149
99

Transphobia guidelines

1y 27d ago by feddit.uk/u/flamingos in feddituk@feddit.uk

Good day all, in response to the increase in transphobia we've experience since the For Women Scotland v Scotland Supreme Court decision, seemingly a mix of genuine malice and people tripping up with a topic they're unfamiliar with, I've taken the initiative to write some guidelines on how to engage in the topic and clearing up some common misconceptions.

https://guide.feddit.uk/politics/transphobia.html

I'm not all that happy with them, I want something more comprehensive but my time has been pretty taxed lately and I don't want my perfectionism to stand in the way of having these out. If there's any issues, glaring omissions or whatnot, then please let me know or make a pull request here.

the title makes it sound like this is a post on how to be transphobic. it's very funny pls don't change it.

Step One: write a harry potter book

Step two: Open an X account

Step 3: Buy a massive mouldy castle in scotland

Step zero point five: absolutely butcher Latin

I think you mean "carnifico Latinum!"

Should we all be transphobic now father?

Thank you! I appreciate the work you've put in to this!

I appreciate the care you've put into this. By choosing a neutral tone, you have created a framework that allows for opposing viewpoints to exist in discussions of the topic so long as the participants stay within established guidelines. I believe that this approach is an even-handed way to limit fanaticism and promote acceptance.

Perfection, though sometimes alluring, is an exhausting pursuit. What you've accomplished is realistic, immediately applicable, and amendable. In my opinion, that is infinitely more useful than the ever-fleeting notion of attainable perfection.

Well done, in both the creation of the document and in your personal effort to not allow perfectionism to stand in the way of something good.

Great initiative. Looks pretty well written from my point of view.

What's going to happen to repeated guideline breakers ?

Depends on which guideline they break. The 41% one will probably be an insta-ban. Others will likely be an initial warning followed by temp bans escalating to a permaban.

I'm trans and I learned a lot myself from this. I might have brought up the 41% thing and not knowing its use, miscommunicated what I meant in support of trans rights. Glad to have read this, being trans doesn't automatically make you aware of every aspect of the conversations.

I imagine it would still depend on context. The guidelines don't say that the 41% figure is inaccurate (and from some extremely light googling of the cited organisation, ASFSP doesn't appear to be an anti trans pressure group so i'm inclined to take that figure on its face value). thus talking about that figure in the context of a wider discussion on trans issues, which absolutely includes a sky high suicide rate, is probably fine.

But as the guidelines say; using that figure to encourage someone to commit suicide is almost certainly a contravention. As is using it to justify ignoring a trans person or trans persons basic right to self determination

That said i'm not a mod, i'm not in their heads, so i could be wrong

Just want to point out that suicide rates/attempts are more a reflection of the way transgender people are treated than a some kind of pervasive mental illness. High-functioning autistic people also have very high rates of suicidal ideation and attempts, because--much like transgender people--they (we) tend to be socially isolated and ostracized. Transgender people that are in accepting communities and who have non-shitty parents tend to have much, much lower rates of suicidal ideation and attempts.

Good 😊

That's a really concise, clear and well written guide. Worth reading for general life, not just for feddit.

Thanks for taking the time to put that together :)

This is generally very clear and well written, but I would clarify that while using 'biological man/woman' may be a misinformed/malicious may to refer to cis people, using 'biological male/female/intersex' to refer to one's own biological sex is in fact a relatively common term that many trans people (such as myself) prefer to AGAB

Good point, that's definitely something I see fairly often. I don't like it myself (also trans), but should be on here.

Especially as all A*AB terms easily mistaken for "All * are Bastards" ala ACAB.

I do it the other way around, Assigned Cop At Birth

It’s always sad to see a baby born with a mustache, mirrored sunglasses, and a racial slur on its lips

I blame the parents for eating all those donuts

Come on. No one needs that image placed on the mind.

Really great to see this. You’ve clearly put in some serious thought and reflection to come up with something that draws a sensible line in the sand.

Thank you for this!

That is awesome! I can't even find anything to complain about, and I'm a whiner.

No bullshit, doing that is an act of goodness, and I'd hug your neck if we ever met.

