And I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the insistence of linking Rachel Dolezal to transgender - starting here on page 33 of the Transgender thread, continuing through another post on that page, moving to a third post on the next page and continuing to an initial fourth post on p35 when I started discussing the case in depth as the posts weren't going away. That whole discussion was aggressive and continued for the rest of the page and on to page 36.
I would like to offer some clarification of this.
@Curiosity killed if anyone reads the posts above it will be plain to see that there was a very simple reason for them being repeated: nobody was answering the question.
Whereupon Eutychus dropped out.
After a host post by @BroJames advising people to take a break and cool it. Posting in my capacity as a shipmate, I do my best to respect the hosts like everybody else. I simply took his hostly advice.
The bad taste in the mouth is partly because of the nature of the posts and partly because the Rachel Dolezal case has been used frequently by people denying the reality of transgender
I had no idea of this, and at no time was that my intention. Her case got me thinking about the limits of self-identification, and that was all. My penultimate comment on the thread explicitly said I wasn't seeking to draw any direct comparisons:
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not comparing any trans person to Rachel Dolezal or her story. I am probing what I see as possible limits to the principle of self-identity.
I now realise that Dolezal was an unhelpful example to use in that respect, because since I stopped posting on that thread it has been explained to me elsewhere how her case has regularly been used to trans-bash (I can see how it could be, but I had no idea it is, apparently, frequently used as such), and so was likely to push some sensitive buttons, but I honestly wasn't aware of this when I asked the question, and nobody said anything to that effect on the thread in response.
The problem for me is that this is part of your pattern. Re-framing a fuck up as not one or as a lesser one. And this is not even the first time you have used a racist analogy to cover less than sensitive approach to LGBTQ+. The problem here is not that Dolezal has been used to bash transpeople regularly, but that she has been used this way at all.
Also your post represents your typical "apology": I had no idea that was offensive, but what I really meant was...
when the better response would be. Fuck me, that was wrong. I apologise.
Or, in this case Fuck me, that was racist and transphobic. I apologise.
The Dolezal discussion continued for a number of pages and no one – absolutely no one – on the thread pointed out the way this case has been used against the trans community. Not either publicly or by sending a PM. It was ruled off limits as soon as another Host pointed it out backstage. It would have been ruled off limits earlier if someone had spoken up.
Can you point to the post where it was rules off-limits? I cannot find that.
It’s easy, when you’re talking about something you’re unfamiliar with, to blunder into areas you really shouldn’t. If no one is willing to point them out, you won’t know and you won’t learn to be better. I’m so grateful for the people who’ve done that for me over the years, but assumed the best (ignorance) rather than the worst (~isms). I’m even more grateful them now having seen what I could have got.
How about a fuck me, it would have been better if someone had said something? No ... thought not.
I am an irregular view of that thread.* This is my first post in it after Dolezal was mentioned and represents where I dipped back in.
And fuck me, I apologise. I've stayed away from that thread for the most part and that makes me a poor ally.
I did remember various places where Dolezal was used in an anti-trans argument, but this was a few years ago, and I didn't think it was being used here like that. As CK said, I don't want to go burrowing into this stuff really. An article in the philosophy journal 'Hypatia', called 'In Defense of Transracialism', by Rebecca Tuvel, caused disquiet, (available online). I don't think she was particularly hostile to trans, but she deadnamed Caitlyn Jenner, and other stuff, but it caused a storm, and led to resignations from the journal. I think it was part of a widespread media equation of transrace with transgender, often with a negative tone about the latter. Reading this stuff is not pleasant.
@lilbuddha I remember Eutychus's stance on the Fellbridge Hall lanyard case as coming from an misunderstanding of how much acceptance is expected from various venues. He was arguing from the point of view of if the Hall was a church as against a café - which Leorning Cniht pointed out shortly before that thread wound up.
I went back and skimmed through it and that is not what I read. He might have ended up where you say, but he wandered down other paths to get there. His arguments, from the beginning, were against calling the protest homophobia.
You've just told us that what you have done and continue to do re Eutychus does not constitute bullying, because (as you see it) he is not "a timid poster with no supporters" and it is impossible for "a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates" to be the same thing as bullying. Have I got news for you. You need to look into the dynamics of bullying, as size has very little (if anything) to do with it. You are a human being. He is a human being. End of story.
Bullying is about power and I have no more power here than he does.
And besides, what qualifies you to judge the emotional impact this is having on Eutychus? You may see him as this emotionally invulnerable person, but frankly, I don't know of any such in real life, let alone on the Internet. And I am willing to bet that you have no real-life acquaintance with Eutychus, and therefore your estimation of the impact you are having is just plain bullshit.
I have no way of knowing the emotional impact other than his words. But I do have the words of his that marginalise other people. What of their feelings?
You just don't know. I don't know. But in the absence of knowledge, it is best to assume that you have the capability to create real pain, and to walk carefully.
Sheesh, I thought you would have learned that from all the #MeToo type threads you have been involved in, whether those have to do with gender, orientation, race, or what have you. Random strangers on the internet can certainly bully, even if they have absolutely no relationship to the person they are bullying and have never had contact before. And that is not your case with Eutychus.
Euty is not some random stranger. He has a history here, one that implies he can stand to criticism.
You've just told us that what you have done and continue to do re Eutychus does not constitute bullying, because (as you see it) he is not "a timid poster with no supporters" and it is impossible for "a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates" to be the same thing as bullying. Have I got news for you. You need to look into the dynamics of bullying, as size has very little (if anything) to do with it. You are a human being. He is a human being. End of story.
Bullying is about power and I have no more power here than he does.
Bullying is about abuse. Individual humans are capable of abusing regardless of whether they have "power." Otherwise will you say that the various anonymous male assholes on Twitter are not bullying women when they pop up on random threads and shit on their experiences?
They have no power and no relationship. They are simply randos on the internet. But they have mouths (keyboards) as you do, and they can abuse, and they can cause pain. I'll leave you to draw the parallel.
And besides, what qualifies you to judge the emotional impact this is having on Eutychus? You may see him as this emotionally invulnerable person, but frankly, I don't know of any such in real life, let alone on the Internet. And I am willing to bet that you have no real-life acquaintance with Eutychus, and therefore your estimation of the impact you are having is just plain bullshit.
