Trans everything

[Deleted member 13594]

That's all I was trying to explain too.

I guess I hoped people would find it helpful to understand the context of how we make moderation decisions, so they could be informed.

None of this should really be news, it's how Ars has always worked, since we were founded. But I thought it would be helpful. Maybe not.

Ars has always been an absolutistic organization from top down rule. Fisher is the leader and absolute leader from the very beginning. His attitude and philosophy has always been the last word. So, expecting this to be a safe place for anything other than white cis males is a fantasy worthy of a brightly colored game of whiteness. Expecting other than that is hopeless with current management and the rule and moderation structure. Aurich I appreciate the tirelessness of your efforts to maintain this structure, but I think this could be a great time to retreat from this absolutism of power.
I'd love to see the days of photochoped pictures of ceasar on the short bus again but not the "I'd hit that!" remarks.

 

[Aurich]

@Aurich the issue I take with that statement is that it's inconsistent with Ars policies on other "unpopular" political frames.

White nationalism is explicitly prohibited here, as well as the position that women should be subservient and in the kitchen, even though that is technically a valid and growing political sentiment in the US. So this trans positioning fails on the claim.

It's really simple, in my mind.

Trans people have the right to exist. This isn't up for debate. White supremacy, sexism, and refusing to acknowledge trans people's basic human rights are all in the same bucket of "oh hell no".

This isn't about "unpopular" frames. It's about people needing to understand that they may run into things that make them uncomfortable, and I wanted them to understand why I might not moderate some discussions.

I'll give you the classic example, just because it tends to be the one that comes up most often, especially in our front page comments. And people are sometimes upset that I don't moderate it.

"Is it fair for trans athletes to compete?" As is usual with the right wing hysteria this is almost always about women. Is it a talking point? Yes. Is it also something that is fair grounds for a discussion? Also yes. We should be able to discuss these hot button issues.

Do I personally care about the topic? No. I think it's a non issue.

But I'm not going to moderate someone for discussing this topic in good faith. If they want to angrily insist that trans women are really men? That I will moderate. If they want to civilly discuss what feels fair to them in the sense of competitive spirit? That's allowable.

Does that help?

 

[SunRaven01]

I'm going to reiterate my moderation from this post:

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

... [L]eave the gender identity and sexual preferences of the staff and moderators out of it, and for that matter, any one else in the forum who hasn't declared either of those things publicly. It's none of your business how they identify if they don't want to share that with you, and I'm not going to allow you to use that to make personal attacks on anyone here, whether or not they're Ars staff.

Moderator hat off:

I think some of you have really lost sight of the plot here, but if you want to turn this into a thread where people just post like it is their personal blog about being transgender, I'm going to move it to the Lounge. If people can't discuss transgender issues in this thread without disclosing their labels and pronouns first like it's some kind of token that gives them the right to speak, if people can't really dig into the deeply political parts of the legislative machine taking over in states like Texas and Florida, then this isn't a Soap Box thread, it's a Lounge thread. Being able to have that kind of discussion is what the Soap Box is for. If people are posting the kind of gross bullshit immediately up-thread from this post I made, yes of course they will be moderated for it. They have been moderated and banned for it. Stop pretending like it isn't already policed so you can keep taking swings at your straw horses.

I have expressed twice in this thread now that I don't want to be forced into moderating people over that Front Page article, because I knew on Friday there would be people who would let their emotions lead them into Posting Guidelines infractions and I don't want this thread to be a place where I had to draw lines. Let that happen over in Help and Feedback, not here in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 14629]

For me, yes, and that's about the line I would expect. But I will say, I don't think that sentiment has been clearly articulated to the community (I know you've made sincere effort).

To refer back to the current issue, I think the problem is the official response seems completely out of line with the position you outline, as it platforms people opposing trans rights as human rights. It really creates a confusion as to what level of support trans people can expect from Ars, when published content does not align with claimed values. Even assuming 100% sincerity on your and the editorial team's part (and I have no reason to think otherwise), the action does not align with the words.

 

[UserIDAlreadyInUse]

SunRaven, I'd prefer it was left as is if a single voice carries any weight? I'm not American, don't follow American news much, and where I live I've been pretty fortunate that the attitude towards trans folks has been largely "'s long as it don't affect me, I don't really care what people do." I think I've learned more in the last 48 hours about what people - in general - are going through elsewhere in the world than I have in the entire previous year. I had little idea and Ars is the place that's educating me.

 

[SunRaven01]

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

@UserIDAlreadyInUse That reply from you is normally acted on as arguing moderation in thread and carries with it an Official Warning, but I'm going to refrain for the moment.