Very well written, clear and concise! Thanks for putting the time and effort into creating this.

Well written and well judged. You and others in the feddit.uk admin team continue to be an exemplar.

I was going to facetiously say

  • Step 1: don't be a bigot
  • Step 2: there is no step 2

But those guidelines are a pretty good description of how to follow step 1 on this issue, so let's adjust it to

  • Step 1: don't be a bigot
  • Step 2: if in doubt, read those guidelines
  • Step 3: see step 1

It's crazy we even need guidelines to not be an asshole lol

Good update, thank you for doing this

This is very helpful. Thank you.

Excellent writeup! I love seeing these.

Minor spelling mistake: The heading 'Transgenerism'/Gender ideology is missing a "d".

Always nice when an instance doesn't need to be defederated

What an absurd comment. As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility? I'm struggling to understand what point you were even trying to convey here.

Did the previous lack of transphobia-specific guidance somehow negate the fact that abuse and bigotry, including transphobic bigotry, was already against the rules and banworthy in this instance? Do we constantly having our finger hovering over the 'defederate' button, just in case an instance is not deemed ideologically pure enough?

Well apparently, yes! In spite of the fact that this guidance takes a very sensibly neutral tone, it is precisely that neutral tone (predating this specific guidance, but as a response to the same neutrality that it embodies) that has directly resulted in this instance being defederated by at least one major instance already.

That the fediverse supports defederation does not mean that it's acceptable for everyone to bring it up at every opportunity, as if it should be the action of first response. Defederation is a last resort for rogue instances, and to bring it up outside of that context is dreadfully gauche.

As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility?

I believe one instance already has defederated from feddit.uk because of a perceived tolerance of transphobia.

The week before feddit admins were caught being transphobic a tankie instance was defederated for the same reason

Keep up

I've been hiding in a builders merchant for the last month, but thought I'd poke my head out to say thankyou for writing this up.

Giving a framework for discussion, but making it clear that using it as a stick to beat trans people with will not be tolerated, is a very good way to organise things.

Love to see this - far too many people perpetuating transphobia :(

Not sure trans phobia and perpetrated are correct terms. The purpetrrate tends to indicate a choice. Where phobia dose not tend to.

A phobia is an irrational fear but normally not one that can be controlled.

Transfasism may be a better term.

Either this is a very dumb question or a very insightful one, but do the policies towards transgender etiquette also transfer over to transracial people (i.e. people who identify as a race they weren't born as)?

If the answer seems obvious, it's also a very split question due to the semantic hurdles, which is the reason for asking.

Are detrans discussions prohibited?

I asked before but didn't get a response.

I don't even know what 'detrans discussions' means. As long as you don't just use the fact some people transition as a cudgel against the idea of medical transition, then I don't see why not.

I don't even know what 'detrans discussions' means

I mean discussions similar to those in Reddit's /r/detrans, /r/actual_detrans, /r/ask_detransition, etc. or in fact any discussions around detransitioning. In my experience, such communities and discussions very much do not toe the trans party line.

/r/detrans

I checked it out and it seems like an absolute cesspool, so no 'discussions' like the what happens there aren't allowed.

In my experience, such communities and discussions very much do not toe the trans party line.

Here is a quote from the top post in that community today:

How long will we pretend they aren’t violent braindead porn-addicted narcissists who hate us because our existence challenges their narrative and provides a living experience for those ones who aren’t completely sure about transmuting themselves into fake males/females so that they can address what’s wrong with them and why they do feel so much distress about their bodies and biological sex?

Is it really any wonder why people not drowning in this trans-hating sludge would find this objectionable?

Here is a quote from the top post in that community today:

That's not the kind of discussion I was referring to although there are indeed a lot of angry detransitioners there. I meant more serious discussion like the following. And it's worth bearing in mind that /r/detrans only allows participation by people who either are currently trans or who were trans and have detransitioned:

It's crazy how much of trans culture is "letting the intrusive thoughts win". There's this whole mindset of "you are your urges and if you don't act on them you're denying your true self, which will have dire consequences".