I have no way of knowing the emotional impact other than his words. But I do have the words of his that marginalise other people. What of their feelings?
Since when have two wrongs made a right? The fallacy you're committing is called "Tu Quoque" (you're another). Though I am not in fact agreeing that Eutychus is anything of the sort. I am solely concerned with the bullying behavior I see here.
You just don't know. I don't know. But in the absence of knowledge, it is best to assume that you have the capability to create real pain, and to walk carefully.
Sheesh, I thought you would have learned that from all the #MeToo type threads you have been involved in, whether those have to do with gender, orientation, race, or what have you. Random strangers on the internet can certainly bully, even if they have absolutely no relationship to the person they are bullying and have never had contact before. And that is not your case with Eutychus.
Euty is not some random stranger. He has a history here, one that implies he can stand to criticism.
Give me a break. Do you not know the difference between criticism and hounding someone? Exactly how many posts do you have on these two / three threads, repeating your criticisms again and again and again and AGAIN?
If he were Jack the Ripper, I'd think you were overdoing it.
You've just told us that what you have done and continue to do re Eutychus does not constitute bullying, because (as you see it) he is not "a timid poster with no supporters" and it is impossible for "a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates" to be the same thing as bullying. Have I got news for you. You need to look into the dynamics of bullying, as size has very little (if anything) to do with it. You are a human being. He is a human being. End of story.
Bullying is about power and I have no more power here than he does.
Bullying is about abuse. Individual humans are capable of abusing regardless of whether they have "power."
Otherwise will you say that the various anonymous male assholes on Twitter are not bullying women when they pop up on random threads and shit on their experiences?
They have no power and no relationship. They are simply randos on the internet. But they have mouths (keyboards) as you do, and they can abuse, and they can cause pain. I'll leave you to draw the parallel.
Men attaking women are using the power inherent in being male. Same with racism and etc.
Since when have two wrongs made a right? The fallacy you're committing is called "Tu Quoque" (you're another). Though I am not in fact agreeing that Eutychus is anything of the sort. I am solely concerned with the bullying behavior I see here.
His postings on the Transphobia thread are potentially hurtful which is why he was called here.
Give me a break. Do you not know the difference between criticism and hounding someone? Exactly how many posts do you have on these two / three threads, repeating your criticisms again and again and again and AGAIN?
If he were Jack the Ripper, I'd think you were overdoing it.
Hounding someone is different to bullying. As far as the multiple threads, that is not my doing and as Euty's posting is related to all of them and not all of the cross-posting is of my doing.
Many of my posts are answering comments, so how am I hounding him by replying to other people?
And I’m mostly glad I shared what I did on the purgatory thread, but there is a tinge of regret. It’s easier being honest with strangers on the internet than real life, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually easy.
I'm very glad that you shared as you did - it set out clearly and well a history very foreign to me (and I suspect for many others also).
lilbuddha, your exquisitely-honed and meticulously-cultivated sense of moral justice seems both comprehensive and minutely detailed, but has somehow apparently omitted you from its exacting calculations.
Men attaking women are using the power inherent in being male. Same with racism and etc.
lilbuddha, this is beneath you. Such a copybook response is nonsense. We're individuals. The fact that men generally have more power than women generally is utterly belied at the individual level -- the level where, I'll just point out, we operate on these fora -- when a random female traffic cop pulls over the random speeding local male city councilor and writes him a ticket.
Hounding someone is different to bullying. As far as the multiple threads, that is not my doing and as Euty's posting is related to all of them and not all of the cross-posting is of my doing.
Many of my posts are answering comments, so how am I hounding him by replying to other people?
May I suggest that, instead of commenting further, you might take a little time and try reading what you've posted with the same eagle eye you've been training on Eutychus?
I did remember various places where Dolezal was used in an anti-trans argument, but this was a few years ago, and I didn't think it was being used here like that.
I don’t have a problem with @Eutychus because he’s someone who asks questions and is inquiring. Sure, sometimes all of us can ask questions that are blundering or insensitive. That’s life. My impression of Euty is that he wants to understand. A lot of people don’t even want to understand.
@lilbuddha, love you to bits, and a lot of what you’ve pointed out is valid, but you two have such a history. Hounding is a good word for it - can’t you go a bit easier on him?
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
I'm not sure how I could bully Eutychus. Were he a timid poster with no supporters, I could see this as being possible. This is more the equivalent of a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates. Whilst questioning the validity of the action is still valid, framing it as bullying is less so.
(Shrug) I've worked several places where staff have bullied management.
It's not about power, but intent.
You've been really clear you don't like Eutychus.
It seems you are not crediting him with good faith. It seems that nothing he could do or say would satisfy you and your outrage.
It seems that your yardstick of 'justice' is the only measure you carry. Others here, who may have issue, also carry one of reconciliation.
When you next get up, have a look in the mirror. Have a word with yourself. Is this who you want to be? How important is it that people agree just how right you are?
I did remember various places where Dolezal was used in an anti-trans argument, but this was a few years ago, and I didn't think it was being used here like that.
Thanks, @quetzalcoatl, as I've said, it wasn't, and it's very gracious of you to concur down here despite our falling-out on that thread.
In search of more clarification, I want to pick up on the second part of your post (emphasis mine) to ask @Curiosity killed something:
As CK said, I don't want to go burrowing into this stuff really. An article in the philosophy journal 'Hypatia', called 'In Defense of Transracialism', by Rebecca Tuvel, caused disquiet, (available online). I don't think she was particularly hostile to trans, but she deadnamed Caitlyn Jenner, and other stuff, but it caused a storm, and led to resignations from the journal. I think it was part of a widespread media equation of transrace with transgender, often with a negative tone about the latter. Reading this stuff is not pleasant.
On the Styx thread, here, @Curiosity killed has just used this post from me as an example of her "being attacked for challenging anti-trans".
@Curiosity killed I've reread that post (which comes before anything I said about Dolezal on the thread, and before the post that spawned the Hell OP) several times, and I cannot for the life of me see how you could take that as an attack on you (I notice you don't say you "felt" you were attacked, but use it as an example of how you were being attacked).
