# Trans Rights Are Human Rights



## Attaman (Nov 18, 2020)

Over the following month since the Forums have been returned to life, a clear pattern has emerged among a small but vocal portion of users. 

Specifically, the Forums have suffered numerous incidents of people referring to Trans individuals as “manchilds” and “Adult Children”, expressing both a desire and intent to avoid using one’s proper pronouns, use and defense of “I identify as an Attack Helicopter” jokes, insults of Trans users’ appearances and identities, and so-on. 

Almost without fail, these incidents have been defended with arguments along the lines of “I’m just expressing my opinion”, “You’re overreacting”, and / or “It’s just a joke”. Almost assuredly coincidentally, many of the users presenting such arguments have also lauded the dropping of the Politics section and told users who oppose / push back against such behavior “Site has changed, don’t be so political”.

Several threads have been locked and / deleted as a result of this combined behavior, and it appears that such will resume into the immediate future without Administrative action.

My reason for making this thread, and a suggestion, is for staff (until the situation improves) to create an additional banner post (to go along with the “Main Site ToS and CoC apply” one) reaffirming that such behavior is neither acceptable nor defended by the site rules, that FA and its staff will not accept the belittling / dehumanization / harassment of Trans individuals (or - ideally - all minority demographics, like the LGBTQ+ umbrella as a whole, but one fire at a time), and that basic civility for as much is not Political. Such a banner would remain until the problem ceases.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Nov 18, 2020)

Before this thread possibly turns into a fight, which I hope not, I will say I agree.

Yes, trans people are people like the rest of us. They aren't a menace to society or anything like some people say. They deserve compassion, friends, approval from their family, and opportunities just like anyone else in the world. A lot of artists I know are trans, and many trans people I've met online have been very sweet to me.

It should go without saying that it's wrong to treat people like shit, and trans people are not an exception at all. Don't harass them or prejudge them, because I'm sure you wouldn't like that treatment yourself. They are very kind and social like any other group out there, and you'll likely make some trans friends sooner than you think if you give them a chance. I know this from my own experience.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 18, 2020)

This


----------



## TR273 (Nov 18, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Before this thread possibly turns into a fight, which I hope not, I will say I agree.
> 
> Yes, trans people are people like the rest of us. They aren't a menace to society or anything like some people say. They deserve compassion, friends, approval from their family, and opportunities just like anyone else in the world. A lot of artists I know are trans, and many trans people I've met online have been very sweet to me.
> 
> It should go without saying that it's wrong to treat people like shit, and trans people are not an exception at all. Don't harass them or prejudge them, because I'm sure you wouldn't like that treatment yourself. They are very kind and social like any other group out there, and you'll likely make some trans friends sooner than you think if you give them a chance. I know this from my own experience.


Well said.


----------



## Skittles (Nov 18, 2020)

Absolutely!


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

I have some tips that I learned that I really should've used last time to prevent the last thread from getting locked. From now on please don't:

Interact with/respond to the type of comments in the original post. They are usually posts made with the sole purpose of getting people angry which leads to bad things.
If these sorts of posts really really bother you, please just use FAF's ignore feature. You will be happier without all that negativity ^^
Report, report, report! Report these sorts of comments when you see them, and maybe tell a friend or two to do it too. The mods might take action on the trolls and not us if we don't end up causing a massive dumpster fire.
I love you all, and I certainly wouldn't want you to get wrongfully punished while trolls go unlooked. If you report and ignore, you aren't giving any food to the trolls and you will draw the attention of the mod team to them. Have a very wonderful day!


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 18, 2020)

As long as the rules get enforced fairly and not just one-sidedly, the problems should subside over time.
It's convenient to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you or is not on the same side as you is a troll, bully, X-phobe or whatever, but that's quite simply not true.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

Anyways, I very much support trans people of all creeds! In fact, I recently decided to make my main fursona Non-Binary/Genderfluid because it would actually fit me better, even though I'm a cis-male as far as I know. I haven't actually decided yet because I suck at making lasting decisions, even though my ref says Non-binary it might be any mix of that. (If you have a problem with me doing this, please tell me, I do not mean to offend ^^)


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 18, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> As long as the rules get enforced fairly and not just one-sidedly, the problems should subside over time.
> It's convenient to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you or is not on the same side as you is a troll, bully, X-phobe or whatever, but that's quite simply not true.


Cheeseburger man was obviously a transphobe


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Cheeseburger man was obviously a transphobe


Did you read what I said, please just ignore them ;w;


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 18, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Did you read what I said, please just ignore them ;w;


Can't let people walk all over you all the time.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 18, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Cheeseburger man was obviously a transphobe


I'll say, I agree that they acted in a rather stupid manner, and leave it at that.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Can't let people walk all over you all the time.


I don't want you to get banned yet again, Ovidia.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 18, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I don't want you to get banned yet again, Ovidia.


I don't want to either but the mods don't like me very much. But this thread isn't about me so we should probably drop it.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I don't want to either but the mods don't like me very much. But this thread isn't about me so we should probably drop it.


Yes, drop it, please, I would like to be able to keep at least one trans thread around. They also agreed to drop it so yeah. *hugs* ^w^


----------



## MrSpookyBoots (Nov 18, 2020)

I'm not part of the mod team and I'm sure that they probably won't find my suggestion endearing.

However, this pattern has repeated numerous times already to the point that any transphobic remarks or harassment should be treated more harshly. It should be treated the same as if someone mistreated another user based on their race or ethnicity.

If bans are temporary, the same culprits will return and continue baiting users into responding as if nothing ever happened to them. While there may be some responsibility on the part of other users to ignore such tactics, allowing further discord to prosper on these boards fosters a bad atmosphere that will only harm the site and its reputation.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 18, 2020)

Trans rights are human rights and that's the end of the story. Don't like it? Lump it.

As for the pattern, I've seen that, too. Trolling or otherwise, it's starting to cause actual harm to people and bringing the whole site down.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

MrSpooky said:


> I'm not part of the mod team and I'm sure that they probably won't find my suggestion endearing.
> 
> However, this pattern has repeated numerous times already to the point that any transphobic remarks or harassment should be treated more harshly. It should be treated the same as if someone mistreated another user based on their race or ethnicity.
> 
> If bans are temporary, the same culprits will return and continue baiting users into responding as if nothing ever happened to them. While there may be some responsibility on the part of other users to ignore such tactics, allowing further discord to prosper on these boards fosters a bad atmosphere that will only harm the site and its reputation.





KD142000 said:


> Trans rights are human rights and that's the end of the story. Don't like it? Lump it.
> 
> As for the pattern, I've seen that, too. Trolling or otherwise, it's starting to cause actual harm to people and bringing the whole site down.


Well spoken, well spoken.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 18, 2020)

I personally think 'normal' harassment should be treated more harshly. A lot of the simmering resentment and outright conflict comes from the fact that 'regular old harassment' was normalized for way too long.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 18, 2020)

However, I do have more to say than just that.

It is important for moderators and onlookers to realise that, even if it's trolling, shitposting or actual bullying, it still does cause the same amount of harm. And right now, it's creating a knock-on effect that's spreading across multiple threads of the site. That's bad for the site's image and bad for the user experience, even if you're not being bothered directly by it.

In my opinion, you cross the line of trolling the moment you decide to demean or devalue somebody and enter into bullying territory. Not only does it affect those users, it also ruins things for others. Nice threads getting derailed and turning into hate trains from an army of trolls/bullies/whoever is a crying shame for all of us.

This needs to stop. Now. I'm very sick and tired of seeing blatant hatred disguised as trolling on here and I'm sure many others are, too. This isn't fair on anybody.

In summary
To the staff of this site: We would like you to act on this matter, please.
To onlookers: Trolling or no, this shouldn't be tolerated and it's ruining the place you call home


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 18, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> I personally think 'normal' harassment should be treated more harshly. A lot of the simmering resentment and outright conflict comes from the fact that 'regular old harassment' was normalized for way too long


I'll tell you the same thing I tell people who flip shit over blm. Just because black lives matter does not mean other lives don't matter. We just want to be in a good environment. Currently your everyone else gets treated way better than trans folk. We should at least be brought to an even playing field.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 18, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I'll tell you the same thing I tell people who flip shit over blm. Just because black lives matter does not mean other lives don't matter. We just want to be in a good environment. Currently your everyone else gets treated way better than trans folk. We should at least be brought to an even playing field.


I agree with that. Don't support discrimination/harassment against black, trans or any other such groups in any way. I want a good environment here too.
However, the excessive paranoia and viciousness I've seen here bothers me. I've seen plenty of people with good intentions get piled on over pretty much nothing, and old grudges forced into threads and taken out of context. I hope the environment changes so that this stuff won't be happening anymore.


----------



## Lucyfur (Nov 18, 2020)

for onlookers and concerned parties~ Also for those who may be guilty of such...

To say something is just a "joke" does not suddenly cleanse it of the issue with it like the bs with i identify as helicopter crap it is still transphobic
To jump into a thread about a group and directing positivity towards and for that group only to "all lives matter" it is not the good look that you may think it is quite the opposite as  that is a form of downplaying what it is meant for.
To be an apologist of transphobes transphobic actions sentiments and shit isnt a good look and makes you nearly just as culpable of it yourself.
To try and tell those within a group that something isnt phobic towards them isnt your place because you have no authority on that manner.

this is all to say that, because it is beyond this scope of "don't be so upset just because of a "joke" or "because theye were mean to you" " like it is because this crap is everywhere and people will excuse it join in on it be apologists trying to reduce it and say it isnt what it is. Hell the fucking gaslighting others do trying to say that no one isnt accepting you or theyll start denying the lack of equal rights the trans community faces.

So yeah fuck the transphobes, their apologists, defenders, and reductionists.

Trans Rights Are Human Rights and if you disagree with that you can eat a bag of hammered dog shit.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 18, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> for onlookers and concerned parties~ Also for those who may be guilty of such...
> 
> To say something is just a "joke" does not suddenly cleanse it of the issue with it like the bs with i identify as helicopter crap it is still transphobic
> To jump into a thread about a group and directing positivity towards and for that group only to "all lives matter" it is not the good look that you may think it is quite the opposite as  that is a form of downplaying what it is meant for.
> ...


Exactly this.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 18, 2020)

So that this thread doesn't get shut down, can we keep things civil, thanks? Not gonna help anybody if this devolves into a squabble over what should be pretty obvious.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 18, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> So that this thread doesn't get shut down, can we keep things civil, thanks? Not gonna help anybody if this devolves into a squabble over what should be pretty obvious.


Trans Rights are Human Rights, and everyone here agrees with that. I will not stand malicious false narratives being pushed about me or my friends though, no matter what the thread is supposed to be about!


----------



## Flamingo (Nov 18, 2020)

We will continue to enforce the Code of Conduct as appropriate. Thank you.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 19, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> As long as the rules get enforced fairly and not just one-sidedly, *the problems should subside over time*.



They won't. This is no longer about asking people not to be assholes to trans people and more about a minute selection of *EXTREMELY *belligerent users (*you know who you are*) who think they have some God-given right to run around this joint unjustly flagging people with labels ending in either a "-ist" or "-phobe" suffix just because someone had the gall to disagree with a trans person, vocalized a particular hangup with one or more facets of transgenderism, or otherwise levied some measure of criticism against a protected class or group that is implicitly regarded within certain circles as being graced with absolute irreproachability.

Seriously, the day I witnessed four members of the "Typical Bunch" jump on Punji (they still called him a transphobe even though nothing that he said was even remotely hateful towards transgender people) in the Unpopular Opinion thread was the day when I realized that it was less about promoting proper social etiquette and kindness among the general forum population and more about enforcing a very specific sociopolitical cultural standard via sever bullying, social stigmatization, and the strategic application of gas-lighting tactics. 

All this back-and-fourth bitterness will cease when the most confrontational users (on both sides) are eventually removed from the website permanently. 

In the intern, I'm going to keep defending those who deserve defending and calling out FAF's more loathsome and antagonistic members whenever they start to run their same tired ass con on someone else.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 19, 2020)

ASTA said:


> They won't. This is no longer about asking people not to be assholes to trans people and more about a minute selection of *EXTREMELY *belligerent users (*you know who you are*) who think they have some God-given right to run around this joint unjustly flagging people with labels ending in either a "-ist" or "-phobe" suffix just because someone had the gall to disagree with a trans person, vocalized a particular hangup with one or more facets of transgenderism, or otherwise levied some measure of criticism against a protected class or group that is implicitly regarded within certain circles as being graced with absolute irreproachability.
> 
> Seriously, the day I witnessed four members of the "Typical Bunch" jump on Punji (they still called him a transphobe even though nothing that he said was even remotely hateful towards transgender people) in the Unpopular Opinion thread was the day when I realized that it was less about promoting proper social etiquette and kindness among the general forum population and more about enforcing a very specific sociopolitical cultural standard via sever bullying, social stigmatization, and the strategic application of gas-lighting tactics.
> 
> ...


People should not be judged for being who they are. End of story.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 19, 2020)

ASTA said:


> transgenderism


<rant>

This is how I know you hang out with the wrong crowd. If you call anything "transgenderism," you are most likely a transphobe. Transgender is not a political alignment or a philosophy, so calling it "transgenderism" kind of shows you think every trans person thinks the exact same way, and all have an agenda to push..



ASTA said:


> They won't. This is no longer about asking people not to be assholes to trans people and more about a minute selection of *EXTREMELY *belligerent users (*you know who you are*) who think they have some God-given right to run around this joint unjustly flagging people with labels ending in either a "-ist" or "-phobe" suffix just because someone had the gall to disagree with a trans person, vocalized a particular hangup with one or more facets of transgenderism, or otherwise levied some measure of criticism against a protected class or group that is implicitly regarded within certain circles as being graced with absolute irreproachability.


Going on a space meant to be supporting trans people to "debate" them (making stale jokes and spewing utter nonsense) is just tactless. If someone made a thread about a guy trying to find a girlfriend and I went and spammed anti-straight stuff, that would be rude too. Also, here's a hint: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU ONTO THIS THREAD. If you and your buddies hate us so much, just go away, and don't hang on our threads, there, problem solved immediately! If you aren't a troll, you would have just left ages ago.

</rant>


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 19, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Of _course _I'm a transphobe, VeerStars. I'm also a racist who regularly browses /pol/ and posts on Stormfront, I'm a member of the Proud Boys militia group, and I regularly attend KKK meetings in bumfuck South Carolina to discuss the ongoing cultural, biological, and spiritual degradation of the white race. White nationalist groups made a racial exception for me in regards to membership and participation in their various cliques. Who knew that they let black guys in? Hilarious!
> 
> Is that enough incriminating evidence for a report against me to stick or do you need a thicker dose of blatant irony in order for you and yours to get yet another FAF user who doesn't kowtow to your bullshit banned?
> 
> EDIT: Actually, I've referenced political subject matter in this post which is now against site CoC guidelines! Quick, this is your chance! Smash the report button!


I'm actually saving this one as a screenshot in case you come back.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 19, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I'm actually saving this one as a screenshot in case you come back.



LOL.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 20, 2020)

To mark today being Transgender Day of Remembrance, I'm going to share an article by TIME that offers both a very abridged history on the event, current events, and some moments of positivity (such as the mentioned Brooklyn Liberation March back in June wherein some ~15,000 persons marched in the memory of those lost).


