Should saying that trans women aren't women be an infractable offense?

[Horus]

Misgendering someone - yes
Stating that trans women as a whole aren't women - no

[DabbingSanta]

LOL, I love how my post got removed.  I was only stating the truth, no ad hominem attacks or calling anyone out in particular.  Seems like left wing censorship has found a new home here.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

LOL, I love how my post got removed.  I was only stating the truth, no ad hominem attacks or calling anyone out in particular.  Seems like left wing censorship has found a new home here.

New?  No.

[Figueira]

I think my answer is obvious.

Not really. I know that you’re transgender, but whether you support free speech is an unknown independent factor.

The idea that Internet forums should have unlimited freedom of speech is a completely unserious position.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL, I love how my post got removed.  I was only stating the truth, no ad hominem attacks or calling anyone out in particular.  Seems like left wing censorship has found a new home here.

The forum even disagrees with the mods

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

LOL, I love how my post got removed.  I was only stating the truth, no ad hominem attacks or calling anyone out in particular.  Seems like left wing censorship has found a new home here.

Don't sell yourself short. I was stating the truth, too, arguably more so than you (I mean, "women [...] are men pretending to be women"?), and my post got nuked too.

[dead0man]

if someone calls me a woman, are they infracted?  I'm assuming not.  It should be the same way for everyone.

[John Dule]

I think my answer is obvious.

Not really. I know that you’re transgender, but whether you support free speech is an unknown independent factor.

The idea that Internet forums should have unlimited freedom of speech is a completely unserious position.

Hardly the least serious position voiced in this thread.

[nclib]

Saying it directly to a transwoman in order to misgender/disrespect/verbally attack her? - Yes

Saying it as a general statement? - No

Acknowledging that there are relevant differences between trans and ciswomen (like abortion/pregnancy/menstruation...)? - Definitely not

[Alben Barkley]

It's bizarre how people always fixate on trans women. Where's the equivalent thread about trans men? What's with the complete and total lack of discourse on them?

"TERFs" have noted this, and would say the reason for it is that "trans women" retain male privilege and socialization to be more aggressive even after transitioning while "trans men" are still socialized as females to "be nice" and "accept their place."

I am NOT saying I agree with this. I am just saying I have noticed the same phenomenon and that's one possible explanation.

Other possible explanations are that trans men tend to "pass" more easily and that there simply are more trans women (which at least used to be true, though may not be anymore).

[Crumpets]

I think most people are still new enough to discussing trans issues that being ignorant on the subject would not warrant punishment in and of itself. But what gets under my skin is less any one anti-trans post and more when someone makes a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense, even after having been called out on it and had it explained to them why it's not okay. In other words, I think someone who is a long-time poster should be on a lot shorter leash than someone with 20 posts barring obvious trolls.

[Alben Barkley]

I think most people are still new enough to discussing trans issues that being ignorant on the subject would not warrant punishment in and of itself. But what gets under my skin is less any one anti-trans post and more when someone makes a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense, even after having been called out on it and had it explained to them why it's not okay. In other words, I think someone who is a long-time poster should be on a lot shorter leash than someone with 20 posts barring obvious trolls.

What if someone is fully informed on the subject but still disagrees with you? Are they still "ignorant?"

The assumption that any one side on this debate, or many others, has all the answers and can "explain" to and "call out" anyone who disagrees (and therefore if they STILL disagree afterwards they must be a "suppressive person" or something) disturbs me.

[Crumpets]

I think most people are still new enough to discussing trans issues that being ignorant on the subject would not warrant punishment in and of itself. But what gets under my skin is less any one anti-trans post and more when someone makes a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense, even after having been called out on it and had it explained to them why it's not okay. In other words, I think someone who is a long-time poster should be on a lot shorter leash than someone with 20 posts barring obvious trolls.

What if someone is fully informed on the subject but still disagrees with you? Are they still "ignorant?"

The assumption that any one side on this debate, or many others, has all the answers and can "explain" to and "call out" anyone who disagrees (and therefore if they STILL disagree afterwards they must be a "suppressive person" or something) disturbs me.

I'm not talking about people who agree or disagree with me on any particular debate. I specifically outlined people who "make a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense" as the ones who should face consequences for those posts here. Do you agree that that's not something we should tolerate as a community, especially considering how many trans members we have?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think most people are still new enough to discussing trans issues that being ignorant on the subject would not warrant punishment in and of itself. But what gets under my skin is less any one anti-trans post and more when someone makes a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense, even after having been called out on it and had it explained to them why it's not okay. In other words, I think someone who is a long-time poster should be on a lot shorter leash than someone with 20 posts barring obvious trolls.

What if someone is fully informed on the subject but still disagrees with you? Are they still "ignorant?"

The assumption that any one side on this debate, or many others, has all the answers and can "explain" to and "call out" anyone who disagrees (and therefore if they STILL disagree afterwards they must be a "suppressive person" or something) disturbs me.

Humility would be nice. Someone who thinks their "side" is completely correct on all matters of significance is impoverishing themselves. Various segments of society have always engaged in lies to itself in some form in pursuit of some other goal, but self-flattering ones like we see in the present harm pluralistic debate.

It's particularly bad in the present day in part because man has became god and now people see less need to humble themselves than ever before.