If saying "I disagree" is perceived as an attack, we can all go home right now. I went out of my way in that post to acknowledge, as @quetzalcoatl does above, that this is painful territory. That's not an excuse for insensitivity, and I know I can come across, especially in this medium, as insensitive. But I contest the notion that the post you cite was in any way an attack, and I stand by everything I said in it.
As I said in that post, the broader challenge I see here is to find the right way of actually discussing issues like this (FWIW, I recongise myself in @goperryrevs' description above: I want to understand, whilst also being perfectly capable of coming across as blundering and insensitive in doing so) whilst mitigating the possibility for hurt through ignorance or insensitivity.
It has been very obvious that this thread has been all about working through the issues around transgender which has meant much of the posting has been a denial of transgender.
I disagree.
Firstly, questioning does not equal denial. Challenging our assumptions about a spherical earth does not make one a Flat Earther.
Secondly, I broadly agree with those that find the -phobia suffix extremely unhelpful.
'Phobia' originally means 'fear', and is commonly used as a suffix to stand for '-hater'. There are undoubtedly people who hate and are deliberately hurtful towards minorities, and in my experience here they are dealt with one way or another pretty effectively.
However, all too often, throwing around words with '-phobe', '-phobia', and '-phobic' suffixes comes across simply as a way of shutting down debate. The same applies to the word 'bigot'. So far as I can see, use of this word is simply a way of shooting first. <snip>
At the same time that I was also responding to quantpole who had complained of being called a transphobe on the previous page, p27 of the Transgender thread (which wasn't me, but I was being challenged by quantpole and responded to by Eliab) - it was still continuing on 2 July in this post and following and continued through the Rachel Dolezal discussion, with a number of people involved in those posts.
At the same time there were discussions happening on other threads:
the NOprophet thread in Hell - from July 6 - because I took something from the Transphobia thread to Hell, here - which was at the bottom of page 1 of that thread, and that thread lengthened to 4 pages following that post
I'll tell you what engages me: attacking people for asking questions.
Absolutely, @Ohher . Me too. My engagement on this topic is nothing to do with my feelings towards any particular minority and everything to do with that.
<snip>
Really? I think it's best accomplished by listening to what trans folk tell us about what the experience.
One of the things that I am finding so frustrating about this discussion, is that those of us challenging the views on these threads are assumed to have no knowledge or discussions with trans people going on in our lives.
The fact remains that so far as I know, neither you nor anyone else in the conversation are a trans person telling us about what they experience. You are telling us what you think they experience. However well-informed you are, that is not the same thing by a million miles.
felt so much like an attack that I walked away only returning later to try and sort out the h&a's chocolates, but posting this:
I admit I logged out earlier because I felt as if I was being told that I cannot challenge any of the anti-trans tropes because I am not an authentic transgender voice. It felt as if what was being said was that the only people who can challenge the inaccuracies and anti-trans propaganda are authentic trans voices.
If I wasn't running the Host and Admins chocolate thread, I would have logged out, just gone. I've done it in the past for a year or so when I've felt I'm out of tune with the Ship, and that's what I feel now. I don't want to be a part of something that feels this oblivious to how deaf it's being to the transgender issues. I have much better ways of spending my time.
@Curiosity killed, in the Styx you cited one specific post, the one I referenced, as an example of you being attacked.
Not several subsequent posts, but that post.
That post can't be a "cumulative effect", because it's the first in the series you cite.
You didn't cite it as grounds for how you felt, or how a subsequent series of posts made you feel, but as a standalone example of how you were being attacked.
I would like to know your justification for using that post as an example of you being attacked.
I don't want to be a part of something that feels this oblivious to how deaf it's being to the transgender issues.
How much time have the Crew spent considering the issues raised on the transphobia thread in the Styx? Conversations which have now resulted in significant changes to our practices and guidelines to better deal with transgender issues on two occasions, and which are ongoing. You consider this being deaf to transgender issues? And, that's just the official side of the Ship, there are probably plenty of individual Shipmates who, as a result of listening to the conversations in the Styx and Purgatory, have learnt and changed their attitudes and approaches to how they treat other people. Were they deaf to the issues?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Fellbrigg Hall lanyards thread. A DH thread in 2017 in the old Ship. Source here
lilBuddha, I think it was Louise who raised the racial analogy in the first place, in defence of her opinion, not Eutychus in defence of his. Page 2 refers.
And CK is right. At the end of the thread, Eutychus, who was a Purg Host at the time, showed a change of mind because of Learning Cniht's good post. Does it really matter if he took some time to get there?
As Tubbs pointed out, he did something similar re the wisdom of using Rachel Dolezal as a fair comparison on the Transgender thread. And said so here
He's not implacable, lilBuddha. He can be affected by the arguments of others. And say so. That's a good trait in a Shipmate.
One of the sadnesses of human nature is that when we get our knives into other people, it takes a lot to persuade us to take them out.
I think Ohher is right. Sometimes it's a good idea to reflect, to turn our keen eyed perception of others on ourselves, and see what we see.
As we now have 2 open Styx threads (and 1 closed), 1 Purg thread, and 2 Hell threads dealing with transgender, many of them covering and reiterating much of the same ground over and OVER with neither a clear end nor goal in sight despite substantive changes made by H&A on the basis of these discussions, I wonder if the Ship needs a mechanism for calling temporary cease-fires.
Anyone who is sick of it can quit posting on the topic and do other things with their time. Post on other topics. Learn a musical instrument. Go hiking. Re-arrange their sock drawer.
Fellbrigg Hall lanyards thread. A DH thread in 2017 in the old Ship. Source here
lilBuddha, I think it was Louise who raised the racial analogy in the first place, in defence of her opinion, not Eutychus in defence of his. Page 2 refers.
I'm referring to page 7. People can read though that if they wish.
I'm done commenting on my comments for the moment, but I'll leave with this analogy:
I have anger issues. I've admitted this, apologised for it and genuinely try to work on it.
How much does this matter if I repeatedly end up in the same spot?
@Curiosity killed, in the Styx you cited one specific post, the one I referenced, as an example of you being attacked.