----------



## Xitheon (Nov 20, 2020)

Saying that "all lives matter" is true, but when used in the context of invalidating BLM or the treatment of any other group which suffers discrimination, it's a bit like bitching to Dog's Trust (a canine rescue charity) that it doesn't do enough to protect cats.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Nov 25, 2020)

Hmm.... well, in spite of the critic that responded to my earlier posting on that other thread - (that had a similar topic as this thread here) and alluded to the issue of bullying, please note:

(I think it's important that I articulate here as well) - that, *if* one has an opinion that engages in so-called "anti-trans bullying" - then, obviously - that's against this website's rules..... and therefore - so-called "derisive commentary", (a term that this critic used) - is prohibited in turn.

*But* (my overall larger point over there was), is that - *if* other user's have some opinions that may "go against the grain", as they say.... (and in turn - may conflict with the overall majority opinion), then - he/she should still be able to espouse that viewpoint - (as unsavory as some others may find them) - just so long as they're acting - *within the rules*.

As many of us firmly believe, (including myself) that - both sides of the issue should be able to be fully heard, and "aired out" - without any fear of repercussions (and possible disciplinary action) - simply because someone doesn't like the message that they're hearing, (from the other side).

However.... that is not intended to be interpreted as "making excuses", for those that may engage in so-called "bullying" either.... and thus - if this activity is seen or suspected, then - (obviously) simply reporting them is the best course of action to take, (I'd advise).

But - within the realms of public discourse and debate concerning social issues that we may face, that may be termed as "divisive" by some - creating a so-called "safe space" doesn't necesarily mean that it has to be an "echo chamber" either, in order to achieve that goal.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 25, 2020)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Hmm.... well, in spite of the critic that responded to my earlier posting on that other thread - (that had a similar topic as this thread here) and alluded to the issue of bullying, please note:
> 
> (I think it's important that I articulate here as well) - that, *if* one has an opinion that engages in so-called "anti-trans bullying" - then, obviously - that's against this website's rules..... and therefore - so-called "derisive commentary", (a term that this critic used) - is prohibited in turn.
> 
> ...


Can you not revive this thread, seriously, please don't


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Can you not revive this thread, seriously, please don't


Hmmm... well, hey - I'm not going be criticized by some rando guy on the internet - (in an underhanded manner) who's an obvious critic, and not respond to it in some way - especially when someone throws the "bullying" label around.

It's important that an issue that like that, be addressed. 
-----------------

→ But - in regards to trans rights - as I was trying to discuss in that other thread..... (personally, I do regard them as human rights also, as I've said)..... and it isn't really socially acceptable (to me) for someome to feel maligned based on their transgender status..... *but* (my larger point above was), is that there are some people - (who simply don't know any better about these types of issues), and who may have some confusing tendencies to cling onto stereoypes and misinformation, (regarding these complex legal, biological, and social cnocerns many people have)..... that often times - some trans people may present to the larger community..... and this in turn, can sometimes lead to awkward, (and sometimes uncomfortable) situations, for us all.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Nov 26, 2020)

Okay, so there's something that DOES bother me related to the community and it's time I press the human right of education (specifically promoting understanding and tolerance) on this one.

I don't think the actual sparking incident is or was anyone here (so do NOT take this one personally, Vee, this has been building up for a while and I don't think you were even involved here).  I don't know if this is just social media or if people really act like this in the real world.


Somewhere out there I've heard the phrase "don't shove it down our throats" used in quite a few contexts. My understanding of the phrase is that people don't have to be belligerent about expressing themselves, or maybe that the one saying the phrase isn't ready to talk about something at a given time.

But THEN I heard someone call the phrase transphobic.

I'm sorry, but belligerence ACTIVELY DOES NOT WORK for some groups. My understanding of this is from an autism perspective, but 1) I know that condition isn't limited by gender or identity, 2) there are way worse conditions, and 3) as a result of the previous two points I am likely UNDERestimating what's going on here. Autism in particular comes with this thing called "meltdowns" which I can only describe as what happens if a seizure could be set off by emotions as well as or instead of the surrounding environment. I use the word "seizure" because it is nowhere NEAR as voluntary as people seem to believe.

And even if it's not always how they go, these meltdowns CAN involve physical reactions like hitting people.

Try to imagine a full-grown 2-meter-tall man having one of these meltdowns because someone pressed a trans issue a little too much too soon.  Try to imagine one of them being hospitalized because they got struck during one of these "meltdowns".

I can sense this and I don't want that to happen.  I know that's inhuman punishment (a violation of one of their human rights) in response to them invoking their human right of freedom of expression.

Even if the meltdown DOESN'T involve a physical reaction, though?  I'm also aware of the kind of screaming and crying that can also accompany one of these meltdowns.  I've also been made aware of some people who spew mean and hateful sayings during a meltdown without being able to control it.  This can include very damaging things about people.  Using the case of trans people, that can include past identity, which even if it isn't a PTSD trigger or _could actually get them killed_, is ALREADY a HUGE interference with privacy and/or an attack on honor and reputation (all of which would be a violation of their human rights AGAIN).

Again, I know it's nowhere near as voluntary as people want to believe.

So I might tell them not to shove the issue down my throat because I know just how far the potential consequences can go.

Someone says the statement is transphobic in response to that, that now reads off to me as my rights not mattering, causing my anxiety to spike.  I know that anxiety leads to a lot of meltdowns.  WHICH MEANS... their disrespect for others' rights puts THEIR OWN rights at risk, and I know that I may not have control over what happens.

I have to ask, then: how in the world are actual transphobes using this statement in such a way that the whole thing turned transphobic all of a sudden?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Nov 26, 2020)

Human rights, by definition, should apply to everyone, and that means literally everyone. Human rights are the fundamental rights to life (sanctity of life and physical existence), social rights, economic rights, civil/political rights, moral rights, group rights, rights to development, rights of women and children, and so on.

So yes, Trans people rightfully deserve human rights like anyone else.

Honestly I'd be concerned about anyone who debated that there should be exceptions to any human having HUMAN rights.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

I'm the sort of person who accepts that everyone exists, viewing everything in their own individual perspective, and that's about it. I'm not the sort to care much about people's plights, because frankly, it's not my place. I have sympathy and support in the same way someone on the outside can have sympathy and support, and if I'm asked nicely I will *attempt* to remember proper pronouns. That's the best I can do for any stranger, though I am also someone who has horrid facial recognition as well as poor memory in general. My short term is crap. If you aren't a close friend, I WILL forget quite a lot of things about you over time and this will undoubtedly include pronouns. Unfortunately this means I'm a transphobe in some Trans circles. So I guess my point is...so long as your confident who gives a shit about my shitty memory? Or, something more eloquent sounding, there is a difference between someone being a Bigot and someone just blatantly living their life outside of a stranger's wants and desires.

*Trans-people are valid. *That sentence itself should be all that's necessary, wanting more from strangers usually feels weird to me - as someone on the outside. Friends and family I understand, maybe people you have to spend every day with like co-workers, students, teachers, and so forth...but absolute strangers? That is most definitely a bit too attention-seeking for my liking. That sort of thing requires therapy for self confidence and personal acceptance, when you have those things, it doesn't matter what a stranger says - their words become twigs compared to your roots.

So when it comes down to Trans-rights...what would Trans-rights be?
Would they be equal rights? Or would they be rights only for Trans-people?
I feel if the answer is yes to the latter, than equal treatment isn't what's being preached.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> So when it comes down to Trans-rights...what would Trans-rights be?
> Would they be equal rights? Or would they be rights only for Trans-people?
> I feel if the answer is yes to the latter, than equal treatment isn't what's being preached.



I think trans-rights would be a right to things like treatment (e.g. surgery, hormone therapy, etc) and not to be prosecuted or treated like freaks. I don't think that trans rights are being used in bad faith like you describe and if so, only by a very select few shitheaded individuals.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> I think trans-rights would be a right to things like treatment (e.g. surgery, hormone therapy, etc) and not to be prosecuted or treated like freaks. I don't think that trans rights are being used in bad faith like you describe and if so, only by a very select few shitheaded individuals.


I can't speak for places outside of the US, but everyone has the right to purchase whatever treatment they'd like in the US - at least, in my state, a doctor won't deny you so long as you can pay the bill. They won't judge you either, outside of asking personal questions to ensure the procedure goes smoothly and MAYBE asking for therapy records if only to ensure that you won't sue them in a week. Places like the UK had (up until recently? I'm unfamiliar with recent political changes tbh - I have a Trans friend in the UK, known her for over six years and have been with her through most of her time figuring things out so...I have a front row seat to her issues in her country and feel confident saying what little I can understand...) but for a long time they offered (or still offer?) free treatment for the Trans-community, so long as they went to therapy for a certain amount of time. Which is...ridiculously generous of a country to provide, if you ask me. Not to mention accepting.

Whether families are accepting is another story, but there will always be assholes in the world. I think that nowadays people are pretty accepting of the Trans-community outside of the very far right groups. That is, I see nothing but support for them online and a lot of Therapy centers offer Trans specific therapy - which is amazing, since it wasn't too long ago that many therapists wouldn't know how to deal with such an experience.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> I think trans-rights would be a right to things like treatment (e.g. surgery, hormone therapy, etc) and not to be prosecuted or treated like freaks. I don't think that trans rights are being used in bad faith like you describe and if so, only by a very select few shitheaded individuals.


This is true. And most trans people are not "attention-seekers," especially when many have to hide in the closet because their constant dysphoria is only slightly less shitty than the shit people would throw at them for existing. Most people also won't get upset if you accidentally misgender, as long as you correct yourself. This doesn't apply to me, but some people get REALLY DYSPHORIC when you misgender them. My brother really fucking hates being misgendered or being called by his deadname, and it's not like he's trying to be upset about it.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> Which is...ridiculously generous of a country to provide, if you ask me. Not to mention accepting.


It's not generous - being trans is a medical condition - treatments of medical conditions are free in the UK. (broadly speaking)


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> It's not generous - being trans is a medical condition - treatments of medical conditions are free in the UK. (broadly speaking)


I think that as a person in a country where medical treatment isn't free - I cannot relate to your statement, and as such it's seen as a gift instead of an expectation. Excuse the arrogance, but i think that's just from a difference in what is considered Cosmetic versus Medically necessary between countries. Which, isn't me disagreeing - but the culture difference definitely allows for appreciation where it is taken for granted, I suppose.

To me, a country supplying any free aid for mental health in general is generous as that is not my cultural norm. So I feel it's an amazing improvement in comparison to where a country once was, and where it currently stands.

Does that perhaps clarify things?
I don't think it's wrong to appreciate what a country offers. Whether seen as necessary or not.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

FrostyTheDragon said:


> Somewhere out there I've heard the phrase "don't shove it down our throats" used in quite a few contexts. My understanding of the phrase is that people don't have to be belligerent about expressing themselves, or maybe that the one saying the phrase isn't ready to talk about something at a given time.
> 
> But THEN I heard someone call the phrase transphobic.
> 
> ...


I apologize if this is not what you're asking about (the statement "Don't shove it down our throats"), but if it is: Transphobes will respond to many things with "Don't shove it down our throats". Things like "Requesting use of proper pronouns". Or "Citing statistics of issues faced by Trans demographics." Or "Existing".

That's how it's become Transphobic: These people are not using the statement in good faith to argue "Hey, maybe you could not smother me in a flag and turn every discussion into you" against some hypothetical straw effigy. These are people who're trying to stifle "Acknowledgement that transphobia exists" or "Providing somebody basic respect / courtesy" or even "Is Trans anything other than a mental disorder in need of fixing?" as "shoving it down our throats". And it happens quite often (About a little more than a year ago, for example, we had a user on this forum actively argue that oppression of LGBTQ+ individuals - down to government-sanctioned black-bagging - in response to _*Pride Parades*_ was not only justified but a logical response to LGBTQ+ individuals bringing it upon themselves for getting too in people's faces).

And lest people think it's just words, well, see below:


Raever said:


> So when it comes down to Trans-rights...what would Trans-rights be?
> Would they be equal rights? Or would they be rights only for Trans-people?
> I feel if the answer is yes to the latter, than equal treatment isn't what's being preached.


I made a rather poignant post on this subject matter earlier. Trans individuals face _*horrifyingly*_ high rates of assault (physical and mental / emotional), harassment, profiling, economic harm, and overall trauma that - again, to cite just one example from that survey - as recently as *2015* a sum total of _8% of the respondents_ (from a sampling size of over 20,000 individuals) _suffered from self-inflicted Kidney Infections / UTI's within the last year _because _they earnestly felt it was safer and preferable to potentially being ousted or confronted using a public restroom_. And this does not even get into things like "Gay / Trans Panic", which the _American Bar Association - *this year, 2020, *- _felt the need to make a public statement on.

One of the big hang-ups that a lot of people fail to get re:Trans Rights is that they are _not_ starting from an equal point (most of the statistics I've shared earlier, for example, are talking only about _average_, and don't even get into the fact that among many minority demographics the rates get _even worse_). Quite literally one of the first steps of Trans Rights is, much like Civil Rights, "Be treated like other people and not have to tolerate things like an assault rate eight times that the general population, or a one-in-four chance of being fired / denied a job for being Trans, or not having their murder justified by the defense 'I learned they were Trans and my mind just blanked'".


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> I apologize if this is not what you're asking about (the statement "Don't shove it down our throats"), but if it is: Transphobes will respond to many things with "Don't shove it down our throats". Things like "Requesting use of proper pronouns". Or "Citing statistics of issues faced by Trans demographics." Or "Existing".
> 
> That's how it's become Transphobic: These people are not using the statement in good faith to argue "Hey, maybe you could not smother me in a flag and turn every discussion into you" against some hypothetical straw effigy. These are people who're trying to stifle "Acknowledgement that transphobia exists" or "Providing somebody basic respect / courtesy" or even "Is Trans anything other than a mental disorder in need of fixing?" as "shoving it down our throats". And it happens quite often (About a little more than a year ago, for example, we had a user on this forum actively argue that oppression of LGBTQ+ individuals - down to government-sanctioned black-bagging - in response to _*Pride Parades*_ was not only justified but a logical response to LGBTQ+ individuals bringing it upon themselves for getting too in people's faces).
> 
> ...


Tiny little "jokes" add up. This isn't even specific to trans people. Anyone who's been bullied before would know this. I certainly have. Small teasing and prods seem like nothing to the offender, but to somebody who might hear them hundreds of times a day, it's agony.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> as recently as *2015* a sum total of _8% of the respondents_ (from a sampling size of over 20,000 individuals) _suffered from self-inflicted Kidney Infections / UTI's within the last year _because _they earnestly felt it was safer and preferable to potentially being ousted or confronted using a public restroom_.



I feel like anything revolving around self harm should be something an individual should address with a therapist rather than blame the masses for. There are several people with severe social anxiety or agoraphobia who have likely done the same thing without identifying as trans. This is not said to belittle your point, but let's keep self harm statistics out (those can get real messy) and keep things that the public can do to help the point of conversation - as that's the focus, no?

(Side note: I can't imagine being so filled with self disgust and fear that peeing in a toilet becomes impossible. I genuinely feel for them.)


