Why are threads attacking trans people allowed, please?

Post Reply New Topic

Saying hateful things to anyone is wrong; but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Just because it happens doesn't mean that it is permitted, either.

It is impossible to know what someone will post before they post it, so the only way to stop hateful posts is for them to be posted first, and then have them acted on by the mods. Report all hateful posts.

If hateful posts against trans-gendered people really are more numerous than any other type of hateful post, then the reasons may be that: (1) fewer hateful posts against trans-gendered people are reported than any other kind of hateful post; or (2) once reported, no one cares enough to act on them.

"I don't understand trans-gendered people" is not a hateful statement.

"There are no more hateful posts against trans-gendered people than against any other group" is not a hateful statement.

"Trans-gendered people deserve nothing more than the same rights and treatment under the law as any other group" is not a hateful statement.

I would like to see links to all of the allegedly "hateful" posts that are referred to in this thread's OP. Perhaps if they can be identified, the mods will act on them.

Hi, Fnord. I'll try the flagging thing. I don't want to go look for examples at this point because a) I really don't want to go read them, I had a few real-life incidents of transphobia this last month and I'm still feeling raw, and b) those threads are in the past & the ones I was involved in *hurt*. I don't want it dredged up again. I guess what I was hoping for was simply the addition of "transphobic" to "homophobic" in the TOS prohibitions. It'd be really nice to be know that it wasn't allowed, at least in policy.

Why are threads attacking aspie males, depressed people, ones with personality disorders, religious groups, white people, permitted?

Sources?

Why are posts attacking women and non-white people acted on swiftly and decisively when threads attacking men, white people, and Americans in general are allowed to play themselves out?

If this is a genuine concern of yours, how about you make a thread about it instead of derailing Edenthial's thread?

Provide examples of these threads that are allowed that are attacking trans people so I know what is being considered offensive

The rules are clear but inconsistsntly applied. For example if I started a thread saying why are women golddiggers it would likely be locked, but a thread asking why women shun virgins has been allowed to go on for a few weeks. As has often been pointed out if I started a thread saying saying autistics have no feelings it would likely quickly locked, but posts saying NT's are hive minded conformist sheep have been allowed for years.

It is bad enough we have to live with inconsistantly applied rules and double standards IRL, but on a site for Autistics also? . At least I would like to know which group besides NT's it is ok to trash. I have bad days and need to vent also(sarcasm).

My Cr0.02...

I have the impression that if the rules were applied consistently, any thread based on false dichotomy, sweeping generalization, or the lack of valid empirical data would be locked, resulting in maybe one-tenth to one-quarter of the threads in PP&R going away for good.

(Heck, I'd be happy if all of those "counting" threads would be locked, but that's just me.)

My point being that if the mods were to exercise their authority and enforce the rules to the letter, the most insulting threads would be gone; but so would the most interesting threads, as well! In my opinion, strict enforcement of the rules would make WrongPlanet as bland and boring as Enya's "Unity" website - where discussions of politics, religion, and sexuality are forbidden, and breaking the prohibition against them may result in a swift and permanent banishment.

A more strict application of the rules is not needed, and would only drive people away. Instead, a more balanced practice is needed, whereof both misogynist and misandrist posts are treated with equal severity, attacks against persons of the LGBTQ would not be tolerated, and attacks against white people are treated the same as any other racist post.

I agree. Also not consistory applying the rules does not neccesarly mean enforcing the rules by the book.

This is unfortunate to learn about. While I wouldn't call myself transgender, I don't really fit into the binary either. I've also known transgender people that are really cool.

*sigh*

All I can say is that which threads get policed come down to a judgement call. One of the ironies of moderating an autistic website is that strict black/white enforcement of the rules would turn this place into a nightmare.

Fnord and Dox are entirely correct in that it's often a case of deciding what is considered "hateful" and by whom. And, as always, we have some people complaining that we're being too lax with rule enforcement, while we have others complaining that we're being too strict. It's impossible to please everyone.

I'd would be glad to discuss any issues anyone has in regards to what they perceive as inconsistent moderation, either here, or via PM.

It's called good old double standards.

The biggest problem is that the rule is almost entirely subjective. While I agree that there are some terms and expressions that could be considered nearly universally offensive, there are many that are simply subjectively offensive. An ideal goal would be to apply the reasonable person standard that is used in legal cases. But unfortunately, there can't be a full jury review of every post.

The key word is intent. "behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members" is prohibited. If I believe a behavior is evidence of mental illness and I state my belief, does that necessarily intend to provoke or belittle others? I am addressing a behavior, and not a person.

While I understand how people can take offense to such an expression (especially if it hits close to home), it is purely subjective. Enforcing one person's subjectivity upon another's communication of concepts is just as loathsome as intentionally provoking or belittling others.

I am not disagreeing that there have been violations, but simply advising caution at how zealous the reaction is. Some people come here to freely discuss ideas in the abstract. Just because a topical discussion makes some members uncomfortable is no reason to eliminate all discussion on the subject. To address your question, it depends on what "safe" means to you. If you feel like the discussion of ideas should never make you uncomfortable, then I guess that this site isn't safe.