Not several subsequent posts, but that post.
That post can't be a "cumulative effect", because it's the first in the series you cite.
You didn't cite it as grounds for how you felt, or how a subsequent series of posts made you feel, but as a standalone example of how you were being attacked.
I would like to know your justification for using that post as an example of you being attacked.
She is talking about how she felt, you utter fuckwit. She explicitly said she is not making accusations.
What does it say about you, eutychus, that right after several people defending your march towards understanding and progress that you feel empowered to attack a person who expressed vulnerability?
@lilbuddha what, in the post by me that @Curiosity killedspecifically chose to cite as an example of where she'd "been attacked" (her words), do you think could have made her feel she'd been attacked, let alone constitute an attack on her?
@lilbuddha, I've been wading through this and related threads for what feels like years now. I have to agree with @Lamb Chopped and @Ohher: You are a bully. Bullying is about abuse, and you have abused your target(s) repeatedly, repetitiously, ad nauseam, and, not infrequently, ad hominem.
What you have done/are doing to Eutychus is in fact bullying. You refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt; you treat him as if he is not your fellow human being. After reading through several pages of this stuff, I felt as though I was watching "The Day of the Locust," with you doing the stomping in the climactic scene. You are causing real and egregious pain.
Oh, and you really do not have to reply to Every.Single.Post. on a given topic. (I used to do that far too often, but I outgrew it. Go thou and do likewise.)
Since when have two wrongs made a right? The fallacy you're committing is called "Tu Quoque" (you're another). Though I am not in fact agreeing that Eutychus is anything of the sort. I am solely concerned with the bullying behavior I see here. ...
... You just don't know. I don't know. But in the absence of knowledge, it is best to assume that you have the capability to create real pain, and to walk carefully. ...
This. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited July 2019
Hurt people hurt people.
lilBuddah, OK. I'm sorry I pursued my own curiosity. Just trying to understand better. I didn't intend to rake over old coals.
@lilbuddha what, in the post by me that @Curiosity killedspecifically chose to cite as an example of where she'd "been attacked" (her words), do you think could have made her feel she'd been attacked, let alone constitute an attack on her?
I think the answer is later in her post: 'I felt as if I was being told that I cannot challenge any of the anti-trans tropes because I am not an authentic transgender voice. It felt as if what was being said was that the only people who can challenge the inaccuracies and anti-trans propaganda are authentic trans voices.'
Which I don't think is a fair interpretation, but I can sort of see how she got there.
I dunno, I have limited sympathy with CK because ISTM that if you accuse people of doing or condoning bad stuff (such as being transphobic or being too soft on transphobia), then it's predictable that they will get angry and say things you don't like. (Example: I stand by most of what I've said about Labour and anti-Semitism, but I can't really complain if Labour supporters get angry with me when I say it.)
At the same time, I agree we should be careful using words like 'transphobia' if instead of leading to engagement it just causes people to feel under attack and barricade themselves in their ideological bunker. But that presupposes that it matters that people feel under attack, in which case it matters that CK also feels under attack.
At the same time, I agree we should be careful using words like 'transphobia' if instead of leading to engagement it just causes people to feel under attack and barricade themselves in their ideological bunker.
The problem is that softening can also make change difficult because of the perceived distance from the term.
Like racism, the lesser blocks are still part of the pyramid of hate.
So, no, a person “uncomfortable” around trans is not as bad as a person who hates. But they support that hate, however unintentionally.
I am not saying treat them as one would the hater, but there is a danger in softening the terminology.
So, there is an issue if you want to reach the “uncomfortable”.
My question is how much should one consider them at the expense of those who their “uncomfortableness” disadvantages?
I am not saying Fuck Them All!
But I do find it funny that on a site where people are arguing to be allowed to speak in a manner that potentially harms trans, they are also arguing for the gentler treatment of people who’s “feelings” contribute to the harm of trans people.
Unrestful for one, but not the other? Hmmm...
At the same time, I agree we should be careful using words like 'transphobia' if instead of leading to engagement it just causes people to feel under attack and barricade themselves in their ideological bunker.
The problem is that softening can also make change difficult because of the perceived distance from the term.
According to whom? On what recognized moral authority do you base this bit of alleged wisdom?
Personally, I am (like many humans) sometimes lazy, or often over-busy, or occasionally training my sights elsewhere, etc. What motivates me to challenge and change my own prejudiced thinking? Let's face it: changing attitudes and beliefs takes work, time, and effort. If I am lazy, I won't want to do this work. If I am over-busy, I won't have time to do this work. If I'm focused on other issues, I rob other potentially worthwhile causes of my efforts to devote myself to this new one. In any of these cases, how motivating will I find it to be told -- by a self-appointed Internet Persona / High Moral Arbiter Who Apparently Regards Her Own Pronouncements as Holy Writ -- over and over, that I am a bigoted serial abuser of trans people?
Who, may I ask, placed responsibility for Eutychus's moral development on your shoulders? If this doesn't violate any confidences, did he request this of you? For that matter, how is it your job to challenge and rule on all such issues for all passengers and crew of the Ship generally? Are others here clamoring for your moral guidance? Is Eutychus an adult? Are the other posters here adults? Have we all agreed to shed personal responsibility for our moral dilemmas and instead submit to your infallible wisdom?
Newsflash: I didn't.
I don't claim we none of us need moral guidance. Likely we all do. Likely most of us consider such questions regularly and have our own means of resolving them for ourselves and sources of guidance for when we're stuck and need help.
Nor do I claim that your moral judgments are mistaken. Most are obvious and require little reflection. Personally, I have about all I can handle, as a teacher, dealing with the moral dilemmas I face daily in dealing with students and, as a citizen, dealing with a government which has abruptly turned into an open sewer.
I am, however, fed to the teeth with your apparent conviction that you alone somehow possess the One True Truth in all moral matters, and that you alone have the means to guide -- or drag -- the rest of us misbegotten slackards, kicking and screaming, along your stony, thorny route to achieving enlightenment.
My question is how much should one consider them [those uncomfortable with trans] at the expense of those who their “uncomfortableness” disadvantages? (My insertion)
I am not saying Fuck Them All!
