RugbyRebels

Hello. I had decided to flounce, following my ban for writing the 'Fucking seriously' thread, but, inspired by Clint Eastwood's advice in Heartbreak Ridge, I've renounced my flounce.

So I got banned, apparently for breaking rules 5 and 6a, being disrespectful and rude. Apologies to anyone who felt disrespected or abused by any of my posts in the 'News coverage' thread or my 'Fucking seriously' thread. I'm still at a loss to understand how any of those posts are rude or disrespectful, but there we are.

Part of my pre ban warning was for being transphobic, whenever we last talked about trans issues, a year or more ago.

I do wonder how we are supposed to talk about these things given:

1. Recent court cases have stated that holding and expressing gender critical (often seen as anti trans) views are protected by the Equalities Act. For example, if someone were to be of the view that Transwomen are not women, they are protected in law from abuse or prejudice for expressing that view. I do not believe the politics board is currently run like that, forgive me if I'm wrong, so that feels like a circle we need to square.

2. The upcoming vote in the RFU, based on advice to discontinue allowing transwomen to compete in women's rugby, which will presumably be followed by votes around the other home unions on the same issue, and following recent decisions made by world swimming and world triathlon bodies... are we able to disagree politely, or are warnings and bans going to handed out like candy at Christmas under spurious and ill defined notions of being rude or disrespectful?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I am only going to make one post on this, as I don't have the mental health to spare on a debate right now, so be aware if you ask me for further clarification or follow-up questions, I won't see them. Also worth noting that I am not a mod on this board and have no banning power - I speak only for myself.

1) The Equalities Act fairly unequivocally confirms that trans women and tran men (side note - it is correct to use a space rather than squish into one word, the same as you wouldn't say Blackmen or Jewmen) should be treated as their gender unless there is a specific and necessary reason for the exclusion. I don't quite know how they're planning on reconciling it with the recent court cases saying that choosing not to treat them as their gender is a protected right (and with the current government in place, I shudder to think), but legally trans women are women, trans men are men.

From a board perspective, I would say that the rule barring, "Racism, sexism ageism and their ilk," includes transphobia in "their ilk". As examples, this would include using bigoted tropes like describing trans people as "men in dresses", implying they're sexual predators or faking to gain some nebulous advantage, deadnaming or deliberately misgendering someone, and otherwise being a dick to people whose identity isn't really hurting you. Frankly, I'm not sure why someone would actually need to make those kind of comments on here in the first place, but I'm sure somebody might feel like they want to.


2) Trans women in women's sport is a valid conversation topic. I wish we weren't going to do it, because it's exhausting, often driven by people who have come with a belief of "men pretending to be women" who have little to no interest in the actual changes that hormone therapy makes to the body (cf. Seb Coe currently managing the contradicting positions that Semenya needs banning because testosterone is the be all and end all, and so do trans women because their testosterone being well below that of most cis women doesn't make a difference), and appears a solution in search of a problem given that trans women have been competing for decades and have yet to utterly demolish women's sport. Plus the little science that has been done on the subject is so contradictory and filled with so many methodological holes (so many studies that don't actually involve any trans athletes that are being held up as definitive proof of something or other) that debates tend to be circular and vituperative without much actual knowledge involved.

However, it is a legitimate conversation topic, as long as the transphobic tropes and language don't make an appearance. To use an example, we can have a thread to talk about Israel's actions in Palestine without being anti-semitic. However, if someone argues by referencing "Jewish influence on the media," we're getting into shitty bigoted tropes area. Same with trans women in sport - want to talk about studies showing the effects of testosterone suppressants and whether there are signifcant advantages carried over? Perfectly fine. Start referencing "Men pretending to be women to win medals" or bathroom panic tropes and you're being a dick.