I'd prefer it if people could talk about the article without making personal attacks, but as you can see in this thread already, they can't. I'd prefer it if people could talk about the response to the article without taking swings at the staff and moderators, but as you can see in this thread already, they can't.

Both of these things are Posting Guidelines infractions, and carry with them obligatory Official Warnings. Official Warnings eventually turn into bans, not just temporary ejections from the thread.

I don't want to give people OWs, I don't want to kick people out of the thread, but people keep taking that choice away from me, so no, it's not going to be left here. I understand if you are disappointed by that, but that's just how it's going to be. I'm not ejecting people from the thread for being passionate about defending their positions; I'm ejecting people from the thread because they're ignoring my directives.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

OW all you want; that will just drive more away.

I see NOTHING wrong or in need of moderation with UserID's post above - maybe I'm missing some earlier post.

As the moderation of the Front Page is very much part of the issue, yeah, we're gonna discuss moderation.

 

[Aurich]

Aurich I appreciate the tirelessness of your efforts to maintain this structure, but I think this could be a great time to retreat from this absolutism of power.

This is the Soap Box. The place to discuss politics. If people feel like one of the hugest political topics in the entire United States right now should be off limits because it's distressing then I feel like maybe you're in the wrong forum?

Allowing discussion of a topic is not endorsing it. It never has been. Abortion, gun control, gay marriage, war, whatever else we've discussed over the decades. This isn't the "pretend bad shit isn't happening" forum.

This isn't some kind of bullshit free speech absolutism. If you are hateful you will be banned. All viewpoints are not welcome or equal.

I swear I'm not trying to be tone deaf here in light of everything. But people need to hear that you can still discuss politics in the Soap Box.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

Aurich:

What kind of community does Ars WANT?

Everything in that last post is all well and good, but fails to address the actual issue of the article. And you keep just... doubling down on the explanation, while refusing (best I can tell) to hear what people are saying.

We are ALL FOR the discussion of these issues. But you need to address this. Hell, the damage is mostly already done, as the article has stayed up for a week and we have heard nothing (that I know of) from the author.

 

[minnmass]

Trans people have the right to exist. This isn't up for debate. White supremacy, sexism, and refusing to acknowledge trans people's basic human rights are all in the same bucket of "oh hell no".

If this is Ars's official stance, why is the article at the root of a lot of this contention still both-sides-ing the damn video, which itself is implicitly supporting white supremacy and sexism while rejecting trans peoples' basic human rights?

If that isn't Ars's official stance, what is?

 

[Aurich]

If this is Ars's official stance, why is the article at the root of a lot of this contention still both-sides-ing the damn video, which itself is implicitly supporting white supremacy and sexism while rejecting trans peoples' basic human rights?

If that isn't Ars's official stance, what is?

Well first of all, I didn't write that story, so let's at least unpack the difference between my moderation policy, here in the forums, and that.

Secondly, I don't agree with the story, and it doesn't represent how I view anything.

This is my personal opinion, as a human being, not a staff member: Is the piece factually accurate? Yes. Does it provide the level of context I think it should? No.

I am trying to balance on a tightrope and juggle knives right now. Believe me, the internal discussions are still happening.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

When you have this many people, making this big of a stink: Fucking pull the article until you can come to a consensus.

I don't envy you one bit right now, Aurich, but a lot of this is decidedly not helping.

20+ year members don't just leave in a huff over a little thing.

 

[SunRaven01]

OW all you want; that will just drive more away.

I see NOTHING wrong or in need of moderation with UserID's post above - maybe I'm missing some earlier post.

As the moderation of the Front Page is very much part of the issue, yeah, we're gonna discuss moderation.

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

To quote Matt Mercer, "You can try ..."

I'm going to try one more time to make my position as clear as I possibly can, using very small words so hopefully people will get it:

I don't want to give moderation or official warnings to the transgender people in this thread, or the people who are family members of transgender individuals, full stop. It's that simple. I don't want to do it. I have very strong personal, protective feelings about transgender people that I have already expressed up-thread, and yes, I'm admitting to a personal bias here, but if someone wants to get a bug up their bottom about it, they can just die mad, because I'm not changing that position.

I do not want to take any transgender person posting in this thread and eject them, or give them an OW, because they were mad and broke the rules. I don't want to be the person doing that. I can't make it any clearer that I'm on your side. I am trying so fucking hard to make it clear to you that I don't want to be the person who has to moderate you when you start making personal attacks against the staff or the moderator corps. That's why I got out ahead of this whole thing and made the moderator directive that I did. I literally don't want to be the one more thing that makes someone's bad day worse.