But I do find it funny that on a site where people are arguing to be allowed (my added emphasis) to speak in a manner that potentially harms trans, they are also arguing for the gentler treatment of people who’s “feelings” contribute to the harm of trans people.
Unrestful for one, but not the other? Hmmm...
Do you have actual evidence that any trans person has been harmed on the various trans threads? I know Greyface left; do you know, based on evidence outside your own Infallible* perceptions, that she was "harmed?" Is a decision to leave a thread or a forum in protection of one's own sensibilities not a common means of harm prevention? I do not claim that Greyface's departure is of no concern; on the contrary, it's distressing when discussions lead to the need for self-protection. Is that the same as "harm," though?
Do you propose that the Ship stop "allowing" (your term) posters to speak in their own words and voices so as to prevent "harming" people? Any suggestions for how a small, entirely-volunteer crew might go about enforcing such practices? Or are we all simply to shut the fuck up? Any suggestions as to how you might alter your own postings to prevent the potential "harm" they might be causing Eutychus? How about your judgments on the harm this could cause other posters, to whose fatigue you may be contributing?
Do you, in short, grasp that your posts -- along with the ways in which you word them, based possibly on the feelings you might have -- also affect others?
Can you explain how people's "feelings" directly contribute to the harm of trans people (or relevant others)? I get that there are utterances which others might react to with anger, sadness, or fear; but who is responsible for these feelings? If I react to another's words with anger, am I not the one responsible for my anger? Do I not have options for how to react?
Are we responsible for how others interpret, misinterpret, or react? I also grasp that there are actions which someone can find threatening (though direct actions aren't a feature in this medium); but you have referenced "feelings" specifically. Is it your contention that the very existence of"feelings" harms people? What -- in light of the fact that human emotion seems nearly universal -- do you suggest we do about this?
Labels affecting perception is basic psychology, not “moral authority”.
Transpeople have a higher rate of self-harm than do the general population. You do the math as to why you should be more considerate of them than we of your right to talk about them however you wish.
Am I stirring the pot? Ohher seemed to be saying that if I say something that is hurtful to trans people, they have the responsibility to deal with their own feelings, ("am I not responsible for my anger?"). Well, OK, but does that mean that hurting trans people is OK? Or Jews.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
quetz
It helps if you put the word 'alleged' in there. Alleged antisemitism is a huge live issue in the Labour Party at present and certainly open for discussion provided folks avoid libel.
I'm not sure how many Jewish Shipmates we have at present but I'm certainly open to hear from them.
And the Trump threads are open for discussions re the Trump racist tweets. We haven't got too many GOP members at the moment but if they wanted to join GOP Reps and Senators in defending the tweets, I think we'd allow it, depending on language used.
The question of what limits we should apply to our ethos of unrest is a continuing one for the Styx.
There are also legal issues, I guess. I don't know the parameters of hate speech, but presumably they apply on the internet, although there seems to be huge leeway. I was a mod on another forum, and we would allow people to say that gay is sinful, but after that, it becomes dicey. I think the phrase that people objected to re trans, was "Del boy in a dress". I think also terms such as "tranny" and "trap" are non grata on most forums, except 4chan!
Men have a higher rate of self-harm than the general population. It's our biggest killer below 50.
You do the maths.
More often from socioeconomic pressure and as a result of loss of “masculinity” which is a mostly male driven cultural artefact.
Not the same thing.
And even were it, it wouldn’t justify ignoring trans feelings
Men have a higher rate of self-harm than the general population. It's our biggest killer below 50.
You do the maths.
More often from socioeconomic pressure and as a result of loss of “masculinity” which is a mostly male driven cultural artefact.
Not the same thing.
And even were it, it wouldn’t justify ignoring trans feelings
So, simply put, the rate of self-harm is a complete red herring, and it's not how you judge how to talk to people. Glad we've cleared that up.
Am I stirring the pot? Ohher seemed to be saying that if I say something that is hurtful to trans people, they have the responsibility to deal with their own feelings, ("am I not responsible for my anger?"). Well, OK, but does that mean that hurting trans people is OK? Or Jews.
As the token person-of-Jewish-heritage on this thread, I can tell you bluntly to Styx or fuck off. We have a subject here. It's not anti-Semitism.
Men have a higher rate of self-harm than the general population. It's our biggest killer below 50.
You do the maths.
More often from socioeconomic pressure and as a result of loss of “masculinity” which is a mostly male driven cultural artefact.
Not the same thing.
And even were it, it wouldn’t justify ignoring trans feelings
So, simply put, the rate of self-harm is a complete red herring, and it's not how you judge how to talk to people. Glad we've cleared that up.
Are you that fucking stupid?
Trans suicides are directly liked to how they are perceived in society and that is directly linked to how we talk about them.
Am I stirring the pot? Ohher seemed to be saying that if I say something that is hurtful to trans people, they have the responsibility to deal with their own feelings, ("am I not responsible for my anger?"). Well, OK, but does that mean that hurting trans people is OK? Or Jews.
As the token person-of-Jewish-heritage on this thread, I can tell you bluntly to Styx or fuck off. We have a subject here. It's not anti-Semitism.
DT
HH
So analogies are not allowed. Glad we cleared that up.
Are you that fucking stupid?
Trans suicides are directly liked to how they are perceived in society and that is directly linked to how we talk about them.
No, but apparently you are. All you have is a hammer. Everyone is a nail.
Are you that fucking stupid?
Trans suicides are directly liked to how they are perceived in society and that is directly linked to how we talk about them.
No, but apparently you are. All you have is a hammer. Everyone is a nail.
At the same time, I agree we should be careful using words like 'transphobia' if instead of leading to engagement it just causes people to feel under attack and barricade themselves in their ideological bunker.
The problem is that softening can also make change difficult because of the perceived distance from the term.
I asked what authority you based this assertion on (partly because, frankly, it annoys the hell out of me that no one ever seems to require you to source your info. If I posted this bit of bullshit, 2 or 3 other participants would promptly demand my sources for it. I really don't know how you so routinely get away scot [sorry, Grampy Duncan, no shade on you or my forebears] free in this regard).
