towards her - but i can still say since she was born a man it's unreasonable for her to compete against women as she is a man on hormone therapy not a woman and is thus not competing with all the disadvantages of a woman compared to a man but rather competing with the disadvantages of a man competing against other men who have not undergone hormone therapy
competing as a male she was a typical college male athlete, competing as a woman she was a freak of nature and national champion
very few cisgender women are born with the body types and muscle mass of lia whereas its far more common for people born as men
Why are you deliberately misgendering them, in that case? And what does promiscuity have to do with anything, do you comment on cis straight men who are promiscuous and use that to cast doubt on the sincerity of their gender identity?.
Cause it would be ******ed if i explained this story using 'they' instead of she.
And if you don't know that it is spelled "dysmorphic" maybe you aren't the best one to judge whether they feel this way or not
What kind of ****** logic is that?
The thing about gender affirming care for eunuchs is that some stuff ought to remain stigmatized. The overarching principle behind the trans movement is "if you build it they will come", and so if you start telling people it's ok to get their nuts cut off, more people will start doing it.
Is it acceptable to not wish trans people to face discrimination and not have a problem with their preferred pronouns, but simultaneously not regard trans women or men as real women or men, indistinguishable from biological women and men? Or is that bannable?
As worded, I think this is technically “acceptable”. But it is far from the truth. There is a reason 9 out of 10 scientists, psychologists, and doctors agree that trans people are who they say they are.
And in my opinion, much more importantly why 99% of transgender people know they are who they say they are. This has been debated for 1000’s of posts over 9 threads. Once your understanding reaches a certain level you realize that trans women are women and trans men are men.
Martin Luther King Jr talked about the negative peace which is the absence of tension compared to the positive peace which is the presence of justice in his letters from Birminham jail. Sure, we can recognize the suffering of trans people as inhumane without understanding them. We can largely agree with them based on libertarian logic.
None of this changes the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men. And that trans people are the most discriminated group in American society today.And the root of bigotry against them, like the root of bigotry against gays and lesbians is based on an idea that gays are lying, either to others or themselves. Or they are mentally ill. Trans people are not lying by the millions; they just know who they are.
Either you missed or misread the posts I was responding to or you thought you were being clever but failed.
My response were to posts suggesting that mods should play no role in content policing at all. Some posters seem to believe they should be allowed to post any opinion whatsoever unfettered because of some right of free speech. I responded with an extreme example to illustrate the point that obviously there will be content restriction,
Browser, I have not said anything about if the rules should allow someone’s opinion that trans is a mental condition or not. What I have argued is that forced speech should not be a rule/guideline. Calling someone a he or a she or referring to them with the name found on their birth certificate has nothing to do with the mental illness debate and should not be a deletable/bannable offense.
Your “misgendering”(compelled speech) rule should be removed from the guidelines.
Is it acceptable to not wish trans people to face discrimination and not have a problem with their preferred pronouns, but simultaneously not regard trans women or men as real women or men, indistinguishable from biological women and men? Or is that bannable?
It's not bannable. Its the whole point.
You keep trying to trick the community into thinking this was a misgendering guideline. If I was a mod I would remove you with no warnings.
So, the guideline that says you can’t misgender someone is not a misgendering guideline? I’m confused, so, if I refer to Bruce Jenner as a he it will not get deleted?
The thing about gender affirming care for eunuchs is that some stuff ought to remain stigmatized. The overarching principle behind the trans movement is "if you build it they will come", and so if you start telling people it's ok to get their nuts cut off, more people will start doing it.
Perfect example of a yahoo making up his own facts without any expertise whatsoever.
So, the guideline that says you can’t misgender someone is not a misgendering guideline? I’m confused, so, if I refer to Bruce Jenner as a he it will not get deleted?
No I don't think so. I've been referring to lia thomas as a he repeatedly since. Its not a statement on politics. Its a guideline that affirms that science doesn't say all trans have dysphoria or a mental illness etc. You are welcome to think that bruce jenner is a dude. He is (just my opinion, and I have no problems referring to her as a her or he as a her). But trans people exist. And some are crazy but not all are. Some are otherwise the same and normal.
And then obviously if its known someone here is trans and you are harassing them about it with your opinion that they aren't the gender they claim...like wtf...are you telling us you think thats ok?
The thing about gender affirming care for eunuchs is that some stuff ought to remain stigmatized. The overarching principle behind the trans movement is "if you build it they will come", and so if you start telling people it's ok to get their nuts cut off, more people will start doing it.
puts whole new meaning to this scene
That isn't anywhere close to what I meant. When you say "get to decide" it implies that the authority is just present in the natural order of things. What I think you probably meant is that these are the organizations that a consensus of professionals in the field look to for theses matters (or something like that). I guess you could say that the consensus has given the organizations the right to decide, but that seems circular to me.
I was under the impression that you were attempting to get clarification on what I was trying to say.
What I meant is that we (randoms on the internet) don't get to determine what is a mental disorder or the diagnostic criteria for any of the disorders. The experts (in the form of the APA) get to make the determination. I meant nothing more or less than that.
The APA does exist quite naturally. I don't think you can derive its existence from the laws of physics, and apologize if I somehow implied that. The natural reason for it existing is, in part, that most of us don't want and wouldn't be served well by things such as being a communist or being religious constituting a diagnosable mental disorder.
The line of thinking is:
Person 1: I think that x is a mental disorder.
Person 2: Does it meet the criteria in the DSM-V for being a mental disorder?
Person 1: No, but I really wish it did.
Person 2: Then it isn't a mental disorder, by definition. You don't get to invent mental disorders just because you have a keyboard.
Person 1: Oh, I see. Thank you for your time. I think that artichokes are a type of musical instrument.
OK. I have carefully considered the concerns expressed itt and while the ban on mental illness claims still stands, I have modified the wording of the misgender section. Thenew wording is as follows:
Deliberately misgendering transgender people who publicly present themselves as one gender is considered rude and hurtful by many in the transgender community and is strongly discouraged. However, absence certain context, just the act of using the opposite pronoun in the course of a discussion will not in itself result in deletion or other mod actions. However, statements like "fixed your post " while changing she to he, or bolding a pronoun to emphasize that rather than simply making an on topic post will be considered trolling and removed.
If you have any questions on this, please ask.
This is obviously misgendering her. And your choice to misgender her is absolutely a “political” choice you make.
That isn't true.* He could be simply being a dick because he isn't a good person, or he could be being a dick for political reasons. Probably several more possibilities exist as well. Maybe even some of them are that he is possibly not being a dick.
*The second sentence, I mean. The first sentence is obviously true.
This is obviously misgendering her. And your choice to misgender her is absolutely a “political” choice you make.
Yup. I meant this. What I also meant rather was that the new rule isn't meant to be a political decision. The left didn't win. Some people here are complaining they can't misgender based on their own beliefs. You totally can.
Thats not the spirit of the new rule.
It's upheld here that transgender does not MEAN mental illness. Its harassment and spam if you imply it as such.
Its also harassment and spam if you harass people about their gender or pronouns. Hard to think anyone doesn't agree.
But if i think lia winning the ncaa champs is cheating I can call lia a he out of protest. Its ok.
I can also call lia a narcissist and say that I think he has a mental illness.
And my transgender lady friend that likes go by 'they' but to me its only because she thinks its trends, its ok if i refer to her as a she, on this forum (she's not here or relevant etc).