If you want to talk about the article, talk about it in the Help and Feedback thread so that I don't have to be the bad guy when the line is inevitably crossed, and it will be crossed, because of course it will.

 

[GeneralFailureDriveA]

"Is it fair for trans athletes to compete?" As is usual with the right wing hysteria this is almost always about women. Is it a talking point? Yes. Is it also something that is fair grounds for a discussion? Also yes. We should be able to discuss these hot button issues.

It is "always about women" because FtM transitioners are not setting records in mens sports. MtF transitioners are, more and more frequently, winning and setting records in womens sports that are unlikely to be broken by biological women. Thomas, in particular, was a mediocre swimmer in male events, and despite swimming slower after transition, is setting meet and pool records regularly swimming in the womens events.

Physical performance sports are separated into genders because there are very real differences in peak physical performance between men and women, for a variety of physiological reasons, and to deny this for ideological reasons is to simply deny objective reality.

Consider that a state level high school boy runner outperforms olympic winning women, one cannot deny this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics#Top_ten_fastest_Olympic_times
The womens 100m record at the Olympics is 10.61s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
The boys 100m record for high school is around 10.00s. There are literally hundreds of high school boys who outperform olympic women athletes.

So, yes, those who are concerned about keeping womens sports as a venue for women to compete have reason to be concerned.

 

[Delor]

I swear I'm not trying to be tone deaf here in light of everything. But people need to hear that you can still discuss politics in the Soap Box.

What, exactly, do you think Ars's frontpage-ing of that content was, if not politics? What do you think the huge volumes of replies you've made in your capacity as a member of this organization was?

You are not an outside observer to the system, you're part of it. Like it or not, Ars Technica as a media organization and now you- having inserted yourself as a representative of said media organization- are the politics being discussed. "People need to hear that you can still discuss politics in the Soap Box" sounds really shitty after two pages of trying to shut down that conversation.

At least when the reply was just "keep it in the Feedback thread" I could respect that- and I'm wholly sympathetic to SunRaven's stance of "I don't want to deal with this crap," even if I think it was wrong in this instance. That doesn't hold up so well now that you're here participating in this topic that was disallowed until you decided you wanted to chime in.

 

[GeneralFailureDriveA]

20+ year members don't just leave in a huff over a little thing.

I do note an exodus of long standing members in the feedback forum, although it seems either some deletion requests have been removed before completed, or perhaps after, I am unclear, but there are some threads requesting deletion that no longer exist.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

Ban me, and cement my decision.

We are going to be discussing this, here there and everywhere, whether that is "against the rules" or not.

Or, we're going to leave.

Your choice. And "choosing not to decide" is still a choice.

 

[GMBigKev]

Oh hey look! A transphobic asshat in the comments thread. Are we gonna let them continue to shit all over the thread or are you going to recognize they're just parroting the. Same. Exact. Bullshit we've addressed a hundred fucking thousand times?

 

[papadage]

It is "always about women" because FtM transitioners are not setting records in mens sports. MtF transitioners are, more and more frequently, winning and setting records in womens sports that are unlikely to be broken by biological women. Thomas, in particular, was a mediocre swimmer in male events, and despite swimming slower after transition, is setting meet and pool records regularly swimming in the womens events.

Physical performance sports are separated into genders because there are very real differences in peak physical performance between men and women, for a variety of physiological reasons, and to deny this for ideological reasons is to simply deny objective reality.

Consider that a state level high school boy runner outperforms olympic winning women, one cannot deny this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics#Top_ten_fastest_Olympic_times
The womens 100m record at the Olympics is 10.61s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
The boys 100m record for high school is around 10.00s. There are literally hundreds of high school boys who outperform olympic women athletes.

So, yes, those who are concerned about keeping womens sports as a venue for women to compete have reason to be concerned.

Kind of a tone deaf time to weigh in on this argument, isn’t it?

 

[GMBigKev]

Kind of a tone deaf time to weigh in on this argument, isn’t it?

They don't care, they've just found the opportunity to jab more transphobic idiocy in an LGBT space. Hey look, trans women, defend yourselves against this bullshit again.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

Oh hey look! A transphobic asshat in the comments thread. Are we gonna let them continue to shit all over the thread or are you going to recognize they're just parroting the. Same. Exact. Bullshit we've addressed a hundred fucking thousand times?

No, they'll ban us for discussing it, though.