Labels affecting perception is basic psychology, not “moral authority”.
Transpeople have a higher rate of self-harm than do the general population. You do the math as to why you should be more considerate of them than we of your right to talk about them however you wish.
1. This completely evades the question I raised (something you've just accused another poster of doing to you on this very thread. Goose? Gander? Sauce much?).
2. Yeah, labeling affects perception is basic psych. But the issue Ricardus was addressing and you were allegedly responding to (and I was questioning) IS a moral question: basically, can people be dissuaded from a prejudice? Should we attempt this? If so, how? Probably not by hounding and name-calling (Ricardus's point, not yours).
3. Meanwhile, the Psych 101 course you maybe took 30 years ago or whenevs has probably undergone a teensy revision or two. It appears, as I read your Eutychus-related posts on this thread, that you believe you've uncovered a deep, secret pool of prejudice in your target. Recent (OK, 8 years old; shoot me) research suggests otherwise.
Here's a snippet: ". . . the assumption that somehow, your implicit or unconscious biases reveal 'the real you . . . is incredibly detrimental to improving intergroup relations. Why? The assumption that prejudice and egalitarianism is an all-or-none proposition (i.e., one is either prejudiced or one is egalitarian) makes us feel very threatened by the possibility that we may harbor a prejudiced impulse, as that impulse would thus reveal our “true” nature."
Then you go on to the rate of trans suicide, about which you care so deeply you can't bestir yourself to provide stats, instead expecting me to do so, to which I say: fuck you. Do your own damn work.
I call bullshit. Top to bottom, side to side, back to front bullshit.
But the issue Ricardus was addressing and you were allegedly responding to (and I was questioning) IS a moral question: basically, can people be dissuaded from a prejudice? Should we attempt this? If so, how? Probably not by hounding and name-calling (Ricardus's point, not yours).
I feel the need to point out this was only half my point - the other half, which has been snipped out, was that if it matters that people feel attacked by being called transphobic, then it also matters if people feel attacked for other reasons.
Trans suicides are directly liked to how they are perceived in society and that is directly linked to how we talk about them.
Fair enough, but it takes considerable license of interpretation to extrapolate someone ending their life because someone else confesses to 'feeling uncomfortable' with trans people. Which is effectively - if not literally - what your posts appear to be doing.
Further, I don't think the confession of 'feeling uncomfortable' is necessarily a softening of the term 'hating trans people', though I do understand the danger of the thin end of the wedge, if 'uncomfortableness' is encouraged or unchallenged.
We can't always control how we instinctively feel; only how we choose subsequently to react to that feeling.
Comments
This is my first post in it after Dolezal was mentioned and represents where I dipped back in.
And fuck me, I apologise. I've stayed away from that thread for the most part and that makes me a poor ally.
Bullying is about abuse. Individual humans are capable of abusing regardless of whether they have "power." Otherwise will you say that the various anonymous male assholes on Twitter are not bullying women when they pop up on random threads and shit on their experiences?
They have no power and no relationship. They are simply randos on the internet. But they have mouths (keyboards) as you do, and they can abuse, and they can cause pain. I'll leave you to draw the parallel.
Since when have two wrongs made a right? The fallacy you're committing is called "Tu Quoque" (you're another). Though I am not in fact agreeing that Eutychus is anything of the sort. I am solely concerned with the bullying behavior I see here.
Give me a break. Do you not know the difference between criticism and hounding someone? Exactly how many posts do you have on these two / three threads, repeating your criticisms again and again and again and AGAIN?
If he were Jack the Ripper, I'd think you were overdoing it.
Men attaking women are using the power inherent in being male. Same with racism and etc. His postings on the Transphobia thread are potentially hurtful which is why he was called here.
Hounding someone is different to bullying. As far as the multiple threads, that is not my doing and as Euty's posting is related to all of them and not all of the cross-posting is of my doing.
Many of my posts are answering comments, so how am I hounding him by replying to other people?
I'm very glad that you shared as you did - it set out clearly and well a history very foreign to me (and I suspect for many others also).
lilbuddha: are you seriously implying that you are without power?
lilbuddha, this is beneath you. Such a copybook response is nonsense. We're individuals. The fact that men generally have more power than women generally is utterly belied at the individual level -- the level where, I'll just point out, we operate on these fora -- when a random female traffic cop pulls over the random speeding local male city councilor and writes him a ticket.
And this justifies delivering potentially hurtful (and repetitive) comments by you to Eutychus?
May I suggest that, instead of commenting further, you might take a little time and try reading what you've posted with the same eagle eye you've been training on Eutychus?
I don’t have a problem with @Eutychus because he’s someone who asks questions and is inquiring. Sure, sometimes all of us can ask questions that are blundering or insensitive. That’s life. My impression of Euty is that he wants to understand. A lot of people don’t even want to understand.
@lilbuddha, love you to bits, and a lot of what you’ve pointed out is valid, but you two have such a history. Hounding is a good word for it - can’t you go a bit easier on him?
And thanks, @Barnabas62 and @Gee D.
(Shrug) I've worked several places where staff have bullied management.
It's not about power, but intent.
You've been really clear you don't like Eutychus.
It seems you are not crediting him with good faith. It seems that nothing he could do or say would satisfy you and your outrage.
It seems that your yardstick of 'justice' is the only measure you carry. Others here, who may have issue, also carry one of reconciliation.
When you next get up, have a look in the mirror. Have a word with yourself. Is this who you want to be? How important is it that people agree just how right you are?
Asher
Thanks, @quetzalcoatl, as I've said, it wasn't, and it's very gracious of you to concur down here despite our falling-out on that thread.
In search of more clarification, I want to pick up on the second part of your post (emphasis mine) to ask @Curiosity killed something:
On the Styx thread, here, @Curiosity killed has just used this post from me as an example of her "being attacked for challenging anti-trans".
@Curiosity killed I've reread that post (which comes before anything I said about Dolezal on the thread, and before the post that spawned the Hell OP) several times, and I cannot for the life of me see how you could take that as an attack on you (I notice you don't say you "felt" you were attacked, but use it as an example of how you were being attacked).