Tl;dr - If you feel like you absolutely, absolutely must, sure, start a debate, as long as it's not on "Should this persecuted group exist?", "I think this persecuted group should have less rights than other people," or other such shitty topics. Also, think about *why* you feel like you absolutely must and reassess whether there is a good and productive reason, or whether you're debating the existence of marginalised people for funsies. If you do have a good and productive reason to be debating, do it without being transphobic and without being a dick, if for no other reason than because it's the decent human thing to do.

Puja

It’s a tough one. It’s a weird issue for anybody to try and claim any aspect of it is clear 100% in either direction, and as ever the internet is a terrible platform for communicating any sort of nuance.

I’m fully in support of trans rights, but distinguishing ignorance or an opposing opinion from flat-out prejudice does seem difficult. It also seems like most of these conversations get completely sidetracked with semantic arguments.

Not sure what your actual stance on any of this is, or if you have any real world experience or interaction with trans people, but at least you won’t miss out on the glory of supporting Scotland as part of the buzzing SMB community.

Folks,

This isn’t a debate where we can have a clear wire diagram where it’s all ice and binary. There are clearly some views which will be seen to conflict with the legal requirements this board operates under. Any post in breach of those laws will result in action.

However there is no appetite to quell freedom of speech within those laws. Please remember that the kids are trying to make a judgement on the words you have written, ‘tongue in cheek’ doesn’t work well on the internet. If you feel that another poster has gone too far, or if you feel that you have received a warning unfairly then PM another mod, admin or Hammy, for them to review.

If you post with respect for other posters then you aren’t going to go too far wrong.

There are a couple of things at play here.

Firstly, I think Cashead did not handle himself well in a recent thread, and does not generally handle himself well. HOWEVER, I also understand how frustrating it is to bang your head against the wall with certain posters when it comes to matters of basic human decency.

Secondly, asking questions is fine. But when those questions are answered and you continue to spout TERF talking points, I think posters have a right to call you out on it.

I recently saw a lot of posts online from some beardy American 'interviewing' trans and gender studies people about 'What is a woman', and then getting all up in arms when people didn't give him the answer he wanted. Because he fundamentally doesn't seem to understand the difference between gender and sex, and was not willing to entertain the fact he might be wrong.

So, that's it: if you're not willing to allow a human being to choose their own gender, you're a transphobe. If you're expecting them to behave rationally, or to only make this decision as a last resort, etc., you're not treating them as humans, and you're trying to control how they think.

You cannot control other people. You can only control your thoughts. If you want to continue with transphobe messaging, the politics board on this site is probably not the place you should do it, especially if you value posting elsewhere on this site.

If it is, I will think badly of you as a human, because I think we need, as a race, to treat others with respect, whatever their life decisions, so long as they do not actively hurt anyone with those decisions.

And being trans doesn't hurt anyone. And being transphobic does.

My decision to give a warning to Donny over him kramering into the back-and-forth with Coco* when I told her that the kind of transphobic shit she has posted in the past was not going to be tolerated under my, as I put it elsewhere, "tyrannical rule," was based on my choice not to give him the benefit of the doubt, or consider any good faith on his part. When you see a person with a history of posting explicitly bigoted shit getting pissed at learning that is no longer being tolerated, tell me what conclusion you're going to draw.

I gave Donny a 6-hour break from this place when he posted that "fucking seriously" thread, because A. I judged that it broke rule 5 specifically and 2. I judged that it was best to give him a reason to log off for a bit and cool down before he did something worse.


Back to the other thing that seems to vex Donny - there's a difference between having a discussion, and regurgitating TERF talking points, including those meant to denigrate trans folk. If you're unable to tell the difference, then that sounds like a 'you" problem.


*Yep, should've done that via PM, not publicly. I'll wear that one.

cashead wrote:My decision to give a warning to Donny over him kramering into the back-and-forth with Coco* when I told her that the kind of transphobic shit she has posted in the past was not going to be tolerated under my, as I put it elsewhere, "tyrannical rule," was based on my choice not to give him the benefit of the doubt, or consider any good faith on his part. When you see a person with a history of posting explicitly bigoted shit getting pissed at learning that is no longer being tolerated, tell me what conclusion you're going to draw.