 

[GeneralFailureDriveA]

Oh hey look! A transphobic asshat in the comments thread. Are we gonna let them continue to shit all over the thread or are you going to recognize they're just parroting the. Same. Exact. Bullshit we've addressed a hundred fucking thousand times?

If you refer to me in this case, which seems plausible as you are listed with a reaction icon on my post, how is observing that MtF transitioners are more or less destroying womens sports simply "bullshit"? Those opposed to the concept years back were told that MtF transitioners would not be a factor in sports, as they were rare, and that after some suitable period of time on female hormones, their performance would be no different from biological women.

This is, based on regularly occuring evidence now, simply false. MtF transitioners in womens sports are consistently top performers despite being mid field performers previously when competing with men, and when they are not simply setting but crushing existing records often enough, what message does this send to women? There are many irate women who were formerly top performers in their field, being told that they shouldn't care that what is physiologically still a man is beating them, by large amounts. Given the amount of recognition and often college scholarship money on the line, it is reasonable for them to be concerned.

And, as Aurich has said, this remains a valid topic of discussion here, at least for the time being. I am aware it is an unpopular opinion on the Ars Soap Box consensus, yet, it is a topic of active discussion and legislation in the United States.

Kind of a tone deaf time to weigh in on this argument, isn’t it?

It was an attempt to offer something other than the endless kvetching about moderation and bans/timeouts/suspensions.

 

[Urist]

"Why is it always women?"

Misogyny, plain and simple.

Same reason why the Walsh "documentary" vilifies MTF people as dangerous and FTM individuals as victims.

Walsh et al have an unhealthy obsession with teenage girls, sports or otherwise and it underpins their entire disgusting ideology.

 

[GeneralFailureDriveA]

No, they'll ban us for discussing it, though.

Under which of the recent moderation directives is this banworthy to discuss?

 

[GMBigKev]

Fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you. All of this directed at the transphobic asshole that the mod team decided to handle with kid gloves while temp-ejecting an actual ally.

 

[SunRaven01]

It is "always about women" because FtM transitioners are not setting records in mens sports. MtF transitioners are, more and more frequently, winning and setting records in womens sports that are unlikely to be broken by biological women. Thomas, in particular, was a mediocre swimmer in male events, and despite swimming slower after transition, is setting meet and pool records regularly swimming in the womens events.

Physical performance sports are separated into genders because there are very real differences in peak physical performance between men and women, for a variety of physiological reasons, and to deny this for ideological reasons is to simply deny objective reality.

Consider that a state level high school boy runner outperforms olympic winning women, one cannot deny this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics#Top_ten_fastest_Olympic_times
The womens 100m record at the Olympics is 10.61s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
The boys 100m record for high school is around 10.00s. There are literally hundreds of high school boys who outperform olympic women athletes.

So, yes, those who are concerned about keeping womens sports as a venue for women to compete have reason to be concerned.

/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///

---

I really can't see any way to read this language as anything other than transphobic. I left a comment on your post with a link to more information so you can do the labor of educating yourself on how to refer to transgender people, and you won't use that language again in this thread. Any response to this other than editing your post to fix the problematic language will result in an OW for trolling and arguing moderation.

Edit to add: oh, never mind, I see you've decided to go ahead and go for the gold medal. Get out.

 

[Aurich]

I wasn't actually inviting anyone to prove my point by derailing this discussion with the sports stuff. Read the room, ffs.

 

[GMBigKev]

The allowance and tacit approval of such kinds of discussions empowers those sorts of people to come in and spew their bullshit, and they always show their ass. Every time.

 

[Aurich]

The allowance and tacit approval of such kinds of discussions empowers those sorts of people to come in and spew their bullshit, and they always show their ass. Every time.

You're not wrong.

The way things work here is you get the benefit of the doubt, and if you prove you can't handle if you're shown the door.

I understand some would prefer a more proactive approach, and less of a "give them rope" one, but our policy is to let everyone try first. We do hope for intelligent discussion, it's up to people to see if they can rise to that standard or not.

 

[SunRaven01]

The allowance and tacit approval of such kinds of discussions empowers those sorts of people to come in and spew their bullshit, and they always show their ass. Every time.

The thing that I don't understand -- I mean I do understand, it's just one more attempt to fly that transphobic flag -- is that there's a way to bring up the topic of transgender men and transgender women competing in sports, without using coded language. You could take GFDA's post and easily write it in a way that invites discussion without being overtly transphobic, but given the opportunity, they go for the transphobic language every time.