If saying "I disagree" is perceived as an attack, we can all go home right now. I went out of my way in that post to acknowledge, as @quetzalcoatl does above, that this is painful territory. That's not an excuse for insensitivity, and I know I can come across, especially in this medium, as insensitive. But I contest the notion that the post you cite was in any way an attack, and I stand by everything I said in it.
As I said in that post, the broader challenge I see here is to find the right way of actually discussing issues like this (FWIW, I recongise myself in @goperryrevs' description above: I want to understand, whilst also being perfectly capable of coming across as blundering and insensitive in doing so) whilst mitigating the possibility for hurt through ignorance or insensitivity.
At the same time there were discussions happening on other threads:
- the Eutychus Hell thread in the Styx,
- from which I had a post picked up and taken to the Transphobia Styx thread on July 4 and continuing discussions there to July 6
- the NOprophet thread in Hell - from July 6 - because I took something from the Transphobia thread to Hell, here - which was at the bottom of page 1 of that thread, and that thread lengthened to 4 pages following that post
From that NOprophet Hell thread there were the following posts:this post here from you on July 9: which when followed by this post felt so much like an attack that I walked away only returning later to try and sort out the h&a's chocolates, but posting this:
If I wasn't running the Host and Admins chocolate thread, I would have logged out, just gone. I've done it in the past for a year or so when I've felt I'm out of tune with the Ship, and that's what I feel now. I don't want to be a part of something that feels this oblivious to how deaf it's being to the transgender issues. I have much better ways of spending my time.
Not several subsequent posts, but that post.
That post can't be a "cumulative effect", because it's the first in the series you cite.
You didn't cite it as grounds for how you felt, or how a subsequent series of posts made you feel, but as a standalone example of how you were being attacked.
I would like to know your justification for using that post as an example of you being attacked.
lilBuddha, I think it was Louise who raised the racial analogy in the first place, in defence of her opinion, not Eutychus in defence of his. Page 2 refers.
And CK is right. At the end of the thread, Eutychus, who was a Purg Host at the time, showed a change of mind because of Learning Cniht's good post. Does it really matter if he took some time to get there?
As Tubbs pointed out, he did something similar re the wisdom of using Rachel Dolezal as a fair comparison on the Transgender thread. And said so here
He's not implacable, lilBuddha. He can be affected by the arguments of others. And say so. That's a good trait in a Shipmate.
One of the sadnesses of human nature is that when we get our knives into other people, it takes a lot to persuade us to take them out.
I think Ohher is right. Sometimes it's a good idea to reflect, to turn our keen eyed perception of others on ourselves, and see what we see.
I'm done commenting on my comments for the moment, but I'll leave with this analogy:
I have anger issues. I've admitted this, apologised for it and genuinely try to work on it.
How much does this matter if I repeatedly end up in the same spot?
What you have done/are doing to Eutychus is in fact bullying. You refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt; you treat him as if he is not your fellow human being. After reading through several pages of this stuff, I felt as though I was watching "The Day of the Locust," with you doing the stomping in the climactic scene. You are causing real and egregious pain.
Oh, and you really do not have to reply to Every.Single.Post. on a given topic. (I used to do that far too often, but I outgrew it. Go thou and do likewise.)
This. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
lilBuddah, OK. I'm sorry I pursued my own curiosity. Just trying to understand better. I didn't intend to rake over old coals.
I think the answer is later in her post: 'I felt as if I was being told that I cannot challenge any of the anti-trans tropes because I am not an authentic transgender voice. It felt as if what was being said was that the only people who can challenge the inaccuracies and anti-trans propaganda are authentic trans voices.'
Which I don't think is a fair interpretation, but I can sort of see how she got there.
I dunno, I have limited sympathy with CK because ISTM that if you accuse people of doing or condoning bad stuff (such as being transphobic or being too soft on transphobia), then it's predictable that they will get angry and say things you don't like. (Example: I stand by most of what I've said about Labour and anti-Semitism, but I can't really complain if Labour supporters get angry with me when I say it.)
At the same time, I agree we should be careful using words like 'transphobia' if instead of leading to engagement it just causes people to feel under attack and barricade themselves in their ideological bunker. But that presupposes that it matters that people feel under attack, in which case it matters that CK also feels under attack.
Like racism, the lesser blocks are still part of the pyramid of hate.
So, no, a person “uncomfortable” around trans is not as bad as a person who hates. But they support that hate, however unintentionally.
I am not saying treat them as one would the hater, but there is a danger in softening the terminology.
So, there is an issue if you want to reach the “uncomfortable”.
My question is how much should one consider them at the expense of those who their “uncomfortableness” disadvantages?
I am not saying Fuck Them All!
But I do find it funny that on a site where people are arguing to be allowed to speak in a manner that potentially harms trans, they are also arguing for the gentler treatment of people who’s “feelings” contribute to the harm of trans people.
Unrestful for one, but not the other? Hmmm...
According to whom? On what recognized moral authority do you base this bit of alleged wisdom?
Personally, I am (like many humans) sometimes lazy, or often over-busy, or occasionally training my sights elsewhere, etc. What motivates me to challenge and change my own prejudiced thinking? Let's face it: changing attitudes and beliefs takes work, time, and effort. If I am lazy, I won't want to do this work. If I am over-busy, I won't have time to do this work. If I'm focused on other issues, I rob other potentially worthwhile causes of my efforts to devote myself to this new one. In any of these cases, how motivating will I find it to be told -- by a self-appointed Internet Persona / High Moral Arbiter Who Apparently Regards Her Own Pronouncements as Holy Writ -- over and over, that I am a bigoted serial abuser of trans people?
Who, may I ask, placed responsibility for Eutychus's moral development on your shoulders? If this doesn't violate any confidences, did he request this of you? For that matter, how is it your job to challenge and rule on all such issues for all passengers and crew of the Ship generally? Are others here clamoring for your moral guidance? Is Eutychus an adult? Are the other posters here adults? Have we all agreed to shed personal responsibility for our moral dilemmas and instead submit to your infallible wisdom?
Newsflash: I didn't.
I don't claim we none of us need moral guidance. Likely we all do. Likely most of us consider such questions regularly and have our own means of resolving them for ourselves and sources of guidance for when we're stuck and need help.