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Tiny little "jokes" add up. This isn't even specific to trans people. Anyone who's been bullied before would know this. I certainly have. Small teasing and prods seem like nothing to the offender, but to somebody who might hear them hundreds of times a day, it's agony.


It must also be kept in mind that, for many such people, being online is one of the few spots they can "safely" (sadly, safely requires quotation marks as there's _still_ a disproportionate rate of harassment, doxxing, et al even there) express themselves and be open about their identity. A place where they can, proverbially, let their guard down. 

So when they go to such places and then find out that they're the punching bag _there_ too, at best it merely pushes them away from the communities treating them as such and at worst has the sort of consequences you'd expect when one of somebody's few safety nets are taken out from underneath them and told "Fuck off or give up".



Raever said:


> I feel like anything revolving around self harm should be something an individual should address with a therapist rather than blame the masses for. There are several people with severe social anxiety or agoraphobia who have likely done the same thing without identifying as trans. This is not said to belittle your point, but let's keep self harm statistics out (those can get real messy) and keep things that the public can do to help the point of conversation - as that's the focus, no?



I invite you to consider for a moment that, "not to belittle your point" notwithstanding, you're responding to "8% of trans individuals are so terrified of the possibility of harassment, assault, or worse just from using a public restroom that they'd rather suffer self-inflicted injuries than risk as much" - consequences that, as cited elsewhere in the survey, are _*quite well founded*_ (I'd have to dig around for it, but there's a couple statistical compare-contrasts that make a convincing argument that you'd be safer _as a soldier in several modern warzones_ than you are a trans individual living in the United States) - with "And that's mostly their fault, they should try seeing a shrink". And to consider how that might come off to our trans users who are actively living with such fears.

This very much _is_ a point of the conversation: There is _no excuse_ for such a fear to be so prevalent within the United States (or any nation, for that matter). Furthermore, the onus should not be on those who are suffering such a fear to "Move beyond" it, but those who are inflicting it to _stop causing as much_.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> It must also be kept in mind that, for many such people, being online is one of the few spots they can "safely" (sadly, safely requires quotation marks as there's _still_ a disproportionate rate of harassment, doxxing, et al even there) express themselves and be open about their identity. A place where they can, proverbially, let their guard down.
> 
> So when they go to such places and then find out that they're the punching bag _there_ too, at best it merely pushes them away from the communities treating them as such and at worst has the sort of consequences you'd expect when one of somebody's few safety nets are taken out from underneath them and told "Fuck off or give up".
> 
> ...


Yes, don't blame the trans people for not feeling safe, BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT NOT SAFE!!


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> It must also be kept in mind that, for many such people, being online is one of the few spots they can "safely" (sadly, safely requires quotation marks as there's _still_ a disproportionate rate of harassment, doxxing, et al even there) express themselves and be open about their identity. A place where they can, proverbially, let their guard down.
> 
> So when they go to such places and then find out that they're the punching bag _there_ too, at best it merely pushes them away from the communities treating them as such and at worst has the sort of consequences you'd expect when one of somebody's few safety nets are taken out from underneath them and told "Fuck off or give up".
> 
> ...



Perhaps it's due to the fact that I was raised within strict environments so my perspective is a bit too neutral...but whether it's looked at as sympathetic or cruel doesn't matter to me.

Yes, if someone is hurting themselves it's their responsibility to see a shrink. No matter the cause. Does the cause have a part to play? Absolutely...however, it's not responsible or healthy to look outward when the issue is inward. The point of being Trans is to get to a point of comfort with oneself so that you can be comfortable with society, not the other way around. This really applies to any mental health circumstances be it an identity relative thing or otherwise,  If you can't take care of yourself, you cannot expect society to do it for you.

I am not saying this to shame anyone.
I just want things to be looked at objectively, so that proper solutions and goals are attained. Not a victim-game of "who has it worse" and "which group is the biggest dick". There's enough of that on social media.

I want the best for any community that has it rough, but you can't get the best when you're too afraid to pee. That's part of the hard work of battling the metaphorical shadow self and rising up to the identity you've - a trans identifying individual - always been inside.

If that sounds discriminative or otherwise shaming, then I feel our definitions of such things are very different.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> I feel like anything revolving around self harm should be something an individual should address with a therapist rather than blame the masses for. There are several people with severe social anxiety or agoraphobia who have likely done the same thing without identifying as trans. This is not said to belittle your point, but let's keep self harm statistics out (those can get real messy) and keep things that the public can do to help the point of conversation - as that's the focus, no?
> 
> (Side note: I can't imagine being so filled with self disgust and fear that peeing in a toilet becomes impossible. I genuinely feel for them.)


I don’t think it’s entirely fair to treat that statistic as self-harm in the usual sense. Trans* people not wanting to use public restrooms for fear of violence is more in the category of women avoiding underpasses after dark (something that seems to be a widely accepted “reasonable” fear), except the trans* people’s fears have a more substantial basis in reality.

Comparing it to agoraphobia or claustrophobia (given the size of most public restrooms) is... The _definition_ of a phobia involves it being irrational. Especially given the widespread debates around “bathroom bills” of different kinds, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss trans* people’s concerns about public restrooms as irrational. Solid pushback against attempts to legislate/regulate trans* people out of their appropriate bathrooms is very much something that the public _can_ do.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> for fear of violence



I understand the general point, but you must understand that the above is what I'm focusing on. At some point, self care must come before identity in the sense that if you've gotta take a leak or get a kidney stone, it really shouldn't matter what toilet you do it in.

Yes, dysphoria in that case will happen.
Yes, dysphoria sucks.

But again, choosing to not use ANY public restroom in favor of fear, later resulting in a kidney stone is absolutely self harm. Identity aside. Again, this may be due to my strict upbringing, the fact that taking care of oneself and one's survival comes before the comforts of life for me...but there really is a priority list here.

I'm not asking Trans identifying individuals to feel comfortable in the wrong bathroom, because I'm under the opinion that a toilet is a toilet and anyone should be allowed to use any bathroom without judgement...but by that same belief, I also think that if you want to avoid violence (or have to, in cases of violent areas) then taking a few hours of discomfort over a few days (or weeks- ouch) of infection and stones is MUCH more preferable. Logically speaking.

So...this is self harm, in my eyes. It could even be diagnosed as circumstancial Agoraphobia due to their identity, which would be a need for therapy to either gain confidence to use their identifying bathroom or their physical body's bathroom until transitioning without feeling wrong.

It's not black and white at all, obviously.
But it IS self harm.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss trans* people’s concerns about public restrooms as irrational



I suppose you're right but I'm not addressing their paranoia over restrooms itself, I'm addressing what it lead to.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> Perhaps it's due to the fact that I was raised within strict environments so my perspective is a bit too neutral...but whether it's looked at as sympathetic or cruel doesn't matter to me.


It may not matter to you, but I assure you that it matters to many of our brothers, sisters, non-binaries, et al whom identify as trans. For such persons, having somebody respond to "I'm afraid to use a public restroom because I might be attacked, stalked, or even murdered if somebody else wanders in and takes offense to my presence" with "Damn, that's fucked up. ... Not the being attacked / stalked thing, but you being afraid? You really should see a shrink. It's all in your head" is just layer upon layer of "Yeah, you and your concerns aren't valid. In fact they're farcical."



Raever said:


> If you can't take care of yourself, you cannot expect society to do it for you.


I feel like pointing out that one of the most basic - underlying - principles of the social contract quite literally _is_ that, so long as you play by the rules, society will look after you. And that the moment _that_ presumption is tossed out the window is the moment that all hell starts to break loose.



Raever said:


> But again, choosing to not use ANY public restroom in favor of fear, later resulting in a kidney stone is absolutely self harm.


I think I see one of the big problems here: You're presuming that they're consciously choosing an act of harm almost as if it'll martyr them, or that it'll reaffirm their identity or whatnot.

They aren't. They aren't using the bathroom because they legitimately fear that the consequences of "Force myself to hold it in until I'm somewhere safe" (which covers a wide are of ground from "piss yourself publicly, potentially get ousted anyways and / or face public indecency charges, but at least be in a public spot where it happens" to "permanent, long-lasting injury") are _*lesser*_ than those they may face if they use a public restroom (a location that, in and of itself, is semi-private, often having minimal oversight and a limited number of people passing in / through at any time)... and a random stranger puts together "This person is / may be trans". All of the above given consequences in the example were seen as _preferable to what could happen to them otherwise_.

And, again, there is no "paranoia" about this: Lawyers have legitimately had to inform themselves on what to do _if somebody attempts to defend a homicide with "I found out they were trans and my mind just snapped"._ Twelve percent of trans individuals who took that survey were verbally harassed / assaulted for simply using a restroom. One percent was assaulted, and another one percent was sexually assaulted. And nine percent were also blocked from trying to use the restroom _anyways_ by outside parties.

Let that sink in: 14% of them who had used public restrooms, _in that year_, were either verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted. Imagine if, every year in which you used a public restroom, you had to roll a d6: On a 1, you would be assaulted at least once. Rolling again with a d12, if you roll a 1 again at least one of the assaults would be either physical or sexual in nature.

EDIT: Technically, if you wanted to be more accurate, the odds of a physical / sexual assault v verbal would be 1-in-7, not 1-in-12, so it'd be more accurate to replace with either another d6 or a d8.


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> It must also be kept in mind that, for many such people, being online is one of the few spots they can "safely" (sadly, safely requires quotation marks as there's _still_ a disproportionate rate of harassment, doxxing, et al even there) express themselves and be open about their identity. A place where they can, proverbially, let their guard down.
> 
> So when they go to such places and then find out that they're the punching bag _there_ too, at best it merely pushes them away from the communities treating them as such and at worst has the sort of consequences you'd expect when one of somebody's few safety nets are taken out from underneath them and told "Fuck off or give up".


While I don't doubt that such behaviours occur and especially in the wrong parts of the internet, I feel like the idea of "safety" doesn't apply to the internet.

No one is in any risk real harm. Doxxing can be quite dangerous, but it's not something that happens all the time nor is it something anyone can to do anyone else, and beyond it there isn't really much else of any actual threat.

Trans people are absolutely accepted in places such as this, where if anything it's worse to be considered a transphobe instead. Not only have multiple threads been created or steered towards trans issues, they have all received uncontested support for almost every user to post in them. The worst that happened (as far as transphobia goes) was a couple of distasteful jokes.

Again, I'm not saying everyone on the internet does and always will love trans people, but there's more than just a few small safety nets here. The issue feels like it's being misrepresented.



quoting_mungo said:


> I don’t think it’s entirely fair to treat that statistic as self-harm in the usual sense. Trans* people not wanting to use public restrooms for fear of violence is more in the category of women avoiding underpasses after dark (something that seems to be a widely accepted “reasonable” fear), except the trans* people’s fears have a more substantial basis in reality.
> 
> Comparing it to agoraphobia or claustrophobia (given the size of most public restrooms) is... The _definition_ of a phobia involves it being irrational. Especially given the widespread debates around “bathroom bills” of different kinds, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss trans* people’s concerns about public restrooms as irrational. Solid pushback against attempts to legislate/regulate trans* people out of their appropriate bathrooms is very much something that the public _can_ do.


I can't claim to know what other people think and feel, but I think there's quite an overstep in the logic here.

I would think that in the real world, the general public has a greater hatred of random acts of violence than any given person's gender identity. In a well-lit populated public area such as a store or mall bathroom, the risk for anyone is extremely low. I do argue it's irrational to fear for one's physical self in a place like this, though absolutely social fear is still somewhat valid. Most people tend to avoid conflicts with strangers in public though.

And of course, just gonna throw it out there that _literally no one_ should feel completely safe in secluded dark areas like an underpass. Men are more frequently the victims of violence by far. It has nothing to do with identity, it's about keeping oneself safe by reducing the risk of opportunity. Don't expect society to completely protect it's individuals from physical harm. Individuals are always responsible for ensuring their own safety above anyone else, and while legislation should be done to help improve the safety of everyone it's not the be-all end-all.


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> This happens to be a very LGBT community, you know that? Not everywhere on the internet is as accepting


Yeah, and not everywhere even accepts furries.

Don't go to such places expecting hugs and pats on the back for being anything other than what they expect a person to be is my point.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> It may not matter to you, but I assure you that it matters to many of our brothers, sisters, non-binaries, et al whom identify as trans



I think I've been taken out of context.
I mean that logically speaking, it doesn't matter. I'm sure emotionally it matters a lot. Problem solving is kind of blatant like that I guess.



Attaman said:


> I feel like pointing out that one of the most basic - underlying - principles of the social contract quite literally _is_ that, so long as you play by the rules, society will look after you.



This speaks of how different the culture you grew up in is, because no one within my lifetime has ever believed in that sort of societal "rule" nor has it ever been a moral code others around myself have lived by. Therefore I do not agree with it. Life is inherently unfair, and its unfair to others to burden them with your own problems. Take care of yourself so you don't need others approval. Personal strength allows us to take care of loved ones as well. These are more the sort of things I had grown up with. 

I feel these differences explain our different opinions on matters. Where you expect society to cover your flaws, I expect society to do nothing whatsoever - and I take comfort in knowing that we as individuals control how we deal with that. It feels Empowering when you get to a point that insults, cat calls, etc do not affect you...because you have a firm belief in your own inherent value.

I hope every person gets to a point in life where they need no one but themselves in order to feel worthy of enjoying the simple things.



Attaman said:


> preferable to what could happen to them otherwise.



If you do not see the self harm of that sentence, I do not see a point in elaborating. 



Attaman said:


> Lawyers have legitimately had to inform themselves on what to do _if somebody attempts to defend a homicide with "I found out they were trans and my mind just snapped"._



This is a much different scenario - but a real one, and one I have no debate for as that is reprehensible and disgusting in my opinion (the very existence of an attempted excuse, that is).



Attaman said:


> 14% of them who had used public restrooms, _in that year_, were either verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted



I understand. I'm not denying this statement, however - in twelve months that's quite a small number. Without comparing it to other groups (women, children, gay men, etc.). In the end my argument has nothing to do with the overall actual causes of fear (I understand why they exist) - it's the choice of refusing to use a toilet that they can get away with using due to dysphoria, and causing bodily harm by refusing to use it. 

I'm not saying, "They're refusing to use the opposite bathroom", I'm saying "They're refusing to use ANY of them for bodily relief and health purposes and that's pretty harmful...".

Which is why it worries me.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> Life is inherently unfair, and its unfair to others to burden them with your own problems


Please do not call trans people wanting to be able to use the f-ing correct bathroom as "burdening others with their own problems." Seriously, don't. It's really disrespectful.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> While I don't doubt that such behaviours occur and especially in the wrong parts of the internet, I feel like the idea of "safety" doesn't apply to the internet.
> 
> No one is in any risk real harm. Doxxing can be quite dangerous, but it's not something that happens all the time nor is it something anyone can to do anyone else, and beyond it there isn't really much else of any actual threat.
> 
> ...



Thank you for providing the eloquence that I am apparently incapable of, haha.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Not responding to this thread anymore, it honestly should have stayed locked. You are also all gonna say I get off on drama when I didn't want this to happen. Oh well :/


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> While I don't doubt that such behaviours occur and especially in the wrong parts of the internet, I feel like the idea of "safety" doesn't apply to the internet.
> 
> No one is in any risk real harm.