Sentiments I've seen expressed in online trans spaces include:

  • "Cis" people don't question their gender. If you ever question your gender you are not "cis".
  • If you are not "cis" you need to do some kind of transition otherwise your life is a lie and you will be miserable forever and probably commit suicide.
  • Your endogenous sex hormones are poisoning/ruining your body and you need to start HRT ASAP to prevent further damage.
  • You need to start transitioning ASAP, every moment you spend not having started transition is wasted and a lie. If you wait too long it will be too late, you will never be able to live as your true self, and you will be miserable forever and probably commit suicide.
  • Any mental health issues/life problems you're experiencing were actually gender dysphoria all along.
  • If you search the memories of your past, you'll find evidence that you were always meant to transition.
  • If you're unsure about your "gender identity" you should try transition anyway so you can be sure. Try out names, pronouns and outfits. Try HRT.
  • If you are dysphoric and HRT lessens it, transition was the right choice. If HRT makes your dysphoria worse, or you start experiencing dysphoria on HRT when you didn't before, this also means that transition was the right choice, because HRT helped you to stop repressing your feelings.
  • If you are questioning your gender but have neutral/positive feelings about some sexed part of your body, you are in denial. Once you fully accept your identity you'll realise that you hate that body part too and were repressing your true feelings.
  • If you want to transition, you should. If you don't want to transition or are worried/scared that you'll have to transition, this also means that you should, because you're repressing/in denial.
  • Any doubts you have about transition are denial and internalised transphobia.

These people are straight up encouraging obsession and paranoia. Once you're introduced to the culture and start "questioning" (and all kinds of things count as "questioning"), every path you're presented with ends with "you need to transition ASAP otherwise things will get massively worse and it might kill you". The brainrot is difficult to eradicate, and potentially life-ruining for anyone with OCD, intrusive thoughts, hyperfixations, or similar issues.

Anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with the state of the community gets chastised and/or kicked out. This happened to me once. A few years ago I was in a Discord with some friends, many of whom started identifying as trans/non-binary. One day I said something they interpreted as "transphobic" and was promptly dogpiled and banned from the server (one person sent me a high and mighty message about how I should "rescind my statement" if I wanted to be unbanned). People from the server contacted my best friend and urged him to stop associating with me (he was a reasonable guy so he didn't).

-- https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/1kdqur4/trans_culture_cognitohazards/

Is this kind of discussion prohibited?

That's more than just an 'angry detransitioners', it's pretty textbook transphobia. It's a problem with the entire subreddit, it's not a place for detransistors to talk and support each other (I imaging detransitioning is emotionally quite gruelling), but a place for people opposed to the very idea of transition to express some pretty horrific views on it. The vast majority of the top posts in that community are talking about is the idea that transition, and the wider trans community, is an insidious plot to prey on the vulnerable and it taints everything that comes out of there, even the post you linked to.

This post also has nothing to do with detransition, so it's quite suspect that you asked about 'detransition discussions' only to bait-and-switch to criticism of online trans communities. Yes, there are problems with online trans communities that can be pointed out, this isn't inherently transphobic; plenty of trans people criticise egg culture, for example. But the way that community does it is transphobic, saying the trans community is an insidious cult that preys on the vulnerable with lies is textbook transphobia.

I'm going to stop engaging now as this got quite tedious a while ago. I'll address situations as they arise, and add any needed clarification to the guidelines.

As long as you keep blocking and banning anyone that doesn't tow the line, your bound to create the appearance that you've accomplished something!

You really accomplished something with that comment, didn't ya, buddy?

I understand this. I think what kind of annoyed me the most is

Just as it's racist to believe that black people are inherently less intelligent, even if you don't necessarily hate them, it's transphobic to believe that a trans person's identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person's, even if you don't feel any malice for trans people.

I don't really think it's fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.

I don't really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they're not comfortable with agreeing with.

I'd rather if there was a more clear-cut "this is a controversial issue - please don't talk about it". I wouldn't expect a transgender person to have to care about anyone else's moral convictions except their own. As long as they're treated equally. So I think I can moreso accept a "please don't talk about it" as I think any such discussion about "what is a man/woman" isn't actually a productive way of looking at things. Because moreso what concerns me isn't if people should be given gender affirming care, but at what stage is it appropriate and who should pay for it.