Nor do I claim that your moral judgments are mistaken. Most are obvious and require little reflection. Personally, I have about all I can handle, as a teacher, dealing with the moral dilemmas I face daily in dealing with students and, as a citizen, dealing with a government which has abruptly turned into an open sewer.
I am, however, fed to the teeth with your apparent conviction that you alone somehow possess the One True Truth in all moral matters, and that you alone have the means to guide -- or drag -- the rest of us misbegotten slackards, kicking and screaming, along your stony, thorny route to achieving enlightenment.
Do you have actual evidence that any trans person has been harmed on the various trans threads? I know Greyface left; do you know, based on evidence outside your own Infallible* perceptions, that she was "harmed?" Is a decision to leave a thread or a forum in protection of one's own sensibilities not a common means of harm prevention? I do not claim that Greyface's departure is of no concern; on the contrary, it's distressing when discussions lead to the need for self-protection. Is that the same as "harm," though?
Do you propose that the Ship stop "allowing" (your term) posters to speak in their own words and voices so as to prevent "harming" people? Any suggestions for how a small, entirely-volunteer crew might go about enforcing such practices? Or are we all simply to shut the fuck up? Any suggestions as to how you might alter your own postings to prevent the potential "harm" they might be causing Eutychus? How about your judgments on the harm this could cause other posters, to whose fatigue you may be contributing?
Do you, in short, grasp that your posts -- along with the ways in which you word them, based possibly on the feelings you might have -- also affect others?
Can you explain how people's "feelings" directly contribute to the harm of trans people (or relevant others)? I get that there are utterances which others might react to with anger, sadness, or fear; but who is responsible for these feelings? If I react to another's words with anger, am I not the one responsible for my anger? Do I not have options for how to react?
Are we responsible for how others interpret, misinterpret, or react? I also grasp that there are actions which someone can find threatening (though direct actions aren't a feature in this medium); but you have referenced "feelings" specifically. Is it your contention that the very existence of"feelings" harms people? What -- in light of the fact that human emotion seems nearly universal -- do you suggest we do about this?
Labels affecting perception is basic psychology, not “moral authority”.
Transpeople have a higher rate of self-harm than do the general population. You do the math as to why you should be more considerate of them than we of your right to talk about them however you wish.
You do the maths.
If you're actually interested in how the Ship would handle anti-Semitism, as opposed to stirring the pot, then Styx would be the place to ask.
DT
HH
It helps if you put the word 'alleged' in there. Alleged antisemitism is a huge live issue in the Labour Party at present and certainly open for discussion provided folks avoid libel.
I'm not sure how many Jewish Shipmates we have at present but I'm certainly open to hear from them.
And the Trump threads are open for discussions re the Trump racist tweets. We haven't got too many GOP members at the moment but if they wanted to join GOP Reps and Senators in defending the tweets, I think we'd allow it, depending on language used.
The question of what limits we should apply to our ethos of unrest is a continuing one for the Styx.
Not the same thing.
And even were it, it wouldn’t justify ignoring trans feelings
So, simply put, the rate of self-harm is a complete red herring, and it's not how you judge how to talk to people. Glad we've cleared that up.
As the token person-of-Jewish-heritage on this thread, I can tell you bluntly to Styx or fuck off. We have a subject here. It's not anti-Semitism.
DT
HH
Trans suicides are directly liked to how they are perceived in society and that is directly linked to how we talk about them.
So analogies are not allowed. Glad we cleared that up.
I asked what authority you based this assertion on (partly because, frankly, it annoys the hell out of me that no one ever seems to require you to source your info. If I posted this bit of bullshit, 2 or 3 other participants would promptly demand my sources for it. I really don't know how you so routinely get away scot [sorry, Grampy Duncan, no shade on you or my forebears] free in this regard).
Here's what you came back with:
1. This completely evades the question I raised (something you've just accused another poster of doing to you on this very thread. Goose? Gander? Sauce much?).
2. Yeah, labeling affects perception is basic psych. But the issue Ricardus was addressing and you were allegedly responding to (and I was questioning) IS a moral question: basically, can people be dissuaded from a prejudice? Should we attempt this? If so, how? Probably not by hounding and name-calling (Ricardus's point, not yours).
3. Meanwhile, the Psych 101 course you maybe took 30 years ago or whenevs has probably undergone a teensy revision or two. It appears, as I read your Eutychus-related posts on this thread, that you believe you've uncovered a deep, secret pool of prejudice in your target. Recent (OK, 8 years old; shoot me) research suggests otherwise.
Here's a snippet: ". . . the assumption that somehow, your implicit or unconscious biases reveal 'the real you . . . is incredibly detrimental to improving intergroup relations. Why? The assumption that prejudice and egalitarianism is an all-or-none proposition (i.e., one is either prejudiced or one is egalitarian) makes us feel very threatened by the possibility that we may harbor a prejudiced impulse, as that impulse would thus reveal our “true” nature."
Then you go on to the rate of trans suicide, about which you care so deeply you can't bestir yourself to provide stats, instead expecting me to do so, to which I say: fuck you. Do your own damn work.
I call bullshit. Top to bottom, side to side, back to front bullshit.
[edited to fix link - DT]
I feel the need to point out this was only half my point - the other half, which has been snipped out, was that if it matters that people feel attacked by being called transphobic, then it also matters if people feel attacked for other reasons.
What, please, are you trying to accomplish? Specifically. In simple language, please, and 25 words or less.
Do you believe your strategy in this multi-thread convo is working?
If so, *brief*, 25 words or less examples.
If not, does it make sense to keep using the same strategy? Especially when it seems to be causing much more heat than light.
Thx.
Fair enough, but it takes considerable license of interpretation to extrapolate someone ending their life because someone else confesses to 'feeling uncomfortable' with trans people. Which is effectively - if not literally - what your posts appear to be doing.
Further, I don't think the confession of 'feeling uncomfortable' is necessarily a softening of the term 'hating trans people', though I do understand the danger of the thin end of the wedge, if 'uncomfortableness' is encouraged or unchallenged.
We can't always control how we instinctively feel; only how we choose subsequently to react to that feeling.