Shown: A lack of risk from online behavior / actions.


Punji said:


> I would think that in the real world, the general public has a greater hatred of random acts of violence than any given person's gender identity.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but the public can't even agree on whether rape is the perpetrator or the victim's fault for walking down that dark street dressed like that / going to that party.



Punji said:


> the risk for anyone is extremely low.


I would not rate "2% of trans individuals are physically or sexually assaulted *yearly* in public restrooms" as extremely low. Like, for a perspective: This is not significantly (statistically) different from the number of Americans involved in an automobile accident per year. I don't see people calling each other pussies for... ah, "Having auto insurance".



Raever said:


> This speaks of how different the culture you grew up in is, because no one within my lifetime has ever believed in that sort of societal "rule" nor has it ever been a moral code others around myself have lived by.


But it has: You pay taxes, yes? And, I presume, believe that police are who you call when you and / or your property is threatened? Respect the idea of private and public property?

These are all parts of the social contract. Because the social contract, quite literally, is "We will give up some of our rights / suffer some degree of inconvenience, and in return we will have the remainder protected / will avoid other inconveniences". So when somebody says "You cannot expect anything from society", that means that the most basic principles of society _do not work for them anymore._ 



Raever said:


> I understand. I'm not denying this statement, however - in twelve months that's quite a small number.


I will point out that the average sexual assault rate in a year is 1.4-2.7 persons per _*1000*_. Or, in other words, that on the high end of average, approximately 0.27% of people are sexually assaulted on a yearly basis.

The rate for Trans individuals be sexual assaulted yearly _*just for using a public restroom*_ is four times that.

Likewise, the violent crime rate (_*total*_) for the general population hovers around the high 0.9%'s to high 1.1%'s. Again, for trans individuals, this number is matched _*just when it comes to using public restrooms*_.

Just by using a public restroom, trans individuals are _*at least four times as likely as the general population to be sexually assaulted*_.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> but the public can't even agree on whether rape is the perpetrator or the victim's fault for walking down that dark street dressed like that / going to that party.



Actually most of the public sides with the victim, the only time they don't is when the victim lacks any cases of DNA evidence which - if you know anything about biology, - breathing wrong can land that shit on someone. I think a lot of people tend to watch too much biased media coverage, which can rile up the passionate without actually focusing on the facts. Most of what you've linked is actually quite expected - there's no such thing as 0% of something. Everyone has some sort of struggle, and every group has their own issues. If we could kindly stop arguing about who has the worst of what, we could actually focus on what leads to solutions - but instead people are too busy enjoying time in the victim-spotlight instead of agreeing that, "Yeah that sucks - let's talk about what to do to fix it,".

For example, I'm a huge fan of having three bathrooms, or just one really big one.
Why not right?



Attaman said:


> But it has: You pay taxes, yes? And, I presume, believe that police are who you call when you and / or your property is threatened? Respect the idea of private and public property?
> 
> These are all parts of the social contract. Because the social contract, quite literally, is "We will give up some of our rights / suffer some degree of inconvenience, and in return we will have the remainder protected / will avoid other inconveniences". So when somebody says "You cannot expect anything from society", that means that the most basic principles of society _do not work for them anymore._



I'm sorry but I do not see a correlation between people's jobs and people's moral ability to protect strangers outside of their career choices.
I'll have to pass on this part of the debate due to the extension that has been taken.



Attaman said:


> The rate for Trans individuals be sexual assaulted yearly _*just for using a public restroom*_ is four times that.



Are we counting someone verbally insulting genitalia as apart of this assault? I'm asking a serious question for statistical understanding, here.



Attaman said:


> Likewise, the violent crime rate (_*total*_) for the general population hovers around the high 0.9%'s to high 1.1%'s. Again, for trans individuals, this number is matched _*just when it comes to using public restrooms*_.



That's awful. Can you provide proof comparing the trans community to other groups so that these differences can be graphically shown? Have you already? I've been at work (yay IT work from home!) so I haven't looked at every link posted, since numbers weren't becoming apart of the main argument.



Attaman said:


> Just by using a public restroom, trans individuals are _*at least four times as likely as the general population to be sexually assaulted*_.



I'd imagine by using a restroom that they're otherwise not welcome in, they would get some dirty looks and more than a few verbal threats.
Maybe the really bold would throw toilet paper at them, but is all of that under the usage of the word assault? Or does assault only mean "beaten up". I feel the context of the word matters a lot in this sort of debate. Again, not to demean lesser evils, but to understand how often actual physical harm occurs versus emotional traumas.


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> Shown: A lack of risk from online behavior / actions.


SWAT'ing is illegal, requires knowledge of a person's place of residence, has a limited impact if no one is home, and would affect literally anyone the same. (Beyond the economic impact of replacing the door if needed). It doesn't happen very often because it's a very serious thing and requires knowledge most people don't have access to.


Attaman said:


> I'm sorry to break it to you, but the public can't even agree on whether rape is the perpetrator or the victim's fault for walking down that dark street dressed like that / going to that party.


This is just flat out fallacious. Crime is crime and the legal judicial system of any Western nation does not care about how the victim was dressed. This also doesn't apply at all to the topic at hand.


> I would not rate "2% of trans individuals are physically or sexually assaulted *yearly* in public restrooms" as extremely low. Like, for a perspective: This is not significantly (statistically) different from the number of Americans involved in an automobile accident per year. I don't see people calling each other pussies for... ah, "Having auto insurance".


Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?



It's also important to note that the Trans Community/population (or those that openly identify and admit it on surveys taken) only make up 0.6% of the US (and for the UK it's apparently 600k out of 60 Million - so 10% I believe?). So of course statistical numbers will sound higher due to the minority that the community is in.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> It's also important to note that the Trans Community/population (or those that openly identify and admit it on surveys taken) only make up 0.6% of the US (and for the UK it's apparently 600k out of 60 Million - so 10% I believe?). So of course statistical numbers will sound higher due to the minority that the community is in.



This isn't how statistics work.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> SWAT'ing is illegal, requires knowledge of a person's place of residence, has a limited impact if no one is home, and would affect literally anyone the same. (Beyond the economic impact of replacing the door if needed). It doesn't happen very often because it's a very serious thing and requires knowledge most people don't have access to.
> 
> This is just flat out fallacious. Crime is crime and the legal judicial system of any Western nation does not care about how the victim was dressed. This also doesn't apply at all to the topic at hand.
> 
> Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the





Punji said:


> Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?


I don't know about SPECIFICALLY for using the restroom but here is good source breaking things down for general sexual violence.

RAINN


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> This isn't how statistics work.



Might be using the wrong terminology, it's one of those days without sleep so excuse the shit math.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> It's also important to note that the Trans Community/population (or those that openly identify and admit it on surveys taken) only make up 0.6% of the US (and for the UK it's apparently 600k out of 60 Million - so 10% I believe?). So of course statistical numbers will sound higher due to the minority that the community is in.


These are percentages not raw numbers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?


Attaman already provided you with the average total sexual assault rate per 1000 head of population.

As these represent the sum of all assaults, and must necessary be larger than only assaults that take place in public rest-rooms, you can already answer your question.



Raever said:


> Might be using the wrong terminology, it's one of those days without sleep so excuse the shit math.



It's a maths error, not a terminological mistake. Emyrelda has already pointed it out. 

If it's not obvious though, we can use the following example. 

People with peanut allergies are a lot more likely to die after eating peanuts, compared to everybody else. 

Some 3% of people suffering peanut allergies died after eating peanuts, compared to 0.001% of other people. 

Sally says 'this is misleading; only a small number of the population is allergic to peanuts, so of course the statistical numbers sound higher,'. 

Sally's mistake is pretty obvious now right?


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> I don't know about SPECIFICALLY for using the restroom but here is good source breaking things down for general sexual violence.
> 
> RAINN



It might also be worth noting that, in most cases of sexual assault - the perp likely views it not as a trans thing, but as a physical gender thing (that is what they're after,) so would them being Trans identifying have much to do with the physical act itself? I doubt the perp is thinking, "I can't wait to [blank] this trans-identifying male!" I think it's more like, "Vulnerable person alert" and that's that. Especially since they are going into a bathroom meant for the other gender (usually,) --- which puts them more at risk, unfortunately. Which is why I'm a huge advocator for bathroom options. I feel it would lower those statistics a bit, at least I'd hope so.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> These are percentages not raw numbers.


Already addressed.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> I'm not saying, "They're refusing to use the opposite bathroom", I'm saying "They're refusing to use ANY of them for bodily relief and health purposes and that's pretty harmful...".


1. There is no way of knowing whether holding it this time is going to give you a UTI, or if that UTI is going to develop into a kidney infection. I happen to be prone to UTIs, and I sure couldn’t tell you what brought most of the ones I’ve had on

2. It’s not necessarily a given which bathroom would be the “safe” choice for any given individual. What does a transwoman wearing distinctly feminine clothing and makeup but with a visible Adam’s apple and broad shoulders do? Either bathroom stands a good chance of getting her negative reactions. Either way those reactions come with a risk of real harm.



Punji said:


> I would think that in the real world, the general public has a greater hatred of random acts of violence than any given person's gender identity. In a well-lit populated public area such as a store or mall bathroom, the risk for anyone is extremely low. I do argue it's irrational to fear for one's physical self in a place like this, though absolutely social fear is still somewhat valid. Most people tend to avoid conflicts with strangers in public though.


Look at the statistics @Attaman cited. 1% of respondents to the survey had been physically assaulted in the last year using a public restroom. 1% had been sexually assaulted.

If a product was released into the market that had a 2% chance of causing the consumer physical and psychological trauma in a given year when used according to instructions, it would get recalled. It’s not a small number.

Overall US violent crime rate in 2017 was 382.9 per 100k. That’s less than 0.4% unless I’m totally derping my math. The trans* people responding to the study reported over four times that (not the same year, but I don’t feel like spending a ton of time digging) _associated with public restrooms alone_. Even taking the higher number Attaman mentions, it still puts trans* people disproportionately at risk.

I can’t find data specifically about underpasses, not entirely surprising. Still. Maybe I’m just salty because I’ve spent 35 years being told that having tits I must fear going from point A to point B just because the path goes under a road or railroad.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Attaman already provided you with the average total sexual assault rate per 1000 head of population.
> 
> As these represent the sum of all assaults, and must necessary be larger than only assaults that take place in public rest-rooms, you can already answer your question.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for the mathematical error.  I'm sure I had a point there somewhere, but I don't have the energy to really go in depth - clearly, so let's move on from that, yeah?


----------



## Foxy Emy (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> It might also be worth noting that, in most cases of sexual assault - the perp likely views it not as a trans thing, but as a physical gender thing (that is what they're after,) so would them being Trans identifying have much to do with the physical act itself? I doubt the perp is thinking, "I can't wait to [blank] this trans-identifying male!" I think it's more like, "Vulnerable person alert" and that's that. Especially since they are going into a bathroom meant for the other gender (usually,) --- which puts them more at risk, unfortunately. Which is why I'm a huge advocator for bathroom options. I feel it would lower those statistics a bit, at least I'd hope so.


I mean...

I would advocate for gender neutral restrooms with better privacy.

Not sure what you mean by restroom options?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> It might also be worth noting that, in most cases of sexual assault - the perp likely views it not as a trans thing, but as a physical gender thing (that is what they're after,) so would them being Trans identifying have much to do with the physical act itself? I doubt the perp is thinking, "I can't wait to [blank] this trans-identifying male!" I think it's more like, "Vulnerable person alert" and that's that. Especially since they are going into a bathroom meant for the other gender (usually,) --- which puts them more at risk, unfortunately. Which is why I'm a huge advocator for bathroom options. I feel it would lower those statistics a bit, at least I'd hope so.



Unfortunately some people perceive people who don't fit into their idea of gender norms either as easy prey or as threatening, and their response to that is to attack. 

This is commonly known as the 'gay panic' defence in court and is made so routinely it's considered a trope:




__





						Gay panic defense - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So my guess is that this happens to transgender people too.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> If we could kindly stop arguing about who has the worst of what,


When it comes to equality, acknowledging who is better or worse off is quite literally a requisite as it's the first step in determining where are areas that require addressing / reformation (if not entirely, then in most dire need: Think of it as if you have a fire raging through your house. If you know the bedroom is starting to catch through the back wall of the closet, but that the kitchen is just an inferno with the gas line soon to be compromised, if trying to save the house your first response is almost definitely going to be "Keep the kitchen from going critical").



Raever said:


> Are we counting someone verbally insulting genitalia as apart of this assault?


No, sexual assault as in literal groping / molestation / rape. The 1% sexual assault rate was exclusively things that would qualify as sexual assault. Likewise the 1% physical assault. The remaining 12% for verbal harassment / assault was where verbal insults / harassment / et al come into play.

Also, for reference: The counter examples / statistics come directly from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and official reports.



Raever said:


> That's awful. Can you provide proof comparing the trans community to other groups so that these differences can be graphically shown? Have you already? I've been at work (yay IT work from home!) so I haven't looked at every link posted, since numbers weren't becoming apart of the main argument.


Graphically no, but you can take the numbers from the aforelinked 2015 Trans Survey with the most recent (2018) numbers from BJS.



Raever said:


> I'd imagine by using a restroom that they're otherwise not welcome in,


Why, might I ask, is the default presumption that they're "otherwise not welcome in"? There's nothing to suggest that the percentage blocked from using the restroom in general not only pushed their way through, but then suffered those assaults / harassment in direct response to doing so.



Raever said:


> but is all of that under the usage of the word assault? Or does assault only mean "beaten up".


I feel like pointing out that Just Asking Questions-ing _assault rates_ is not a particularly good look if it's not meant aggressively / hostilely.



Punji said:


> SWAT'ing is illegal, requires knowledge of a person's place of residence,


You literally just said nobody is at any real risk of harm from internet interactions. As well as downplayed the frequency / severity of doxxing. This is just one example of an internet interaction that can caused with such information.



Punji said:


> This is just flat out fallacious. Crime is crime and the legal judicial system of any Western nation does not care about how the victim was dressed.


It is, quite literally, a staple defense of rape allegations. Specifically questioning whether the victim provoked / desired the sexual assault, and / or whether they consented to it at the time and merely changed their mind later (of which, again, their manner of dress / behavior / et al before the crime will be picked with a fine toothed comb).



Punji said:


> Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?


I just gave them: About 1% of Americans will suffer some degree of violent crime yearly in general, and about 0.27% sexual assault. Conversely, if we go by total likelihood for trans individuals to suffer from such things, the number increases by a factor of eight for violent crimes (as in they're just shy of 9% are physically assaulted yearly), and the numbers for sexual assault aren't much better (with both these, for reference, looking just at averages with in some cases some trans minority demographics facing over _twice_ that sum rate yearly). Statistics that have been shared numerous times both in this thread, and the original post I cited for this thread, _and_ which are commented upon within the previously cited 2015 Trans Survey.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> 1. There is no way of knowing whether holding it this time is going to give you a UTI, or if that UTI is going to develop into a kidney infection. I happen to be prone to UTIs, and I sure couldn’t tell you what brought most of the ones I’ve had on



This is a VERY good point. Thank you. I have nothing to say since everyone's body is different, and I can understand where accident can occur - but for me personally, I hardly ever use public restrooms (I just find them gross tbh) and I have held it myself for multiple hours (4+ / 6+) on end and used the bathroom at home. Not due to fear, but because I know I can. If I feel pain, or I cannot safely hold it - because your body will normally cause abdominal pain if you are holding it to the point of actual health issues, - at that point I'll go whether I want to use a public restroom or not.