I gave Donny a 6-hour break from this place when he posted that "fucking seriously" thread, because A. I judged that it broke rule 5 specifically and 2. I judged that it was best to give him a reason to log off for a bit and cool down before he did something worse.


Back to the other thing that seems to vex Donny - there's a difference between having a discussion, and regurgitating TERF talking points, including those meant to denigrate trans folk. If you're unable to tell the difference, then that sounds like a 'you" problem.


*Yep, should've done that via PM, not publicly. I'll wear that one.

We should be mindful that this policing of language, which is of course at the centre of this debate (after all isn't it a semantic discussion partially about the meaning of the word woman?), can sometimes be a bit on the radical side.

It is a form of thought policing, and is intended as such by those who pursue it. Now, there might be justification for it, but it is still inevitably an ends justify the means approach.

Take the word 'denigrate' used by Cashead just here. Were a community of people to decide that this word - with its origin of 'to blacken' and meaning to treat as worthless - is offensive and racist, would Cashead or others yield to their interpretation, or would they feel an urge to resist changing the way they think?

Regarding the modding etc
- Glad that Cashead accepts his mistake. It is a sign of character to admit it.
- Transparency is important, so I think this thread is useful.
- I hope that the mods/admins will consider following Peelian policing principles when modding here.

p.s. just to be clear I have no sympathy for those idiots on here who blather on with these culture war topics, and then whine when they get burned.

cashead wrote:

You calling me a wendy? Mods!!!! Oh right... shite.

FFS.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... -medicine/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ppens-next
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... -children/

Shutting down discussion is harmful and could prevent honest and good faith investigations into where harm is being caused in this area. It is important to distinguish between these types of discussions and actual transphobia.

Eighteen years ago, Susan Evans blew the whistle on the NHS’s only gender identity service for young people at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust.

Alarm bells had started ringing for the nurse when she realised colleagues had referred a distressed 16-year-old boy who thought of himself as female for hormone treatment after only four appointments.

She saw a service that was under “tremendous pressure” from trans campaign groups such as Mermaids and she was alienated by other staff members for questioning the medicalisation of young people.

Her complaints prompted an internal inquiry in 2004, but nothing changed, Ms Evans said, and felt she had no option but to walk away for her own mental health.

In the 18 years that followed, as more than 20,000 children were referred, history repeated itself.

The number of children who identified as transgender was skyrocketing, a satellite clinic was opened in Leeds and puberty blockers were handed out to young teenagers.

Dr Polly Carmichael, the director of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), likened them to a pause button that when stopped would have no long-term impact on the body.

Her employees thought differently. Dr Kirsty Entwistle joined Leeds GIDS in 2017 but was labelled “transphobic” when she raised concerns that part of the evidence that a teenage girl needed puberty blockers was that she had enjoyed Thomas the Tank Engine when she was younger.

One parent, who is part of the Bayswater Support Group, a group of 400 parents concerned about treatment, told The Telegraph that after they raised concerns, they were labelled “transphobic” and clinicians refused to talk to them.

More pertinently to this thread, is how can we distinguish between the two?

I don't have an easy answer.

I also think that because this topic is relatively modern and as others have said not yet fully coalesced into a consensus, the moderation should also not jump to harshest measures at the first instance. That approach is alienating, and won't change attitudes. And for those who say that there's no point to try to change attitudes, then I'd put it to them that that would be all fine and dandy if we were actually growing as a community. But we are not. Which is of course another, separate issue.

Mikey Brown wrote:It’s a tough one. It’s a weird issue for anybody to try and claim any aspect of it is clear 100% in either direction, and as ever the internet is a terrible platform for communicating any sort of nuance.

I’m fully in support of trans rights, but distinguishing ignorance or an opposing opinion from flat-out prejudice does seem difficult. It also seems like most of these conversations get completely sidetracked with semantic arguments.