Another thing I don't really like about it:

For a more in depth look at the question, and why anti-trans activists are wrong about it, see the Lonerbox video "What Is A Woman?" A Response to Matt Walsh. (Fair warning contains a lot of Twitter lefty shitposter jokes/language).

Is this really unbiased if it's what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I've found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.

But apart from that, the guidelines are quite clear on how to act on the instance. I just wish there was more dialogue about the issue.

This is the bit you object to?

it’s transphobic to believe that a trans person’s identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person’s, even if you don’t feel any malice for trans people.

So invalidating a trans person's whole identity doesn't count as transphobic in your view, and you go on to object to moderation actions being taken on these grounds! You claim you want more dialogue but what you actually want is moderators to tolerate your transphobic pontifications without consequences for you, never mind the affect on other people's mental health.

What sort of effect on other people's mental health are you referring to here?

Being invalidated upsets trans people. Suicide rates are alarmingly high in the community because of that kind of whole-being rejection. Your transphobic pontifications are idle speculation for you but can be powerfully upsetting for trans people. I don't know how you can be so devoid of empathy or emotional intelligence that you don't get that or so low on reading comprehension that you couldn't deduce it from context. Trans people need protecting from people discussing whether they have a right to exist.

I see the misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about discussing if transgender people have a right to exist, nor speculating on individual people's identities. I'm talking about respectful philosophical discussion around the subject.

Yet this is what you object to, what you want to debate, what you want to discuss philosophically:

even if you don’t necessarily hate them, it’s transphobic to believe that a trans person’s identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person’s, even if you don’t feel any malice for trans people.

Your "respectful philosophical discussion" about whether trans identities are valid or worth as much as other people's is deeply and profoundly disrespectful and hurtful.

Why can't you just accept that some people are different to you, and you can just let them be without telling them that they're wrong about who they are?

It's not about telling people that they're wrong about who they are. Just about philosophical discussion surrounding ethics on the subject

You hide your hate behind clever sounding words.

This is why I struggle to take things like this seriously. Probably why I struggle to engage with leftists as a whole. Any time I try and have dialogue, someone has to make a remark like this.

Oh, you're a conservative! No wonder you didn't pay attention to anything I said, ignored all the main points I made and showed all the empathy of a two year old.

So is it black peoples or trans peoples identities that you believe are worth less?

What more discussion is there to be had?

You know what, I don't even want to know.

I don't think you read at all what I said correctly.

You said you don't like people telling you how to think. But no one is.

They are just telling you that your an arsehole if you think a certain way.

You have the right to think how ever you like. But we will also judge you based on that thinking.

It's less telling you that you're an arsehole and moreso a threat of a ban. I think the downvoting is usually enough to ward away arseholes

Are you under the impression the admins can read your mind?

I wish people could understand me better

Then learn to write more transparently.

Easy to say if you're neurotypical

I don’t really think it’s fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.

I don’t really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they’re not comfortable with agreeing with.

This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one, the rules and guidelines are going to reflect this. Part of that is setting the boundaries for what opinions are and aren't acceptable, and what the working definitions of what we consider bigotry are. Saying these opinions aren't allowed is necessarily going to exclude people who actually believe them.

Besides, epistemologically, there is no reason to see a trans person's "I'm a man" as less than a cis person's "I'm a man". If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn't really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you're trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.

Is this really unbiased if it’s what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I’ve found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.

That video is mostly an application of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblances to the 'what is a woman' debate, should be right up your ally if what you want is philosophical discussion.

This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one

What is? Feddit.uk?

Yes, feddit.uk.

That seems a bit presumptuous? What if someone creates some linguistic_philosophy@feddit.uk community?

Why dictate the purposes to which feddit.uk can be put? Why declare any purpose, "social discussion" or otherwise?

That seems a bit presumptuous? What if someone creates some linguistic_philosophy@feddit.uk community?

That wouldn't really change the fact this is a place for discussion of things with other people. It would just be another place to have social discussion, but with a narrower range of topics than, say, an ask-a-question community.

Instance-level rules and guidelines are going to be general purpose.

Instance-level rules and guidelines are going to be general purpose.