This is not at all the same, obviously, but there are usually some forms of physical signs that the body gives to let you know what's going on with your system. Those who genuinely have no idea...well, I wish I had their ability to be blissfully ignorant of that pain because it can be pretty intense at times. That, or I secretly have a disease I'm unaware of that only occurs when I hold it but, this is getting TMI so we'll stop there.



quoting_mungo said:


> 2. It’s not necessarily a given which bathroom would be the “safe” choice for any given individual. What does a transwoman wearing distinctly feminine clothing and makeup but with a visible Adam’s apple and broad shoulders do? Either bathroom stands a good chance of getting her negative reactions. Either way those reactions come with a risk of real harm.



To be honest I wasn't including the ones who outwardly dress completely like one or the other, because I figure those people have enough confidence to walk into a bathroom if they're already in public to begin with (of which I am personally always happy to see). The ones who seemed to have issues that I've noticed irl, were the ones not confident enough to be themselves. But everyone's circumstance is different, so I won't hold that above them. Point to you!



quoting_mungo said:


> _associated with public restrooms alone_.



I am still of the current statement that vulnerability plays a part, possibly.
The more vulnerable a person is, the more likely an asshole takes advantage.



Fallowfox said:


> This is commonly known as the 'gay panic' defence in court and is made so routinely it's considered a trope:



Okay now this specifically irritates me greatly.
My argument of more bathrooms is still on the table.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> Not sure what you mean by restroom options?



Anything that isn't what we have now, basically.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 26, 2020)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> I mean...
> 
> I would advocate for gender neutral restrooms with better privacy.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by restroom options?


We already have that over here in Norway with their own proper and separate stalls.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> Why, might I ask, is the default presumption that they're "otherwise not welcome in"?



Because the argument was that they don't feel welcome?
And apparently most people assault them?
Isn't that what you've been saying this entire time...? :/



Attaman said:


> allegations



Yes, allegations. Which become accusations when proven - and stay allegations when not enough evidence is brought forth, correct?

So, anyway, outside of gender neutral bathrooms - what else do you think would lower all these fancy numbers?
Edit: Norway seems to have a lot of nice laws. I think they're onto something...


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't understand why this would irritate you?
> 
> This isn't a challenge to you. :S



No, I mean the fact it exists irritates me. I've never seen it brought up in court of law and the fact it's common enough to be a regular claim is upsetting. I didn't take it as a challenge at all, it's just sad to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> No, I mean the fact it exists irritates me. I've never seen it brought up in court of law and the fact it's common enough to be a regular claim is upsetting. I didn't take it as a challenge at all, it's just sad to me.



That interpretation occurred to me as I posted, so I deleted the post- but you were very speedy. ;D

and yeah, the gay panic defence is unfortunately pretty famous. 
I am not certain that a greater variety of gendered toilets is a solution to that sort of response from people. 

These kinds of attitudes take a while to fix, and unfortunately the fact police have historically pursued cases involving LGBT victims with less rigour contributes to aggressors' belief that they can get away with crimes if the victim is queer. 

The most prolific serial killer in US history actually mostly targeted trans women, and that's one of the reasons he got away with it for decades; police just assumed his victims were no-good'uns and didn't bother following up the cases.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

The greatest things that could be done are EDUCATION. All schools should teach about LGBT identities so people stop being assholes to people just because of the way they exist.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> Because the argument was that they don't feel welcome?
> And apparently most people assault them?
> Isn't that what you've been saying this entire time...? :/


I feel like pointing out that if we're taking it as a given that they genuinely _aren't_ welcome in those restrooms... that it makes the argument that they should seek therapy instead of using them even more of a head-scratcher? Like, the therapy and their perspective at this point is utterly perpendicular to the fact that, in this case, we're readily admitting that one of the most basic things being asked by Trans individuals is "Be allowed to use public restrooms (and, on top of that, not fear violent reprisal for doing so)".


Raever said:


> Yes, allegations. Which become accusations when proven - and stay allegations when not enough evidence is brought forth, correct?


While a subject for another thread, I will point out that rape is a subject matter that has been acknowledged by legal experts for _decades_ at this point for being under-prosecuted (in no small part because, in some cases, the idea of things such as "Marital rape" were non-existent until _several years after I was born_: Germany, for instance, did not treat rape of one's spouse / partner as a crime until the 90's).


Raever said:


> So, anyway, outside of gender neutral bathrooms - what else do you think would lower all these fancy numbers?


A start is to try to reduce the amount of interference and protection provided to those who assault such individuals. To reduce peoples' ability to promote such rhetoric (either transphobic, or calls to violence) publicly. For people to stand up for their peers, in much the same fashion that somebody is unlikely to pick a fight at a bar when all the regulars are ready to jump out of their seat to defend the one being picked on.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> and yeah, the gay panic defence is unfortunately pretty famous.



Please tell me it doesn't actually count as a proper defense in court.........like, not as of 2020? -_-


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> Please tell me it doesn't actually count as a proper defense in court.........like, not as of 2020? -_-


It is still a thing in many states.








						The Gay/Trans Panic Defense: What It is, and How to End It
					

The gay/trans panic legal defense legitimizes and excuses violent and lethal behavior against members of the LGBTQ+ community. The defense is defined by the LGBT Bar as “a legal strategy which asks a jury to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for the...




					www.americanbar.org


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> I feel like pointing out that if we're taking it as a given that they genuinely _aren't_ welcome in those restrooms... that it makes the argument that they should seek therapy instead of using them even more of a head-scratcher? Like, the therapy and their perspective at this point is utterly perpendicular to the fact that, in this case, we're readily admitting that one of the most basic things being asked by Trans individuals is "Be allowed to use public restrooms (and, on top of that, not fear violent reprisal for doing so)".



Once again, a misunderstanding.  I was commenting on what you were defending, and that's it. I'll not continue this game of telephone further than saying that, as it's clear that context is lost.



Attaman said:


> (in no small part because, in some cases, the idea of things such as "Marital rape" were non-existent until _several years after I was born_: Germany, for instance, did not treat rape of one's spouse / partner as a crime until the 90's).



I'm sorry for that, but as stated prior, I speak with a majority of experience from my own state and country - and age, for that matter. I'm twenty two for reference, so I have little context for other country's marital laws - or my owns in the late seventies for example. I am as much learning as I am exploring a topic of debate, so please keep that in mind going forward. I am not in any way pretending to know more than I know about a given place and thus will not comment on it without a direct affiliate (example; my trans friend of six years from the UK). As such, I'm going to politely move forward.



Attaman said:


> A start is to try to reduce the amount of interference and protection provided to those who assault such individuals. To reduce peoples' ability to promote such rhetoric (either transphobic, or calls to violence) publicly. For people to stand up for their peers, in much the same fashion that somebody is unlikely to pick a fight at a bar when all the regulars are ready to jump out of their seat to defend the one being picked on.



I think that segregation of Trans individuals with the use of a seperate bathroom might have the opposite affect of including them in society "seamlessly" and instead create targets, the above member's gender neutral bathroom thing sounds much cooler. I also agree with you, I think more direct laws preventing the abuse of Trans individuals would be good. However, I think that general protection laws should apply to Trans individuals, new ones shouldn't have to be made. As stated in the title, they're PEOPLE. Just trans people. All protections in place should apply to them automatically and it's upsetting to me that it isn't. So integration in the sense of generalized gender neutralism in culture sounds appropriate to me. I guess I just want the trans community to be treated normally - but that's what everyone should want. Normally includes both the fairness of being able to take a piss, and the fairness of not everyone accepting you/your choices (but not getting assaulted for those identities/lifestyles/fashion statements/whatever else happens to make you up to be you).


----------



## Mambi (Nov 26, 2020)

Yakamaru said:


> We already have that over here in Norway with their own proper and separate stalls.



Now that's how you use common sense in solving a problem. Everyone gets privacy AND everyone gets to use it however they wish in peace. 
It's a simple solution that pleases everyone equally...so I fully expect it to be shot down by other places by very confusing rationals. <grin>


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Mambi said:


> Now that's how you use common sense in solving a problem. Everyone gets privacy AND everyone gets to use it however they wish in peace.
> It's a simple solution that pleases everyone equally...so I fully expect it to be shot down by other places by very confusing rationals. <grin>



It's depressing how accurate this statement is. Personally I'd kill for fully closed stalls in a gender neutral bathroom. Not only would it feel equal - but men could change their kids diapers on an actual changing table, trans individuals could use the bathroom in relative peace without feeling dysphoric (hopefully), and there wouldn't be any of those weird gaps in the stalls! </3 I want this so badly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> 2% of 1000 is a lot smaller than 2% of 10,000. This gives the impression of a similar total when divorced from the actual numbers. I.E., 20 and 200 respectively.



Punji try to think very carefully about this and you'll realise what your mistake is.

Similarly, if you want to know what a 'per cent' is in 'per 1000 people'...just remember that 'per cent' means 'per 100'. 

You can convert these yourself. 

20% = 200‰  (called 'permille' by most people).


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> Once again, a misunderstanding.  I was commenting on what you were defending, and that's it. I'll not continue this game of telephone further than saying that, as it's clear that context is lost.


Understood, and apologies for my earlier aggression.


Raever said:


> I'm sorry for that, but as stated prior, I speak with a majority of experience from my own state and country - and age, for that matter. I'm twenty two for reference, so I have little context for other country's marital laws - or my owns in the late seventies for example.


This is something I'm aware of in part only because I've on-and-off actively looked into it for almost a decade at this point, so I can understand that. Likewise respect a genuine desire to learn (something that is often not given a benefit of the doubt online due to aforementioned "Just asking questions" behavior by the occasional bad actor, often used to derail genuine discussions). But yeah: Spousal rape wasn't considered a thing in Germany until approximately '97. What this means is that if you were married in Germany, until ~'97 you legally _could not be considered a rape victim_ if the perpetrator was your spouse. And it's just one example of how things can be stacked against those who're suffering from sexual harassment / assault / violence.

Another, more recent, example might be the rates of sexual assault / abuse by minorities (sexual, racial, et al) in the hands of police, and how it's thoroughly under-prosecuted because at the end of the day it's one's word versus that of a (supposed) enforcer of the law who also generally has the backing of their peers (fellow enforcers of the law), with the ability to compromise / tamper with evidence as needed (prevent them from seeing a doctor in a reasonable time frame, block / edit / remove any footage, provide wrong evidence, or so-on). 

Again, it's a subject matter that could very much be given a whole thread (if admittedly is poorly suited for somewhere like FAF due to a mix of PG-13 and how readily it can turn into a political discussion), but genuinely useful as a point of comparison for how... well, tolerant, of horrifying things society can be at times.



Raever said:


> However, I think that general protection laws should apply to Trans individuals, new ones shouldn't have to be made.


I'll point out that part of the reason people have advocated for new laws is that there's precedent for using pre-existing ones and their exact wording to omit others from protections. Indeed, there was a relatively recent one wherein people tried to use the exact wording of a protections law to say that health officials can _legally deny health services to trans individuals_. During a peak of numbers in the ongoing COVID pandemic. It was eventually overturned, but for a couple days / weeks health officials in... Texas, IIRC, could legally turn aside Trans / LGBTQ+ individuals from health services.



Punji said:


> No, he hasn't. At best he linked a news article to a different user which only mentions a "survey of 27,715 respondents reached an estimated 2 percent of the adult transgender population in 2015," and that "1 percent were physically attacked and 1 percent were sexually assaulted." This is not a rate per 1000 people.


Not trans-specific, but polling specific: 2% of a population / demographic is, from a polling / survey perspective, a _fuck huge_ representative amount.

By this I mean that if you want a survey with a 99% confidence level and only 1% confidence interval, you need a sampling size of approximately 16,400 individuals... to represent a sum population of one million. For reference most surveys only go for a 95% confidence level, and are around anywhere from a 2.5%-5% interval. This is how you can surveys for populations of tens of millions with only a few thousand applicants and be considered within a ballpark of accuracy.

Having ~27,000 individuals respond for a population of approximately two million is a statistical _*holy grail*_. The sort of thing that people would give their right arms for.



Punji said:


> Post them again if you wouldn't mind? As above, the 2015 survey is dead on arrival and I don't think anyone even bothered to read it, since it's seems to be gone.


I directly linked to the 2015 in the post I brought this up with you either willfully blind or purposefully disingenuous foil hat.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Why was this zombie thread allowed to return from the grave? Seriously?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Why was this zombie thread allowed to return from the grave? Seriously?



For the sake saving maths.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> For the sake saving maths.


It's just a bunch of people trying to minimize trans assault and then actual logical people


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> This is something I'm aware of in part only because I've on-and-off actively looked into it for almost a decade at this point, so I can understand that. Likewise respect a genuine desire to learn (something that is often not given a benefit of the doubt online due to aforementioned "Just asking questions" behavior by the occasional bad actor, often used to derail genuine discussions).



I'm thankful for your time, well-thought out responses (both the ones I agree and disagree with,) as well as your understanding.
I'm of the belief that threads of this nature are made for hard discussions, people will disagree, and share their points - and it doesn't have to be a fight. People who view anyone as "problematic" because they choose to challenge a view (and learn from someone else,) aren't very fun to talk to or hold debates with. So, once again, I'm thankful that you treated our discussion with respect.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

C'mon Asta, being nice to people costs nothing.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Because multiple adults decided to have a conversation about a somewhat sensitive topic in a relatively tame manner.
> 
> I don't know what's up with you and wanting to shut down healthy discussions whenever they activate your teenage angst. You should make a concentrated effort to get a hold of yourself.
> 
> Seriously.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> C'mon Asta, being nice to people costs nothing.


Sometimes being nice means providing criticism when someone's being annoying constantly


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Punji try to think very carefully about this and you'll realise what your mistake is.
> 
> Similarly, if you want to know what a 'per cent' is in 'per 1000 people'...just remember that 'per cent' means 'per 100'.
> 
> ...


Okay, think of it like this:

2% of the survey's 27,715 participants equals ~554 people. 554 people does not ever equal to 2% when using factors of 10. (10, 100, 1000, 1100, 10,000, etc.) The true answer isn't really clear when the sample sizes vary.

Likewise, 2% of 27,715 isn't going to be the same as 2% of 600,000. Defined numbers are much easier to work with because they're constant values rather than a description of a value.



Attaman said:


> Not trans-specific, but polling specific: 2% of a population / demographic is, from a polling / survey perspective, a _fuck huge_ representative amount.
> 
> By this I mean that if you want a survey with a 99% confidence level and only 1% confidence interval, you need a sampling size of approximately 16,400 individuals... to represent a sum population of one million. For reference most surveys only go for a 95% confidence level, and are around anywhere from a 2.5%-5% interval. This is how you can surveys for populations of tens of millions with only a few thousand applicants and be considered within a ballpark of accuracy.
> 
> ...