Not sure what your actual stance on any of this is, or if you have any real world experience or interaction with trans people, but at least you won’t miss out on the glory of supporting Scotland as part of the buzzing SMB community.

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] does that mean I need to start watching Scottish rugby again?

Fwiw I also fully support trans rights, just not at the expense of women's rights. I don't really understand why it's so difficult to accommodate both, but it does seem to be.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:It’s a tough one. It’s a weird issue for anybody to try and claim any aspect of it is clear 100% in either direction, and as ever the internet is a terrible platform for communicating any sort of nuance.

I’m fully in support of trans rights, but distinguishing ignorance or an opposing opinion from flat-out prejudice does seem difficult. It also seems like most of these conversations get completely sidetracked with semantic arguments.

Not sure what your actual stance on any of this is, or if you have any real world experience or interaction with trans people, but at least you won’t miss out on the glory of supporting Scotland as part of the buzzing SMB community.

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] does that mean I need to start watching Scottish rugby again?

Fwiw I also fully support trans rights, just not at the expense of women's rights. I don't really understand why it's so difficult to accommodate both, but it does seem to be.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Please do explain that, as I just don't understand it. How does granting trans people rights impinge on women's rights?

Donny osmond wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:It’s a tough one. It’s a weird issue for anybody to try and claim any aspect of it is clear 100% in either direction, and as ever the internet is a terrible platform for communicating any sort of nuance.

I’m fully in support of trans rights, but distinguishing ignorance or an opposing opinion from flat-out prejudice does seem difficult. It also seems like most of these conversations get completely sidetracked with semantic arguments.

Not sure what your actual stance on any of this is, or if you have any real world experience or interaction with trans people, but at least you won’t miss out on the glory of supporting Scotland as part of the buzzing SMB community.

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] does that mean I need to start watching Scottish rugby again?

Fwiw I also fully support trans rights, just not at the expense of women's rights. I don't really understand why it's so difficult to accommodate both, but it does seem to be.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

According to whom? Who do you think is claiming this?

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:It’s a tough one. It’s a weird issue for anybody to try and claim any aspect of it is clear 100% in either direction, and as ever the internet is a terrible platform for communicating any sort of nuance.

I’m fully in support of trans rights, but distinguishing ignorance or an opposing opinion from flat-out prejudice does seem difficult. It also seems like most of these conversations get completely sidetracked with semantic arguments.

Not sure what your actual stance on any of this is, or if you have any real world experience or interaction with trans people, but at least you won’t miss out on the glory of supporting Scotland as part of the buzzing SMB community.

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] does that mean I need to start watching Scottish rugby again?

Fwiw I also fully support trans rights, just not at the expense of women's rights. I don't really understand why it's so difficult to accommodate both, but it does seem to be.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Please do explain that, as I just don't understand it. How does granting trans people rights impinge on women's rights?

It's a fundamental problem with rights - what happens when they conflict? Having said that, although I'm a utilitarian in theory, I think rights are an important protection in practice.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] does that mean I need to start watching Scottish rugby again?

Fwiw I also fully support trans rights, just not at the expense of women's rights. I don't really understand why it's so difficult to accommodate both, but it does seem to be.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Please do explain that, as I just don't understand it. How does granting trans people rights impinge on women's rights?

It's a fundamental problem with rights - what happens when they conflict? Having said that, although I'm a utilitarian in theory, I think rights are an important protection in practice.

But I honestly don’t understand how these rights can conflict. Please explain it. Anyone.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote: Please do explain that, as I just don't understand it. How does granting trans people rights impinge on women's rights?

It's a fundamental problem with rights - what happens when they conflict? Having said that, although I'm a utilitarian in theory, I think rights are an important protection in practice.

But I honestly don’t understand how these rights can conflict. Please explain it. Anyone.

Haven't read it but maybe something relevant from here?
https://parliament.nt.gov.au/__data/ass ... chment.pdf