So if someone created a linguistic philosophy community on feddit.uk and in that community members held a discussion on 'a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”', is that prohibited or not?

One, that would be a bad subject for a linguistic philosophy community, and two, no as that's pretty clearly within the stated definition of transphobia. I'm not going to let bigotry propagate because someone obstinately rule lawyered a comment I made an hour after waking up.

Is this about protecting the instance though or enforcing an opinion? This wasn't a problem before Blahaj got upset. "Bigotry" seems to be a buzzword these days without clear definition, and it doesn't really seem like it's helping from such an important topic to discuss, as the cass report seemed to show.

If someone were to be in a hospital, and the nurse needed to know if they were a man or a woman for medical purposes, an AMAB person saying "yes" would be different from an AFAB trans man saying "yes". I don't think it's fair to claim their identity socially is less than or different, or that he is a second class man when it comes to drinking with his mates down the pub. But if it comes to let's say, a discussion of men's rights issues, and it's someone who started identifying as a man yesterday claiming that male mental health issues are overblown, compared to an AMAB person talking about life being a struggle, wouldn't there be a difference there, even though it doesn't make the trans man any less of a man?

Is this about protecting the instance though or enforcing an opinion? This wasn’t a problem before Blahaj got upset.

It's about protecting a vulnerable minority. One in four trans people report experiencing abuse online personally directed at them and hate crime against trans people is at record highs. I don't want this place to be a contributor to these statistics and I'm going to prioritise the safety of our trans users over some notion of neutrality. That rise in transphobia I mention in the post we have experienced is real and I would've introduced these guidelines regardless of if they got use LBZ federation back, I didn't even know beforehand that it would.

cass report seemed to show

I cannot express how little respect I have for the Cass review, it is a piece of politically motivated sophistry mostly disconnected from the medical science it tied itself in knots to discredit. Like seriously, double blind puberty blocker trials? The participants are going to know they're on the placebo when they start growing facial hair/tits.

If someone were to be in a hospital, and the nurse needed to know if they were a man or a woman for medical purposes, an AMAB person saying “yes” would be different from an AFAB trans man saying “yes”. I don’t think it’s fair to claim their identity socially is less than or different, or that he is a second class man when it comes to drinking with his mates down the pub.

That just sounds like a bad question on the nurse's part, they should ask specifically if they're AMAB or not. I'm AMAB and I've been asked if I'm pregnant by nurses plenty of times, even before I realised I was trans, so it's not like this is out of the norm for the NHS. AMAB/AFAB are also term the NHS uses all over the place.

But if it comes to let’s say, a discussion of men’s rights issues, and it’s someone who started identifying as a man yesterday claiming that male mental health issues are overblown, compared to an AMAB person talking about life being a struggle, wouldn’t there be a difference there, even though it doesn’t make the trans man any less of a man?

That does sound like a lack of intersectionality on the trans man's part, and sure, a day is hardly long enough to understand the nuances of living as a particular group. I doubt a trans man would do this though, as from my experience, trans people are overly conscious about fitting in.

It also interesting how you frame society's lack of attentiveness to men's mental health as a men's rights issue, would you agree that society's lack of attentiveness to trans mental health is a trans' rights issue?

Fair enough in terms of protecting trans users

I wouldn't see an NHS study/report as "politically motivated", and I don't think it's right if that's the position of this instance. People claim that the science in favour of the COVID-19 vaccine being safe and effective as "politically motivated". Some claimed that the dangers presented by COVID-19 were actually just politically motivated as well. Some real lunatics claim that science showing the earth is round is "politically motivated". To me, it kinda just feels the same, I hope you understand. And in a way, I am concerned that an admin is using their rejection of a report that was produced by the National Health Service, and supported by the elected Government and His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition to write rules.

For the questions, I'm just presenting edge cases where discussion can be respectful about certain topics if they come up. I think it'll be just that- an edge case. I don't think regular discussion every week about "can a man be a woman" is productive or helpful, and I understand that.