2% is a large demographic, but it's still specific to Americans only, and does not represent all transgender people from every Western nation.

Stop strawmanning please. I didn't even mention confidence intervals. You cut out everything else I've said to you so now you have to pad the response to make it seem like you have a point. If you don't have anything to say about my counter arguments that's fine, just don't try to make up a new argument to respond to instead.

The link you provided is this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ublic-restrooms-landmark-survey-idUSKBN13X0BK

In the news article, the link to the actual survey is here:



Clicking this link yields the broken page I've uploaded previously. You have not linked the survey, you linked a news article talking about the survey.

I want to have a legitimate conversation about the issues and how they actually relate to the topics being dicussed here in this thread, but you're not helping with that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Sometimes being nice means providing criticism when someone's being annoying constantly



We are grown men in our mid twenties. Veestars is 14. 

Grown men insulting a teenager is a bit embarrassing. We're meant to be the mature ones who are above all that.



Punji said:


> Okay, think of it like this:
> 
> 2% of the survey's 27,715 participants equals ~554 people. 554 people does not ever equal to 2% when using factors of 10. (10, 100, 1000, 1100, 10,000, etc.) The true answer isn't really clear when the sample sizes vary.
> 
> ...



Punji, remember you're comparing probability. 

Imagine that you have 100 people with peanut allergies, and 100,000 people without. 
You give them all peanuts. 
10 of the allergic people die, and 1 person who isn't allergic chokes to death. 

So 10% of the allergic group died, compared to 0.001% of the rest. 

What you're doing is claiming that we can't compare the allergy sufferers to the non-allergy sufferers because the allergy group was measured in 'per hundreds', and 'per hundreds' aren't the same as 'per hundred thousands'. 

You're trying to argue that it's not possible to know whether one fraction is larger than another.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> We are grown men in our mid twenties. Veestars is 14.
> 
> Grown men insulting a teenager is a bit embarrassing. We're meant to be the mature ones who are above all that.


Oh, they are quite embarrassing indeed, constantly contributing to flame wars and all that. Heh.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> C'mon Asta, being nice to people costs nothing.



In Asta's defense...that is a daily occurence. I don't blame them for being a little intolerant.
Block buttons are also free, though. So you make a good point.

Edit: I usually never look at age (unless it's a PM). Knowing that V is 14 kinda puts...so much into perspective. I said and did so much dumb shit as a fourteen year old it's not even funny.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Oh, they are quite embarrassing indeed, constantly contributing to flame wars and all that. Heh.



The most embarrassing thing frankly is that comparing the size of fractions is taught between third and sixth grade in American class rooms.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> We are grown men in our mid twenties. Veestars is 14.


Teachers also are grown adults telling off teenagers, I think they should be able to do that. I don't quite get the concept of criticism = insult.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> The most embarrassing thing frankly is that comparing the size of fractions is taught between third and sixth grade in American class rooms.


In my defense- I didn't get much education as a child.
In my not defense- I'm twenty two.  I'm also an IT agent so I guess I didn't need fractions to be successful. 
I do need them to debate with a Fox though...rip.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Oh, they are quite embarrassing indeed, constantly contributing to flame wars and all that. Heh.



I mean- me and about four members conversed pretty civilly throughout this thread (two of us even complimented each other). No one insulted or outright stated anyone's opinion was directly wrong or stupid. I don't see how any of that could be considered a flame war, but...as usual I bow to your wisdom Vee.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> 2% is a large demographic, but it's still specific to Americans only, and does not represent all transgender people from every Western nation.


27,000+ individuals as a sampling size (of a minority demographic, no less!) is so huge that I'm only joking in the loosest of senses when I say statisticians would give their right arm for access to it, that you could probably get interns to engage in a literal knife-fight for first-access, that it's so well and truly beyond any reasonable standard expected of a survey that the only way you can write it off as "Not enough" is to basically say polls _as a science in general_ are utterly worthless and that they should never be taken for granted.

This is not an argument you will win, Punji. You would quite literally be laughed out of any academic, scientific, et al environment if you seriously walked up to them and said "Sampling size of 27,000? Psh, worthless." A sampling size of 27,000 individuals, all of them Trans for that matter, is almost literally a Holy Grail for sampling.



Punji said:


> Stop strawmanning please. I didn't even mention confidence intervals.


You are downplaying the sampling size and accuracy of the study. Talking basic principles of sampling is not strawmanning, it's basic surveying / sampling.



Punji said:


> The link you provided is this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ublic-restrooms-landmark-survey-idUSKBN13X0BK


No, the very first link I provided was in this post. If you want to argue that I edited it in later or that I am being disingenuous or the like, you can... but I'll have you note that:
1) There ain't no edit time stamps;
2) Forum moderation can readily check that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> In my defense- I didn't get much education as a child.
> In my not defense- I'm twenty two.  I'm also an IT agent so I guess I didn't need fractions to be successful.
> I do need them to debate with a Fox though...rip.



While I was checking the American education system on this subject, I discovered that American children broadly find fractions more difficult to understand compared to other countries.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> While I was checking the American education system on this subject, I discovered that American children broadly find fractions more difficult to understand compared to other countries.


Yeeeeep. American education isn't great. Doesn't help that I was an orphan in a system that constantly switched schools every six to eight months, so maintaining much information was pretty hard on top of traumas, therapy, medicine that caused intense memory loss that I still have to this day.......but that's neither here nor there. Let's avoid insulting America too badly, mostly because politics and such I guess but also because I feel pretty damn grateful compared to where I came from. So I don't mind learning some things later in life. 

My life story aside, anything else constructive to add to this Trans-topic?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> I mean- me and about four members conversed pretty civilly throughout this thread (two of us even complimented each other). No one insulted or outright stated anyone's opinion was directly wrong or stupid. I don't see how any of that could be considered a flame war, but...as usual I bow to your wisdom Vee.


Wasn't talking about this current drama, but okkkkkk



Frank Gulotta said:


> Teachers also are grown adults telling off teenagers, I think they should be able to do that. I don't quite get the concept of criticism = insult.


ASTA throws temper tantrums because he and his buddies can't say the same dismissive and offensive jokes over and over, and he constantly insults me and others, but okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> ASTA throws temper tantrums because he and his buddies can't say the same dismissive and offensive jokes over and over, and he constantly insults me and others, but okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Asta you're a 26 year old grown man, trying to upset a 14 year old.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> It truly isn't. Behaviours such as substance abuse and vague communication are what matter. One would struggle very hard to find a court transcript where an offender was released from custody because the victim wore a certain type of clothing. It's unrealistic.


Is the court going to say in so many words that your skirt was an inch too short and so you had it coming? Probably not. Is the defense going to throw their efforts at pointing out how the victim was trying to look attractive and thus out to get laid and thus totally was consenting? Absofuckinglutely. And they do get acquittals.

_Flickan och skulden_ by Katarina Wennstam is one collection of cases where clothing, reputation, rumors (in at least one case rumors started by the perpetrators _after_ the assault but before trial), and similar are used by the defense to damage the credibility of the victim and argue that the encounter was consensual. I’m going to have to assume that similar investigative journalism exists in other countries/languages.

That’s not even touching on the cases that don’t go to court because they’re not considered likely to win. Not necessarily because the evidence wasn’t there, but because juries might not believe that e.g. a street sex worker “can” be raped.

And even before that, police may not be as sympathetic questioning a party girl victim  who was wearing a skimpy Halloween devil costume as they would be to a “good girl” wearing wholesome clothes. It sucks, but it happens.

This is all veering off topic, though. The pertinent point, I believe, is that regardless of what the letter of the law and its procedures might state, shit like “gay/trans panic” defenses and “look at what they were wearing; obviously they wanted it” does still get pushed and does make it much farther than it has any right to. This is why it’s important to not stare oneself blind at regulations, but also look at lived experiences of those regulations’ application.

It doesn’t matter how equal your regulations are if they’re not applied equally, after all.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Asta you're a 26 year old grown man, trying to upset a 14 year old.


Gotta agree with the Fox Asta, not that I don't find the humor in laughing at childish trolling (we were all there as kids, so we cringe at it and laugh to ourselves, thinking they'll grow out of it and shaking our heads wistfully and whatnot) - yet...I do think it's best to just block and move on if meme content is going to be what you post instead of healthy criticism. If only to avoid stoking the actual flames, haha.


----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> It doesn’t matter how equal your regulations are if they’re not applied equally, after all.



I think this is a perfect quote for this entire thread - no matter what side you're on. So I'm gonna post it again because I like it just that much.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Asta you're a 26 year old grown man, trying to upset a 14 year old.


It’s not even working, he is failing to upset a child


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 26, 2020)

God FaF never fails to disappoint me.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> It’s not even working, he is failing to upset a child


_your clearly too young to judge that_


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> _your clearly too young to judge that_


Too young to judge if I’m personally upset or not?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Nov 26, 2020)




----------



## Raever (Nov 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> _your clearly too young to judge that_


At this point I'm convinced they're a troll in disguise. It's best not to feed them, but I do agree with you on the above.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 26, 2020)

So it's been almost 10 days since ASTA said he was a part of the KKK and a transphobe and the mods still haven't taken action against him. This isn't a callout. This happened in this thread and ASTA deleted the post.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Raever said:


> At this point I'm convinced they're a troll in disguise. It's best not to feed them, but I do agree with you on the above.


Lmao, the last time I was called a troll was when me and another user were joking around with each other about fruits or something xD


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Too young to judge if I’m personally upset or not?


I'm not serious.


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> 27,000+ individuals as a sampling size (of a minority demographic, no less!) is so huge that I'm only joking in the loosest of senses when I say statisticians would give their right arm for access to it, that you could probably get interns to engage in a literal knife-fight for first-access, that it's so well and truly beyond any reasonable standard expected of a survey that the only way you can write it off as "Not enough" is to basically say polls _as a science in general_ are utterly worthless and that they should never be taken for granted.
> 
> This is not an argument you will win, Punji. You would quite literally be laughed out of any academic, scientific, et al environment if you seriously walked up to them and said "Sampling size of 27,000? Psh, worthless." A sampling size of 27,000 individuals, all of them Trans for that matter, is almost literally a Holy Grail for sampling.
> 
> ...


Hey, remember when I called you out on strawmanning me? That was fun, good times.

I already agreed the 2% was large. You even quoted me on that.

Well it's a good thing when I asked you to give me the source again you just ignored me. Anyways, the post you linked links to another post with the survey. If you couldn't even find it how was I supposed to?  

And lastly, so what? I've got ready access to the survey, thanks. What about it? How does this relate to the conversation or the points previously raised?



quoting_mungo said:


> Is the court going to say in so many words that your skirt was an inch too short and so you had it coming? Probably not. Is the defense going to throw their efforts at pointing out how the victim was trying to look attractive and thus out to get laid and thus totally was consenting? Absofuckinglutely. And they do get acquittals.
> 
> _Flickan och skulden_ by Katarina Wennstam is one collection of cases where clothing, reputation, rumors (in at least one case rumors started by the perpetrators _after_ the assault but before trial), and similar are used by the defense to damage the credibility of the victim and argue that the encounter was consensual. I’m going to have to assume that similar investigative journalism exists in other countries/languages.
> 
> ...


Naturally the defence will try about anything as that is their job, and yes, the in-court dressing and behaviours of the parties does impact the outcome of the trial and penalties quite often.

But beyond that? A crime must have been proven to have occurred, and with rape this is very difficult. In a case of "he said, she said" about if anyone consented at any point, and if so when and where, there isn't sufficient evidence to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a rape has occurred. It's equally as possible for either party to be lying, or even both about different things. Do some people get away with crimes like this? Yeah, all the time. But the criminal justice system in the Western world does not convict without absolute certainty of guilt. Or so, it's not supposed to.

I can't say with confidence that investigative journalism is exactly the same across Western societies as it is in Sweden.

As above, rape is incredibly hard to prove. And on top of that, it's horribly detrimental to one's self-image, and so some people just try to pretend it never happened.

I really don't think this applies at all. A lawyer could even make the claim sexualized clothing is a means of projecting to others one's "true" gender, and that a trans person wearing clothing like this is only trying to feel comfortable. It's hard to see how any case would be dropped because of this.

This is true, absolutely. However, we must be careful about how far it's stretched. Where does it cross the line, where a regulation is no longer equal? This is a growing concern for many over many topics and is certainly present within trans-related issues.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> So it's been almost 10 days since ASTA said he was a part of the KKK and a transphobe and the mods still haven't taken action against him. This isn't a callout. This happened in this thread and ASTA deleted the post.



When you produce the receipts to substantiate this bold accusation, I'm _sure _you're going to also produce the post where I disclose my racial heritage, right?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> I'm not serious.


Ah, ok, hehe. I would like to say to everyone, I don’t believe in canceling people, and people can change. Some people don’t, however.

I got sucked in to believing the most stupid things when I was younger, luckily I came to reality.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 26, 2020)

I've been trying to catch up on this thread on a serious topic, and I see a bunch of memes. Right. The internet is a lovely place.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that yes - trans people have to have the same rights as any other person, and should be treated like everyone else. They shouldn't be denied family, friends, jobs, believes, access to healthcare, the right to have children and so on.

I live in a country where men have been killed because they were suspected of being gay. So, yeah, to me any sort of progress in the direction of trans (and for that matter, LGB) rights is good news. Even if it isn't happening in my home land. Not yet, anyway. It is nice that on this small piece of the internet, there are people who are all for trans right.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 26, 2020)

ASTA said:


> When you produce the receipts to substantiate this bold accusation, I'm _sure _you're going to also produce the post where I disclose my racial heritage, right?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 26, 2020)

I did say I took a screenshot.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> View attachment 94791



Mods deleted that one when they cleaned out the thread at some point. I don't delete posts, I don't block users, and I don't even report other users even when they're slinging their own garbage commentary around. My DMs are always open for anyone who's willing and wanting to talk to me personally. The public comment area on my profile will _always _be available to all and _fully _unmoderated unless a staff member personally sees something that's out of place.

The reason no action was taken was because it was obvious satire. The KKK doesn't even admit members of the African-American community, a demographic that I personally belong to, into its ranks.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 26, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Mods deleted that one when they cleaned out the thread at some point. I don't delete posts, I don't block users, and I don't even report other users even when they're slinging their own garbage commentary around. My DMs are always open for anyone who's willing and wanting to talk to me personally. The public comment area on my profile will _always _be available to all and _fully _unmoderated unless a staff member personally sees something that's out of place.
> 
> The reason no action was taken was because it was obvious satire. The KKK doesn't even admit members of the African-American community, a demographic that I personally belong to, into its ranks.


Either way. You did still get into politics and nothing was done.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Eh joking about those topics is a tad insensitive. And I’m called a troll. :/


----------



## Izzy4895 (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Asta you're a 26 year old grown man, trying to upset a 14 year old.


That’s because saying such things to an adult’s face in the real world can have repercussions.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

I’d just like to say I know how to think. I went through a terrible phase once, and I ‘m familiar with the other side. I come to my own conclusions.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 26, 2020)

Izzy4895 said:


> That’s because saying such things to an adult’s face in the real world can have repercussions.