Just searching something as simple as "transgender or transgendered" in your search engine of choice is going to pull up the GLAAD media reference guide at the very top of the search results. "Transgender people in sports" will give you several links to media coverage, but also the HRC resources page about that subject.

Alas, no. Here we are.

 

[Zero Chill]

This last page is like a perfect microcosm of the level of constant vigilance that is required to make sure you don't find yourself running a Nazi bar.

https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-...-punk-bar-even-if-theyre-not-bothering-anyone

 

[sum.zero]

You're not wrong.

The way things work here is you get the benefit of the doubt, and if you prove you can't handle if you're shown the door.

I understand some would prefer a more proactive approach, and less of a "give them rope" one, but our policy is to let everyone try first. We do hope for intelligent discussion, it's up to people to see if they can rise to that standard or not.

i routinely see multipage threads filled with bad faith arguments that just keep getting repeated while the community works tirelessly to counter them. that is exhausting and grinds down people who should have the same right to just exist as you and i. those people usually eventually leave and we're poorer for their loss while gaining nothing of value from the bad faith posts.

i don't know how to explain this any more clearly. it's not being fair, it's ars choosing to allow discrimination against marginalized people until ars decides that they've experienced enough and finally step in.

 

[Ecmaster76]

You could take GFDA's post and easily write it in a way that invites discussion without being overtly transphobic, but given the opportunity, they go for the transphobic language every time.

I agree that they seemed to be trolling but I have to admit I have a hard time understanding where the line is drawn on those terms

Urist used them in an abbreviated form above

While its true that the gender is not changing, the terms are descriptive of the physical changes as part of the gender confirmation process.

 

[Alfonse]

I agree that they seemed to be trolling but I have to admit I have a hard time understanding where the line is drawn on those terms

Urist used them in an abbreviated form above

While its true that the gender is not changing, the terms are descriptive of the physical changes as part of the gender confirmation process.

I thought the line was pretty simple:

Don't use them.

At best, they are outdated terminology. At worst, they give undo emphasis to the wrong gender identity and function as a subtle form of misgendering. It's a reminder of the way things were perceived rather than talking about the way things are. It also presupposes that the process of transitioning must by its nature involve a bunch of "physical changes".

In a good faith context, we have terminology that serves the same useful role without the downsides. Use that. Unless you're directly quoting an old source, there's just no positive reason to use the old terminology.

 

[Zero Chill]

It's an obviously bad faith tactic. It's the same as misgendering because it's using terminology that has been expressly retired by the trans community.

It's like transphobia 101... Refusing to call someone what they want to be called.

 

[ramases]

I thought the line was pretty simple:

Don't use them.

Yeah, pretty much this.

English isn't my native language (depending on whether you count sarcasm as a native language it is my 3rd or 4th), so sometimes I accidentally get the phrasing wrong on something. Frankly there's a bit of an issue with US posters not always grokking that people outside of the US also participate in the discussions here (and elsewhere on the internet) but aren't as plugged into their sociolinguistic context, and hence get out the pitchforks a bit too eagerly, but that's besides the point:

If someone tells you "Do not use <word>, because it creates <harm>.", then in almost all circumstances following that advance drastically reduces your risk of being The Asshole.

 

[Coppercloud]

Hey everyone, I read something neat on MPR NEWS today:

Apparently greater MN has it's first trans man (maybe trans persona at all?) in public office for greater MN. The asterisk there is "in greater MN" meaning not Minneapolis or St. Paul. I'm not sure if they include Rochester, Mankato, or Duluth in greater MN but it's notable that Northfield is a kind of posh trendy progressive town that isn't representative of all of greater MN. It's still cool to see some representation in politics.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/...ns-man-elected-to-office-in-greater-minnesota
edit: typo

 

[kheftel]

It's an obviously bad faith tactic. It's the same as misgendering because it's using terminology that has been expressly retired by the trans community.

It's like transphobia 101... Refusing to call someone what they want to be called.

Today I learned that terminology has been "expressly retired by the trans community". Thanks, I will steer clear of it.

 

[Urist]

Today I learned that terminology has been "expressly retired by the trans community". Thanks, I will steer clear of it.

I wouldn't say MTF/FTM has been "expressly retired" as they can and are used within the trans community in cases where additional context is required. However using it to describe someone is likely to come off as incredibly rude at best, and when used single out MTF people specifically for discrimination in GFDA's example, is definitely deliberate misgendering.

 

[papadage]

It's not just the terminology. It's also the fake drama about trans athletes ruining women's sports. It's bad faith with just enough dialed back to try to pass the ToS.