Apologies if I use wrong terminology here:

I think people with gender dysphoria should be afforded a comfortable life, and should be able to have their mental health respected as well. Right now, it appears the best treatment for severe gender dysphoria appears to be cosmetic (if you could call it that, due to the mental health aspect) operations to make their body resemble the opposite sex and for society to accept them as the gender they identify with, so they "pass". Bullying transgender people is not acceptable at all. However, on the flip side, I don't think everything can be weaponised and discussion about topics halted because it may upset someone's mental health- so it's a tricky situation to navigate. For example, I see people mocking my religion on Lemmy constantly. I can protest that in a reply and even downvote if I wish, but I wouldn't go as far as to call for their instance to ban them over it. They should have the right to criticise it, and if I get overly upset over it, then I should either go elsewhere or grow a thicker skin. Anti-immigration rhetoric actually does affect my mental health- my girlfriend is a foreign national who had to leave the UK because of strict immigration rules and that has turned my life completely upside down. But I don't think it should be banned unless if it's got racist motivations behind it.

I do understand that context matters, though. I moderate a religious forum over at lemmy.world (which by the way- faces constant downvote brigading unfortunately), and our policy is to remove any mocking content. That's just not the place.

I appreciate your work in navigating such a landscape - moderating isn't easy. And I'll do my best to follow whatever regulations you choose to put in place, regardless if I protest the regulations themselves. This is a good and well-run instance.

I wouldn’t see an NHS study/report as “politically motivated”, and I don’t think it’s right if that’s the position of this instance. People claim that the science in favour of the COVID-19 vaccine being safe and effective as “politically motivated”. Some claimed that the dangers presented by COVID-19 were actually just politically motivated as well. Some real lunatics claim that science showing the earth is round is “politically motivated”. To me, it kinda just feels the same, I hope you understand. And in a way, I am concerned that an admin is using their rejection of a report that was produced by the National Health Service, and supported by the elected Government and His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition to write rules.

I don't know what to say, the Cass review is just a bad piece of medical literature, it wasn't peer reviewed and Cass herself isn't even an expert in this area. From a peer-reviewed critique of it:

Using the ROBIS tool, we identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified methodological flaws and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews.
[
]
We have demonstrated that the Cass report’s application of EBM to GAC for children and young people is deeply flawed. Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews and primary research that undermine the validity of the Cass report’s recommendations. During our review of the report and supplementary primary research, we found insufficient statistical rigor, unreliable datasets, claims presented without evidence, and misrepresentation of quotes from primary research participants. These flaws highlight a potential double standard present throughout the review and its subsequent recommendations, where evidence for gender-affirming care is held to a higher standard than the evidence used to support many of the report’s recommendations. Considering this, and the Cass report’s poor understanding of transgender identities and experiences, it is vital to question the integrity and validity of the Review’s recommendations and the appropriateness of basing health policy on them. To uphold its commitment to evidence-based medicine, future gender-affirming care research must generate robust observational data, involve transgender communities, and prioritise patient-centred outcomes, ensuring validity, generalisability, and cultural relevance.

I can understand how with no context my comments look conspiratorial, but come on, my problems with the Cass review are clearly more substantive and based in reality than people who burned down 5G towers over a microchip injection conspiracy.

I do understand that context matters, though. I moderate a religious forum over at lemmy.world (which by the way- faces constant downvote brigading unfortunately), and our policy is to remove any mocking content. That’s just not the place.

That makes sense and I do wish people wouldn't just downvote a community because they disagree with the idea of it, I hate AI slop with a unrivaled passion but I don't mass downvote stuff in the "Stable <noun>" communities. Religion isn't important to me, but it is to many and there should be space for it here.

I appreciate your work in navigating such a landscape - moderating isn’t easy. And I’ll do my best to follow whatever regulations you choose to put in place, regardless if I protest the regulations themselves. This is a good and well-run instance.

Thank you, we set out here from Reddit with big dreams of building a better social media, I just wish better wasn't such a murky term. I do genuinely believe these guidelines are a part of achieving that.

If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn’t really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you’re trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.

And so following from your other comments, the appropriate contexts you're referring to are outside of the feddit.uk instance entirely? The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?

Yes, there is no appropriate place on feddit.uk to discuss if a trans person's gender identity is less valid than a cis person's.

