this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
140 points (88.9% liked)
Feddit UK
1524 readers
7 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I understand this. I think what kind of annoyed me the most is
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:
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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 " communities. Religion isn't important to me, but it is to many and there should be space for it here.
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.