[7,052,770]

if someone calls me a woman, are they infracted?  I'm assuming not.  It should be the same way for everyone.

If someone did it on purpose to insult you, especially if it were something you were well established to be sensitive about? Obviously it would be.

[Alben Barkley]

I think most people are still new enough to discussing trans issues that being ignorant on the subject would not warrant punishment in and of itself. But what gets under my skin is less any one anti-trans post and more when someone makes a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense, even after having been called out on it and had it explained to them why it's not okay. In other words, I think someone who is a long-time poster should be on a lot shorter leash than someone with 20 posts barring obvious trolls.

What if someone is fully informed on the subject but still disagrees with you? Are they still "ignorant?"

The assumption that any one side on this debate, or many others, has all the answers and can "explain" to and "call out" anyone who disagrees (and therefore if they STILL disagree afterwards they must be a "suppressive person" or something) disturbs me.

I'm not talking about people who agree or disagree with me on any particular debate. I specifically outlined people who "make a pattern of degrading and de-humanizing remarks at trans people's expense" as the ones who should face consequences for those posts here. Do you agree that that's not something we should tolerate as a community, especially considering how many trans members we have?

I do indeed. That's why I rec'd nclib's post above yours. Pretty much sums up my position: If it's done as a direct personal attack, it's not acceptable. If it's stated as a philosophical position, that's another matter. And if people are acknowledging simple biological realities, that's another matter ENTIRELY. Very neatly summarizes it all IMO.

However, I interpreted your talk of people who are "ignorant" and need to be "explained" to as something more insidious, as implying that many people just aren't as enlightened as you on this subject and need "calling out" to be corrected. That's what I took issue with. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were saying. But if I didn't, I think maybe you should reflect on why you are so confident you know everything about this subject. I know I sure don't. My position on this issue has evolved greatly in a relatively short amount of time, and I am very much open to it changing further in the future. I don't feel I have any right to "call out" or "explain" to others what they are supposed to believe about this.

[Sol]

It's bizarre how people always fixate on trans women. Where's the equivalent thread about trans men? What's with the complete and total lack of discourse on them?

I actually beg to differ. Abigail Shrier is probably the most influential transphobic advocate in the country and much of her work is basically an attempt to frame trans men as delusional or mentally ill women who are mutilating their bodies with testosterone. This is a thread that you see in a lot of anti-trans public comment at state legislatures, often with quite a bit of odd eugenics tone thrown in about preserving the ability to be a mother.

It's actually an insanely misogynistic argument for the record, ironically given that it's also sometimes a favorite of TERFs. Arguing that trans men are naive and hysterical is the same argument that has been used in an earlier era to argue that cis women shouldn't be able to make their own life decisions. (And tellingly, it's not one which is usually applied to trans women).

For whatever reason, mainstream liberal opposition to transphobia often seems to center around trans women, probably because the hate narrative around trans women (i.e. "PREDATORS!") is a bit more explosive and also fits in with preexisting anti-gay narratives more closely. But the anti-trans men narrative is also pernicious and has a pretty prominent role to play within actual transphobic movements.

Atlas has plenty of nasty transphobes but not very many outside of the left-liberal bubble, which is maybe why there is more discourse on transfeminine related topics.

[Schiff for Senate]

Saying it directly to a transwoman in order to misgender/disrespect/verbally attack her? - Yes

Saying it as a general statement? - No

Acknowledging that there are relevant differences between trans and ciswomen (like abortion/pregnancy/menstruation...)? - Definitely not

Agreed completely.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Promoting traditional gender roles and increasing bigotry against LGB people?

Sounds like a very progressive cause!

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

Promoting traditional gender roles and increasing bigotry against LGB people?

Sounds like a very progressive cause!

Speak for yourself. I have no interest in promoting traditional gender roles or increasing bigotry against other queer people. But of course, that probably means that I'm just an obvious pervert in your eyes, doesn't it?

[Del Tachi]

It's bizarre how people always fixate on trans women. Where's the equivalent thread about trans men? What's with the complete and total lack of discourse on them?

There's a longstanding belief in Western culture that women and feminity require protection.  There is much more gatekeeping around who/what gets to be "a woman" for this reason.   

[Del Tachi]

I think my answer is obvious.

Not really. I know that you’re transgender, but whether you support free speech is an unknown independent factor.

The idea that Internet forums should have unlimited freedom of speech is a completely unserious position.

Most places on the Internet are entirely censor-free, so I don't know what you're talking about. 

[Former President tack50]

Not on a vacuum. However if it can be interpreted as a personal attack on a trans poster, or as something particularly offensive and discriminatory, it's fine to moderate based on "personal attack" or "offensive"

[OSR stands with Israel]

The mods need to clearly define what transphobia is rather than just use it as an excuse to punish people .

[7,052,770]

The mods need to clearly define what transphobia is rather than just use it as an excuse to punish people .

It's incredibly easy for anyone from Extreme Republican to Peebs to figure out how not to get "punished" on this issue. Anyone who does is intentionally pushing the envelope and trying to see what he/she can get away with saying.

I am quite confident that not a single poster in the last year has gotten infracted for "transphobia" without having known it was likely when he/she hit Post.