Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
Weird claim. Singal is an anti-trans activist who ham-fistedly tried to counter one such study. Hardly "ample data debunking this speculative myth"
If the suicidal ideation and other distressing symptoms could be cured through an alternative means other than trans affirmation + actualization, would you still support trans affirmation + actualization for children?
There is no miscommunication. It's just the usual game where people define the terms in whatever way best suits the argument they are trying to make.
So you think everyone is just playing coy in order to take shots and they actually understand the context that the other is working from? That’s definitely true of the lefties here but I’m not sure that’s always true of everyone else.
So the entire conservative movement is going to die on the hill of "We want to be dicks to trans kids," huh.
If the suicidal ideation and other distressing symptoms could be cured through an alternative means other than trans affirmation + actualization, would you still support trans affirmation + actualization for children?
Yeah, I think general acceptance is probably the best path forward. You can re-baseline after a period of social acceptance.
As simple as that sounds its practically impossible to get general acceptance
Yeah, I think general acceptance is probably the best path forward. You can re-baseline after a period of social acceptance.
As simple as that sounds its practically impossible to get general acceptance
Right, so whether or not gender surgery in children is effective in reducing suicidal ideation - you’re not moving off your pro gender surgery for children position regardless.
Right, so whether or not gender surgery in children is effective in reducing suicidal ideation - you’re not moving off your pro gender surgery for children position regardless.
I think gender surgery in children should be a last resort and tied to a medical condition, not the desire to transition.
I am perfectly fine with generally requiring people be 16-18 before they can transition. I think teens shouldn't be able to start hormone therapy until at least 13 (established puberty) and should be on HRT a minimum of 3-4 years before any surgery.
But I also think there needs to be a path for children to get medical care and treatment. There should be no sort of hard exclusion. Instead there should be strict conditions for inclusion.
Ultimately more data needs to be gathered
You can keep claiming that anybody who disagrees with you on any trans issue is "anti trans" but that doesn't make it true at all.
I didn't claim such
But it doesn't take much digging to find out that he presents all of his information in an anti-trans light. He focuses heavily on detransitions and debunking pro trans studies.
I think gender surgery in children should be a last resort and tied to a medical condition, not the desire to transition.
I am perfectly fine with generally requiring people be 16-18 before they can transition. I think teens shouldn't be able to start hormone therapy until at least 13 (established puberty) and should be on HRT a minimum of 3-4 years before any surgery.
But I also think there needs to be a path for children to get medical c
These precautions are only necessary if you’re unsure that the trans identity is the self. Are you willing to admit uncertainty that the trans identity is the self?
These precautions are only necessary if you’re unsure that the trans identity is the self. Are you willing to admit uncertainty that the trans identity is the self?
Self is a constant while identity is a variable
My identity has changed considerably over the years while I'm still my same self.
These precautions are only necessary if you’re unsure that the trans identity is the self. Are you willing to admit uncertainty that the trans identity is the self?
Holding this uncertainty should prevent the Woke from assuming anyone who pushes back against trans lacks empathy and compassion. It’s a moral duty to hold yourself to this uncertainty if you’re actually uncertain.
Self is a constant while identity is a variable
My identity has changed considerably over the years while I'm still my same self.
Self is a constant indeed, but we can be manipulated into de-identifying with the self. This can (and does) happen in a fog at the edge of our conscious awareness.
Holding this uncertainty should prevent the Woke from assuming anyone who pushes back against trans lacks empathy and compassion. It’s a moral duty to hold yourself to this uncertainty if you’re actually uncertain.
Self is a constant indeed, but we can be manipulated into de-identifying with the self. This can (and does) happen in a fog at the edge of our conscious awareness.
I think this pretty much covers it.
I didn't claim such
But it doesn't take much digging to find out that he presents all of his information in an anti-trans light. He focuses heavily on detransitions and debunking pro trans studies.
A wiki written by people that agree with you doesn't make it true.
I follow him and i know about all the things that happened, including the incredible smear campaign.
He was obviously targeted a lot more than a rightwing person saying stuff you people dislike about trans ever would be, because he is a leftist. Same as with Rowling.
"pro trans studies" don't exist, neither do "anti trans" studies.
A study isn't "pro trans" or "anti trans". That's a framing made up by some radical activist who consider THEIR TAKES the only "pro trans" takes, everything else is "anti trans".
Singal focused on how some CLAIMS made in some studies about some trans issues were utter crap, how science was being abused by activists and so on.
And doing that from the left is a worse crime for activists than if a rightwing person actually says horrible stuff against trans people.
You can't accept opposition inside your political tribe, that has always been the case. Pro-business democrats get attacked more than the Koch brothers pet politicians, by the radical left.
A wiki written by people that agree with you doesn't make it true.
I follow him and i know about all the things that happened, including the incredible smear campaign.
He was obviously targeted a lot more than a rightwing person saying stuff you people dislike about trans ever would be, because he is a leftist. Same as with Rowling.
"pro trans studies" don't exist, neither do "anti trans" studies.
A study isn't "pro trans" or "anti trans". Tha
A Wiki is a neutral battlefield. If people strongly felt he wasn't anti-trans it would be amended. Seems the general consensus is that hes anti-trans. Maybe that isn't "truth", but its certainly correct that hes listed as anti-trans, so seems pretty moot to argue against that.
I didn't say anything about pro/anti trans studies. I said he presents information in an anti-trans light.
He used detransitions to undermine the credibility of trans people and then it came out that he horribly misrepresented some of the data. Specifically, data had been used to present detransitioning as exclusively negative while some of those data points include people who detransitioned because they were physically assaulted, didn't feel safe, and eventually re-transitioned once they felt like they could. Ironically, hes guilty of what he accused Tordoff et all of doing.
If I poll parents about their childs transition, then use that information to present social contagion as credible, then the trans community has to spend the next 10 years pointing out that parental perspective isn't a valid data point, it doesn't matter if the intent was neutral (it wasn't)
This is the discussion which needs to be had rather than simply assuming the trans identity is the self and any opposition is bigotry. Are science and medicine having this discussion? If not, I see no reason not to charge them as corrupt..
I don't think intro level philosophy is going to crack this nut but maybe the simplest solution is looking us straight in the eye
I don't think intro level philosophy is going to crack this nut but maybe the simplest solution is looking us straight in the eye
I wasn’t trying to open a philosophical discussion. Just pointing out that neither of you had defined a pretty nebulous term. I have no idea what either of you actually mean, despite you both speaking very authoritatively about it.
This seems like an issue for a doctor and their patient
Like abortion