The part you quoted was aimed at a Flax's comment as a whole, who expressed a disinterest in this particular debate.

Are detrans discussions prohibited?

I don't think such a discussion on a trans forum is appropriate. But what if it's a discussion on a more conservative forum or on a post about theology?

What do you mean by epistemologically?

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum, so I don't really see your point. If you want to discuss the Biblical definition of man/woman and whether that includes trans people in a theology post then sure? That would be appropriate context.

What do you mean by epistemologically?

I mean that fundamentally, there is nothing more true about a cis person saying they're a man than a trans person saying they're a man.

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum

What is not?

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum

This comment along with others like

This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one

and

That wouldn’t really change the fact this is a place for discussion of things with other people.

make it clear that feddit.uk has an agenda: it's for lefty social discussion.

Adding tom@feddit.uk Emperor@feddit.uk

Can I suggest making that agenda clear in the "Who are we?" section of feddit.uk 's front page so that people are aware of what they're signing up for and that this isn't just a general UK instance? In particular, it seems egregious to me that there is no mention of the fact that conservatives aren't welcome.

conservatives aren’t welcome.

That's a very dishonest reading of what I wrote, but not surprising coming from you. This not being a conservative forum isn't the same as conservatives not being welcome, I believe we even have some around. But they still have to follow the rules.

This is getting very tiresome for what is a very little ask, don't be transphobic. This has been a rule on the site literally from inception.

This not being a conservative forum isn’t the same as conservatives not being welcome, I believe we even have some around.

This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whatever it is that feddit.uk is not, please state that up front in the "Who are we?" section. If feddit.uk is not a conservative forum, please state "feddit.uk is not a conservative forum" in the "Who are we?" section. That would at least give people more clarity on what feddit.uk is, who is here and what they can expect when they post from here.

This is getting very tiresome for what is a very little ask

By the same token, clarifying what feddit.uk is and is not in the "Who are we?" section seems to me like a very little ask.

don’t be transphobic. This has been a rule on the site literally from inception.

But the new "guidelines" and more importantly the statements from an admin (yourself) in comments under this post about what feddit.uk is not, are all new. As far as I know, philisophical discussion of trans issues had never been prohibited before.

My understanding of feddit.uk until this post was that it would reflect general wider social mores of British society: tolerance, even of those who have what we feel to be reprehensible views, up to the point where it's clear a person is uncivil or unreasonable. Now my understanding of feddit.uk is different: there are some areas of discussion which are not tolerated under any circumstances, regardless civility or reasonableness. There is now an ideological component, not to the makeup of the user population (which has always been obvious), but to the governance of the instance which is a whole different kettle of fish and very new. Now, feddit.uk has an official ideological position: not a conservative forum, social discussion, no philosophical debate about trans issues, etc.

A conservative forum is a forum run by conservatives for conservatives and limits itself to conservative positions, feddit.uk is demonstrably not this. Feddit.uk is not many things, it's not a conservative forum, it's not a socialist forum, it's not a biking forum. It's a general purpose discussion forum that can touch on topics like conservativism, socialism or biking. This is a descriptive not prescriptive statement and I don't see how a reasonable person would describe this place differently. I'm not going to list all the things this place is not as that's an infinity long list.

Again, this place has always had rules on what isn't allowed, including 'no transphobia'. Polite bigotry is still bigotry, do you think we should allow race realists if they mind their Ps and Qs correctly? There are many who feel their bigotry — weather that be racism, sexism, homophobia — isn't 'unreasonable', but even tolerant Britain doesn't let them inject these believes wherever, social spaces like pubs and community events still limit what can take place in them. I don't see why we should be more accepting of transphobia just because it's more socially acceptable at the moment.

'Philosophical discussion of trans issues' is such a non-statment, say what you actually mean instead of hiding behind such meaningless rhetoric. The only things these guidelines ask you to do is not promote fear or hatred of trans people and that you aren't allowed to say that a trans person's gender identity is less valid than a cis person's. These aren't unreasonable asks and I wonder what reasonable 'philosophical discussion' this excludes, unless you're just looking for 'civil' ways of calling a trans man a woman.