So we're threatening children now?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> So we're threatening children now?


He’s probably joking, but if he isn’t, that’s quite low.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Nov 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> So we're threatening children now?


Hopefully no one is doing that, but I wouldn’t put such vile actions beneath the far-right.

Hate speech and trolling in general are so prevalent online because internet forums and such don’t have the same rules as the real world does (cf. the online disinhibition effect). Someone trying to upset someone in a workplace or someone harassing an LGBT+ co-worker could very well face serious consequences. When it comes to doing that on an internet forum, not so much.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Izzy4895 said:


> Hopefully no one is doing that, but I wouldn’t put such vile actions beneath the far-right.
> 
> Hate speech and trolling in general are so prevalent online because internet forums and such don’t have the same rules as the real world does (cf. the online disinhibition effect). Someone trying to upset someone in a workplace or someone harassing an LGBT+ co-worker could very well face serious consequences. When it comes to doing that on an internet forum, not so much.


Am I doing any of that?


----------



## Izzy4895 (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Am I doing any of that?


Obviously not. *I was specifically criticizing the behavior of anti-trans bigots with that initial post.*


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Izzy4895 said:


> Obviously not. *I was specifically criticizing the behavior of anti-trans bigots with that initial post.*


Ah okay, my bad. I’m like 0 for 4 today .w.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I really don't think this applies at all. A lawyer could even make the claim sexualized clothing is a means of projecting to others one's "true" gender, and that a trans person wearing clothing like this is only trying to feel comfortable. It's hard to see how any case would be dropped because of this.


The two types of defenses I mentioned are separate issues, but have a similar ugly grip on the criminal justice system in too many countries. Presumably you agree that “I found out she had a dick so I panicked and stabbed her” is not a circumstance that should excuse murder, no? And that whether someone is wearing thong underwear when they get assaulted doesn’t make them a more or less credible witness, nor more or less capable of consent?

The justice system also doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If a court says that you’re allowed to be so terrified at the sight of a penis that you kill its owner despite there being no clear and present danger to anything but your faith in your own heterosexuality, that has repercussions outside the courtroom. If judges allow defense attorneys to go on about a rape victim’s lacy underwear or miniskirt and how they supposedly indicate that consent was given, that signals that these are valid questions to ask a rape victim. And they aren’t.



Punji said:


> This is true, absolutely. However, we must be careful about how far it's stretched. Where does it cross the line, where a regulation is no longer equal? This is a growing concern for many over many topics and is certainly present within trans-related issues.


It’s frankly about as valid a concern as a flat-earther’s worry about sailing off the edge of the world. If you (gen) feel threatened by someone maybe being able to get a field in their legal census information flipped from F to M or vice versa after jumping through a bunch of hoops, the issue is neither with the regulations, equality, or trans* folk. 

If I can have my census information list at least an approximation of my gender (Sweden only does M/F, so “NB” or whatever isn’t an option, which is its own issue; I personally don’t give many fucks but I know there are enbies who do get dysphoric about being pushed into a binary), a trans* person should have that same right. That’s not affording them a “special right” to change otherwise relatively immutable information; that’s extending them the right to correct information that was, essentially, entered in error (though in good faith). As a for instance.

I seriously cannot think of anything even remotely approaching a law or strong societal regulation that is unequal in favor of _any_ queer people, much less trans* people specifically.


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> The two types of defenses I mentioned are separate issues, but have a similar ugly grip on the criminal justice system in too many countries. Presumably you agree that “I found out she had a dick so I panicked and stabbed her” is not a circumstance that should excuse murder, no? And that whether someone is wearing thong underwear when they get assaulted doesn’t make them a more or less credible witness, nor more or less capable of consent?
> 
> The justice system also doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If a court says that you’re allowed to be so terrified at the sight of a penis that you kill its owner despite there being no clear and present danger to anything but your faith in your own heterosexuality, that has repercussions outside the courtroom. If judges allow defense attorneys to go on about a rape victim’s lacy underwear or miniskirt and how they supposedly indicate that consent was given, that signals that these are valid questions to ask a rape victim. And they aren’t.
> 
> ...



I think a situation like this is important to the court, because it helps determine the type and severity of the crime. Such statements should be taken very seriously as they can have significant impacts. Obviously it's not a justification and I'd be truly beside myself if ever I saw a real court case where it was dismissed because someone intentionally and knowingly stabbed someone because of a surprise during the process of committing an offence.

The following line is once again, of course not. I would never expect to see this actually taken into consideration in sentencing where evidence supported a case of rape beyond a shadow of a doubt but because the victim wore a particular item of clothing it was pardoned. This is ridiculous and not realistic.

This likewise is nonsensical and would not matter if ample evidence of the crime was present.

The rest is entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Regardless, is the census asking for sex and not gender? A good census should probably inquire both.

And then the matter of adding so many options to something completely anonymous and inconsequential. If there isn't an option for whatever gender expression a person might want while also not including an "other" option, (which again, a good census should have for almost every question), just leave it blank. We're running the race of it never being enough, hence why the "other" should be listed on everything without an absolute definable set of values.

Though again, it can just be left blank.

Also, I can help but feel the goalposts where a lot closer than before...


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I think a situation like this is important to the court, because it helps determine the type and severity of the crime. Such statements should be taken very seriously as they can have significant impacts. Obviously it's not a justification and I'd be truly beside myself if ever I saw a real court case where it was dismissed because someone intentionally and knowingly stabbed someone because of a surprise during the process of committing an offence.
> 
> The following line is once again, of course not. I would never expect to see this actually taken into consideration in sentencing where evidence supported a case of rape beyond a shadow of a doubt but because the victim wore a particular item of clothing it was pardoned. This is ridiculous and not realistic.



"She asked for it. The way she was dressed with that skirt you could see everything she had. She was advertising for sex." "We felt she was up to no good [by] the way she dressed." "She was obviously dressed for a good time, but we felt she may have bit off more than she could chew." These words were spoken by jurors who reached a unanimous verdict, acquitting a man of charges of kidnapping and sexual assault in a 1989 Florida case.  

And, followed shortly thereafter, 
"Part I of this article discusses the majority view that clothing is a relevant indicator of a victim's attitude or intent and therefore admissible at trial."

Five fucking seconds, first response after googling "rape cases women's clothing".


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> And lastly, so what? I've got ready access to the survey, thanks. What about it? How does this relate to the conversation or the points previously raised?



I believe you voiced frustration earlier in the conversation that there wasn't sufficient information to decide if Transgender people were more likely to be victims of sexual assault than everybody else. 

"Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?"

At the time you asked this question, enough information was available in the thread for you to work this out.
Attaman had already posted that the cumulative sexual assault rate is between 1.4 and 2.7 per thousand per year, and converted this to a percentage of 0.14 to 0.27% 

2% is about a factor of ten higher than this, so your question had already been answered by the information available. 


I pointed this out a few pages ago, but perhaps my post was missed. I hope that this helps.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I believe you voiced frustration earlier in the conversation that there wasn't sufficient information to decide if Transgender people were more likely to be victims of sexual assault than everybody else.
> 
> "Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?"
> 
> ...


Being fair, that 2% was a cumulative rate of being violently or sexually assaulted _just for using restrooms_. If we go back to the previously linked 2015 survey, the sum total sexually assaulted within the last year was _*almost ten percent*_. Which is only, like, almost forty times as likely in the worst-case. A number that only doubles yet again when we talk about those who were sexually assaulted in jail.

Also, again, this number gets higher when one puts in minority sub-demographics: The peak for "Sexual assault in bathroom" tapping out at 3.2% for those who were either Asian or Middle Eastern, followed shortly behind at 2.8% by American Indian / Native American (meaning that while ten times the general population might not be accurate for the _trans population as a whole_ being sexually assaulted in restrooms, it's _too low_ for some sub-demographics).

But po-tae-toes po-tat-toes, eh?


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Attaman said:


> "She asked for it. The way she was dressed with that skirt you could see everything she had. She was advertising for sex." "We felt she was up to no good [by] the way she dressed." "She was obviously dressed for a good time, but we felt she may have bit off more than she could chew." These words were spoken by jurors who reached a unanimous verdict, acquitting a man of charges of kidnapping and sexual assault in a 1989 Florida case.
> 
> And, followed shortly thereafter,
> "Part I of this article discusses the majority view that clothing is a relevant indicator of a victim's attitude or intent and therefore admissible at trial."
> ...


Firstly, allow me to just point out exactly which post you're quoting and which post you're not.




The only examples they're able to pull out are from over twenty to thirty years ago, and if this was at all a common and accepted practice we'd have many more modern examples, not to mention a data set to base a claim off of.



Fallowfox said:


> I believe you voiced frustration earlier in the conversation that there wasn't sufficient information to decide if Transgender people were more likely to be victims of sexual assault than everybody else.
> 
> "Yeah, 2% of all trans individuals in what I assume would be the US per year is extremely low. Do you have the nation yearly averages for non-trans men, women, and children to compare to?"
> 
> ...


I think your use of language betrays you here. I voiced "frustration" earlier? Don't think of others in such ways. I'm having a mild conversation about a serious topic, emotion isn't a part of this nor should it be.

2% is very low, yes. And of that, it's said to be 1% physical and 1% sexual. It may sound callous, but that's an acceptable amount. We cannot ever prevent all crime, while we should still try and no, it's obviously not good to have even a 2% rate, the reality of the situation is that there is always going to be a baseline.

How this compared to other averages is in relation to the idea of human rights, namely the right to physical safety. While yes, the rates are unfortunately a lot higher for trans individuals, the overall occurrence isn't so extreme. Again, it may sound callous but given the dramatically lower number of trans people compared to non-trans people, we should expect the rate to increase. Not good, but a part of the real world.

I'm not sure I did catch that, sorry. Hard to read everything.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Firstly, allow me to just point out exactly which post you're quoting and which post you're not.
> 
> View attachment 94802​
> The only examples they're able to pull out are from over twenty to thirty years ago,


The article was written in 1993 you disingenuous gubbin, and includes citation up to and including _*the Supreme Court of the United States*_ justifying the use of a woman's dress in evidence for being flashed, fondled, and fucked by her boss over forty times during _four years of work at a bank_.

I honestly am impressed that people keep trying to misrepresent and downplay fucking legal scholar work from people who in many cases took up law _decades before they were born_ as "SJWs dunking on grasped straws". First Stanley Fish and his writings on speech, now scholarly thesis' by legal scholars on rape very specifically targeted towards the use of "She was dressed provocatively".

For fuck's sake, we have international examples from after that such as "Women in jeans cannot be raped", and in 2005 a third of Britons openly admitted in a poll "Yeah, well, a women's dress is at least in part to blame for whatever happens after".

I will also point out that for how much you're whinging about goalpost shifting, you've literally changed over the course of this thread from "This is filthy lies that never happens and is purely the realm of fantasy" to "It's just a handful of examples and they're all old".



Punji said:


> and if this was at all a common and accepted practice we'd have many more modern examples, not to mention a data set to base a claim off of.


You may find this hard to believe, but when a subject matter is notorious for being under-prosecuted and having almost literal oceans worth of evidence quite literally thrown out, left to rot in storage, or otherwise tampered / interfered with by law enforcement... it's hard to get conclusive data. Especially when, as you so generously provided an example of earlier in the thread, people are _still_ going to go out of their way to beat their chest at "Are these legitimate cases of rape, or just people changing their minds / ruining someone's life?"



Punji said:


> emotion isn't a part of this nor should it be.


Local man shocked to learn that people are emotional about their and other people's bodily autonomy and one of the greatest violations of it. Tune in tomorrow as we reveal that the sky is, in fact, predominantly blue.



Punji said:


> 2% is very low, yes. And of that, it's said to be 1% physical and 1% sexual. It may sound callous, but that's an acceptable amount.


... I want you to consider very, _very _carefully before you either keep this post up or dig your heels on this. Because if you intend on keeping this course what you're saying is such a blatant violation of the Code of Conduct (even more so than your explicit asking of me to Doxx you a few pages back), that "Two percent of a demographic being sexually and or physically assaulted _just for using public bathrooms, yearly_, is utterly acceptable" is *almost literally a strawman normally used to discredit such discussions.* 



Punji said:


> We cannot ever prevent all crime, while we should still try and no, it's obviously not good to have even a 2% rate, the reality of the situation is that there is always going to be a baseline.


Holy shit your shifting goalposts. We have gone from "Do you have any statistical evidence" to "The statistics don't matter anyways because it's not a big deal", with the subject matter that's "not a big deal" being _*physical and / or sexual assault*_.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> The rest is entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Regardless, is the census asking for sex and not gender? A good census should probably inquire both.
> 
> And then the matter of adding so many options to something completely anonymous and inconsequential. If there isn't an option for whatever gender expression a person might want while also not including an "other" option, (which again, a good census should have for almost every question), just leave it blank. We're running the race of it never being enough, hence why the "other" should be listed on everything without an absolute definable set of values.
> 
> Though again, it can just be left blank.


I’m probably not finding the right word, and that’s on me. When I’m talking about official census information, I’m referring to whatever registry of citizens a country has. I know the Swedish word for our particular system, but couldn’t/can’t think of the general term for the type of registry/database in question.

You seemed to be suggesting  that concerns that trans* people might be getting a better-than-equal deal regulation-wise had merit. If that’s not what you meant by this bit, then I apologize and invite you to clarify what you were getting at:


Punji said:


> However, we must be careful about how far it's stretched. Where does it cross the line, where a regulation is no longer equal? This is a growing concern for many over many topics and is certainly present within trans-related issues.


I brought up changing gender markers as an example of something that trans* people might do that cis people won’t, and which ultimately isn’t an “extra” right being afforded them, but a mechanism for giving them what other people take for granted (legal documentation that lists your gender correctly).



Punji said:


> Also, I can help but feel the goalposts where a lot closer than before...


I imagine if you feel that way, it’s probably because you and I have different perceptions of what the discussion is and how it ties into the overall thread topic. It happens. I assure you that I’ve made no intentional attempt to shift anything beyond reconnecting a tangent to the thread topic.



Punji said:


> Again, it may sound callous but given the dramatically lower number of trans people compared to non-trans people, we should expect the rate to increase. Not good, but a part of the real world.


That’s not how statistics/crime rates work - percentages should not drastically shift with population size unless you’re getting down to sample sizes where one individual will significantly bump the total  percentage.

30k people (survey respondents alone; rounding up to the nearest 10k because maths are annoying and it’s 1:30 in the morning) would make one person about 0.0033 percentage points, if I didn’t completely fuck up counting digits. That’s the general order of magnitude of deviation you could reasonably expect from sample size.

If I’m not understanding what you mean by “we should expect the rate to increase” correctly, please do explain how you came to the conclusion that victimization rates increasing by several hundred percent is the sort of normal variance you’d expect to see with “small” populations. I mean that genuinely; I don’t understand the argument and am curious as to your reasoning.



Attaman said:


> For fuck's sake, we have international examples from after that such as "Women in jeans cannot be raped", and in 2005 a third of Britons openly admitted in a poll "Yeah, well, a women's dress is at least in part to blame for whatever happens after".


