Feddit UK

1545 readers

17 users here now

Community for the Feddit UK instance.
A place to log issues, and for the admins to communicate with everyone.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

141

Transphobia guidelines (feddit.uk)

submitted 2 weeks ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/feddituk@feddit.uk

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -9 points 2 weeks ago (46 children)

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.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 6 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

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.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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?

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum

What is not?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (15 replies)

load more comments (41 replies)