A conservative forum is a forum run by conservatives for conservatives and limits itself to conservative positions

Says who?! It can mean whatever you define it to mean. You're just making stuff up, you're no authority.

It’s a general purpose discussion forum that can touch on topics like conservativism, socialism or biking.

This is not the way you presented feddit.uk before. You seemed to be explicitly excluding conservativism.

I’m not going to list all the things this place is not as that’s an infinity long list.

Of course but I would point out that social conservativism is the dominant political philosophy in the UK so it would be odd and in fact misleading not to be up front about excluding conservativism in an instance that advertises itself as a general UK instance. Hence my concern.

Polite bigotry is still bigotry, do you think we should allow race realists if they mind their Ps and Qs correctly?

Most definitely. How else could such views be shown up for what they are using sound reason and subtle but devastating wit, as is the British way? (As opposed to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU UR DUMB I'MA BAN U".)

even tolerant Britain doesn’t let them inject these believes wherever, social spaces like pubs and community events still limit what can take place in them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this but I would note that with one exception, all the racist people I've had the misfortune of encountering have been in pubs. And moreover, I wouldn't want to spend time in any pub where any kinds of 'certain' discussions were outright prohibited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jssqYTMf9E

I don’t see why we should be more accepting of transphobia

Debating isn't the same thing as accepting.

The only things these guidelines ask you to do is not promote fear or hatred of trans people and that you aren’t allowed to say that a trans person’s gender identity is less valid than a cis person’s.

It seems you've changed your tune:

1. In response to the question "The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?": "Yes, ..."

2. "It’s about protecting a vulnerable minority. ... I don’t want this place to be a contributor to these statistics and I’m going to prioritise the safety of our trans users over some notion of neutrality."

And also, to be clear:

3. In response to the question "if someone created a linguistic philosophy community on feddit.uk and in that community members held a discussion on ‘a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”’, is that prohibited or not?" which is about discussion of whether a trans person's “I’m a man” is less than a cis person’s “I’m a man” and doesn't necessarily imply saying anything one way or the other: "no [yes] as that’s pretty clearly ..."

I wonder what reasonable ‘philosophical discussion’ this excludes

There's plenty. Wouldn't it be great if we created a place where such wonderings could be explored honestly without concern over being banned? What a pity that instead there's a place of dullness, with rules motivated by fear.

A conservative forum is a forum run by conservatives for conservatives and limits itself to conservative positions

Says who?! It can mean whatever you define it to mean. You’re just making stuff up, you’re no authority.

It's almost like I was saying what I mean by conservative forum.

It seems you’ve changed your tune:

  1. In response to the question “The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?”: “Yes, 


It certainly looks like that when you cut my response off.

I'm done with this discussion, you're not engaging in good faith and what you want from this place stands at odds with what the majority of feddit.uk's users want this place to be. There has always been action on bigotry, you failing to notice doesn't mean this place was ever some free speech absolutist debate club.

Ah, this makes sense now, thanks for clearing it up, and the work you do!

I think as the fediverse grows, conservative forums will start to appear and sprout up eventually.

I’d rather if there was a more clear-cut “this is a controversial issue - please don’t talk about it”

Ah yes, sweep it under the carpet and hope it all just goes away. Such a mature way of dealing with a difficult subject.

I think it's better than censoring one side of a controversial subject

Not everything needs to be up for debate. Admins are saying "here's the rules, no transphobia, here's what that means for us". So no debate on whether trans identities are inferior or invalid

Flamingos clarified for me 🙂

That's the problem. You're trying to equate being trans, which is something internal, that your mind manifests, with something like being black. A physical trait that is external, that one cannot hide, or run from.

You pervert the nature of the discussion when trying to base truth off false equivalence

You're trying to equate being trans, which is something internal, that your mind manifests

I thought that's what a lot of it was? Someone who chooses to identify as another gender

If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.

Yeah, being trans is either a choice, or an internal mental manifestation that someone has no control over, but regardless, it's not something others see immediately, unless you choose to draw attention to it

It comes from gender dysphoria, doesn't it?

If it's someone making a choice, then why should we respect that in the same way we should respect people with gender dysphoria identifying as their selected gender?