I chose not to dig out my book on the topic on account of anticipating it being chalked up to the Swedish justice system, specifically, failing, rather than showing that the attitude/prejudice exists in the justice system in a general sense. It was published in 2002, so the cases are probably from the 90s. (I say “probably” as a hedge; I don’t want to claim anything definite on that count without checking the source.)

If I understand things correctly, in the US the existence of cases where clothing factored into the ruling is potentially concerning to some degree regardless of age, since the US legal system explicitly is built on prior rulings as defining law, no?


----------



## mangomango (Nov 26, 2020)

I don't think we should keep using the 2% statistic - it's frankly misleading. Here's some more statistics that help put it in perspective a bit.

24% of transgender kids in school (k-12) were physically attacked
17% faced mistreatment so severe that they left the school
Nearly one in ten transgender people were physically attacked in the past year due to being transgender
Nearly one in ten transgender respondents reported that someone denied them access to a restroom in the past year.

(source here)

I don't believe it's logical whatsoever to claim that we don't need to do anything more for transgender people - we still have so far to go. This is not an "acceptable" amount in the slightest.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

mangomango said:


> I don't think we should keep using the 2% statistic - it's frankly misleading. Here's some more statistics that help put it in perspective a bit.
> 
> 24% of transgender kids in school (k-12) were physically attacked
> 17% faced mistreatment so severe that they left the school
> ...


Oh boy, we have way more to go. If we stopped now we haven’t solved anything.


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Sorry to the both of you for just posting your quotes in blocks. I'm not really getting the new system to cooperate with me well yet.


Attaman said:


> The article was written in 1993 you disingenuous gubbin, and includes citation up to and including _*the Supreme Court of the United States*_ justifying the use of a woman's dress in evidence for being flashed, fondled, and fucked by her boss over forty times during _four years of work at a bank_.
> 
> I honestly am impressed that people keep trying to misrepresent and downplay fucking legal scholar work from people who in many cases took up law _decades before they were born_ as "SJWs dunking on grasped straws". First Stanley Fish and his writings on speech, now scholarly thesis' by legal scholars on rape very specifically targeted towards the use of "She was dressed provocatively".
> 
> ...


Hey, where'd the endzone go? I could have sworn the goal was just a 100 meters way last time I looked.

Yes, exactly. If it was common and accepted practice you'd have one from 2020. I think we can all guarantee there's been more than just a few rape cases taken to court this year or in the last twenty-odd years to draw from.

Any event occurring over a span of forty years just isn't going to fly in court. Forty years of supposed rape of an adult with a job isn't exactly an easy case, and if there was substantial evidence of rape no one would use clothing to justify this.

Well I hate to keep doing it to you then, but idiots control a lot of things and some people just get lucky in life. Time and age don't mean qualifications and in some cases can even be seen as detrimental. *One person *does not set a precedence and thus we rely on more than a single source. The more the better unto infinity.

Well it's a good thing a third of Britons aren't all lawyers and judges. But also do note, the quote said "at least in part to blame." This is not the same as saying they deserved it or that it wasn't a crime because of it.

Person A reports any crime against person B. There has to be sufficient evidence to prove the occurrence of a crime as well as the guilt of person B. Without both, the justice system cannot act. Rape is very hard to prove, and when it happens between strangers it's almost never solved. This isn't the system conspiring against the victim by destroying evidence, it's the system protecting the general public from wrongful imprisonment.

I'm the one shifting goal posts, huh? You literally created a blatantly false quote and are attacking it in front of me and saying I'm strawmanning? Hilarious. If your claim was true and actually mattered at all today you'd have countless examples which happened within the year.

Yes, exactly. You're wrongfully abusing your own emotional investment and it's clouding judgment. Don't try to discuss something if you can't separate your emotions and your reasoning. As we can all see, it's getting the better of you.

Well firstly, it wouldn't be doxxing me if you tell me in private a detail about myself which I obviously would already know. Doxxing is public and about another person. I doubt any mod is going to give you trouble for telling me what my favourite colour is or some place of employment I've held in the last X years in a private message. Secondly, tell me exactly how you would stop all crimes if your word was law. The reality of our world is crime, some crime is always going to happen. Low amounts of it are the best we can hope for, not the complete eradication of it. By all means, tell me exactly how you'd totally annihilate all rape.

Furthermore, false quote, and there's nothing at all to suggest the incidents occurred simply because the person chose to use the washroom. It's much more likely because of related reasons, such as seclusion and privacy from the general public as one generally wants from a washroom. It's fallacious to pretend to know the exact motive of every offender.

The statistics don't demonstrate a notably large difference indicating the failure to meet the human right to physical safety. Here, I'll even make a little diagram to show you.




​Here we have a sample of 100 circles. Of those 100 circles, a smaller subcategory of 50 circles can be observed. An event randomly causes two people in each group to bare a red line. The occurrence of the event is the exact same quantity in both groups, but because one group is significantly smaller the rate of the red lines has doubled from 2% to 4%.

Apply this to the general population and the transgender population respectively and we see this same trend. A uniform phenomenon has affected both populations in equal degrees but per capita the smaller population has a higher rate of occurrence.

Now, this is not to justify and such abhorrent acts or violence or anything negative at all. It is merely a representation that an increase in the rates, although disproportionate, does not translate to a worse treatment. Again, do transgender people suffer rape? Yes. Do they suffer it at a higher occurrence? Quite possibly, the data doesn't tell us everything. We can't determine the number of occurrences is significantly different nor what the exact cause of it the event is purely by looking at the rating within two dramatically different-sized populations.

Rape is very bad and it's very bad no matter who it happens to. There isn't sufficient evidence to suggest it happens to trans people at an abnormally high rate, and therefore there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest to basic human right to safety is infringed for this group. Do you see my point?


----------



## Punji (Nov 26, 2020)

Character limit, RIP.

View attachment 94806​


quoting_mungo said:


> I’m probably not finding the right word, and that’s on me. When I’m talking about official census information, I’m referring to whatever registry of citizens a country has. I know the Swedish word for our particular system, but couldn’t/can’t think of the general term for the type of registry/database in question.
> 
> You seemed to be suggesting  that concerns that trans* people might be getting a better-than-equal deal regulation-wise had merit. If that’s not what you meant by this bit, then I apologize and invite you to clarify what you were getting at:
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Doesn't sounds like something I'm aware of. Is it to do with medical records or something? That's about the only parallel I can think of that is both government and not an annual census.

No. I can certainly see how that might off as such, but I mean more that people are trying to get greater rights under the guise of them being equal. Getting the right box to tick on an official survey is nice, but it's not really a right. I'm mainly referring more to the human rights as the thread's title suggests, in that the perception or at least implication as I understand it is that society would disagree with the notion and that these rights are currently not equally afforded to all members of the society.

See my above drawing with the circles. In this event with the red lines, the smaller demographic isn't being unfairly targeted, but the rate of the lines increases anyways. Therefore, whether or not the smaller population is targeted we will still see a larger rate. When we consider the general pollution to the substantially smaller transgender population, we would expect the difference to increase even further.

It'd be like removing another random 20 circles and adding them to the larger population. Odds are it won't be a circle with a line, and if so the rate of occurrence will be artificially increased. 100 with 2 (2%) becomes 120 with 2 (1.667%) and 50 with 2 (4%) becomes 30 with 2 (6.667%). Neither party is being specifically targeted but the difference in rates only grows. If the smaller group is targeted, the rates will grow as well. We simply can't determine exactly what is causing it or to what degree either event is occurring. It could even be another outside force.

Am I explaining this okay? This is my reasoning for the numbers, in my opinion there's just not enough evidence to suggest one way or the other, and so we can't reject the null hypothesis of there being no difference in the rate between either group in spite of the different rates per capita.

Well I wouldn't know, I'm neither a lawyer nor an American. But as I understand the issue, the type of clothing would only "logically" be considered after it could be proven that intercourse had even occurred, such that it would be involved only in sentencing. The victim claims it wasn't consensual and the offender claims it was, who's telling the truth? Here is the only place for clothing to come in to play I think. But to get to the point, the amount of evidence collected to be sure of the events as they truly happened it ought to be very evident of who's lying.


----------



## Mambi (Nov 26, 2020)

_<the cat just shakes his head and sighs, and with a bow forms a rift and steps backwards disappearing into it...>_


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Mambi said:


> _<the cat just shakes his head and sighs, and with a bow forms a rift and steps backwards disappearing into it...>_


Y-you can't do that!


----------



## Mambi (Nov 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Y-you can't do that!



_<you watch in awe and wonder as the cat does just that...>_


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 26, 2020)

Mambi said:


> _<you watch in awe and wonder as the cat does just that...>_


...
okay then


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> 2% is very low, yes. And of that, it's said to be 1% physical and 1% sexual. It may sound callous, but that's an acceptable amount. We cannot ever prevent all crime, while we should still try and no, it's obviously not good to have even a 2% rate, the reality of the situation is that there is always going to be a baseline.
> 
> How this compared to other averages is in relation to the idea of human rights, namely the right to physical safety. While yes, the rates are unfortunately a lot higher for trans individuals, the overall occurrence isn't so extreme. Again, it may sound callous but *given the dramatically lower number of trans people compared to non-trans people, we should expect the rate to increase.* Not good, but a part of the real world.
> 
> I'm not sure I did catch that, sorry. Hard to read everything.



I am uncertain why you're trying to persuade me that higher sexual assault rates in transgender people are acceptable; I'm only trying to explain how to compare the size of fractions. 

I have highlighted the bold text in your comment because this is not mathematically correct. 

Imagine you have a bucket which is full of delicious punch. The mix is 95% juice and 5% vodka. 
Now, you scoop out a cup of the drink. It's still only 5% vodka. You should not expect that using smaller and smaller cups will increase the proportion of the sample that is vodka. 

Your friend Sally comes along and is very drunk. It turns out they've been drinking from a cup that is 50% vodka- ten times higher than the bucket. 

You believe Sally's drink has been spiked, but Sally claims that it's reasonable to expect the proportion of vodka in her drink to increase compared to the bucket, given that her cup is a much smaller volume than the bucket. 

Something's wrong with Sally's drunk maths.


----------



## BayoDino (Nov 27, 2020)

Is politics forum back something? I mean all i see is arguing here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 27, 2020)

BayoDino said:


> Is politics forum back something? I mean all i see is arguing here.



I insist on this being the third grade maths forum.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Doesn't sounds like something I'm aware of. Is it to do with medical records or something? That's about the only parallel I can think of that is both government and not an annual census.


In the US, the closest equivalent might be birth certificate information (surely that is stored somewhere?), DMV information, or voter rolls, IDK. Birth certificates certainly include gender and FAIK can have that designation changed with enough hoop-jumping. I believe one or both of the others also include a gender marker. I _know_ Canada keeps birth certificate information on file, at the very least on a per-province basis.



Punji said:


> See my above drawing with the circles. In this event with the red lines, the smaller demographic isn't being unfairly targeted, but the rate of the lines increases anyways. Therefore, whether or not the smaller population is targeted we will still see a larger rate. When we consider the general pollution to the substantially smaller transgender population, we would expect the difference to increase even further.
> 
> It'd be like removing another random 20 circles and adding them to the larger population. Odds are it won't be a circle with a line, and if so the rate of occurrence will be artificially increased. 100 with 2 (2%) becomes 120 with 2 (1.667%) and 50 with 2 (4%) becomes 30 with 2 (6.667%). Neither party is being specifically targeted but the difference in rates only grows. If the smaller group is targeted, the rates will grow as well. We simply can't determine exactly what is causing it or to what degree either event is occurring. It could even be another outside force.
> 
> Am I explaining this okay? This is my reasoning for the numbers, in my opinion there's just not enough evidence to suggest one way or the other, and so we can't reject the null hypothesis of there being no difference in the rate between either group in spite of the different rates per capita.


*But that’s not how percentages work.*
2% of 100 is 2. 2% of 50 is 1. You _can_ have anomalies in percentages with _very_ small sample sizes, yes, but only when you’re working with small enough numbers that every individual circle is a significant percentage in itself.

Remove 20 circles from a sample of 50 and the likelihood of a circle with a line being removed is actually pretty high. Remember that you’re randomly selecting two fifths (40%) of the lot. If you were selecting 25 circles, you would expect to get about 1 crossed circle, yes?

You’re also treating the two groups of circles as separate entities, while the 50 should be treated as a subset of the whole population of 150 - trans* people are part of the overall population, after all. Moving circles to the part of the population that was previously 100 doesn’t change the overall percentage of circles with lines through them; you still have the same number of overall circles and the same number of circles with lines overall.

If you have 10 000 circles, each circle is a measly 0.01%. It’s statistically pretty damn improbable that you’d have a disparity of, say, a whole percentage point just from chance.

So. Tying this back into trans* statistics. Trans* people are ~0.6% of the US population according to the 2016 survey cited here. I’m rounding up slightly because it makes explaining this easier, as I can use smaller numbers. Assuming that this is an accurate number, that’s six hundred in every hundred thousand Americans. The statistics @mangomango brings up in this post put the sexual assault rate of trans* Americans at close to 10%; we’ll round to 10% to keep our numbers simple. Remember, the 1% sexual assault rate @Attaman mentioned is _in public restrooms_ _alone_. So 10% of our six hundred trans* people have been sexually assaulted in the last year. That’s 60 of them. Of these assaults, six occurred in public restrooms.

This survey puts rapes in 2018 at about 2.7 per 1000 Americans. That’s 270 out of our 100 000 people. Now, the 60 trans* victims above _are part of this 270_. That’s more than 20% of sexual assaults (about 22%), despite being only 0.6% of the population.

I’m not going to say that this is perfect statistics-crunching. It isn’t. I’ve rounded things, I’ve simplified things, the surveys may not use the same definitions, and so on. But it’s better than “smaller sample sizes increase percentages,” which is simply not true.


Punji said:


> Well I wouldn't know, I'm neither a lawyer nor an American. But as I understand the issue, the type of clothing would only "logically" be considered after it could be proven that intercourse had even occurred, such that it would be involved only in sentencing. The victim claims it wasn't consensual and the offender claims it was, who's telling the truth? Here is the only place for clothing to come in to play I think. But to get to the point, the amount of evidence collected to be sure of the events as they truly happened it ought to be very evident of who's lying.


If the defense is arguing that an encounter was consensual, they’ve already conceded that intercourse occurred.

Sentencing occurs _after_ the question of whether there was consent has been decided by the court. If clothing is relevant to establishing consent (hint: it isn’t) then it must be considered before sentencing. 

If you consider clothing a mitigating factor in sentencing, you’re also suggesting that being unable to control oneself in the face of a sexy outfit is a normal and integral part of the human condition. And, like... you can be that misanthropic if that’s what makes you tick, but I think most reasonable people would vehemently disagree. _I’m_ certainly not a skimpy outfit away from committing rape. This is not some kind of omegaverse dystopia.


----------



## Kope (Nov 27, 2020)

Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. I just wish people gave others more empathy instead of using their religion to condemn others and stuff. The only concern I have though is that I read a statistic where 70% of transgender people commit suicide. I don’t know if it’s because they regret the surgery and feel lost or it’s because of the abuse they face but I just don’t want them to die =( Also children should be given time to decide their gender and not have surgery or chemically treated at a young age as that affects their developmental brains.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2020)

Weirdo9018 said:


> Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. I just wish people gave others more empathy instead of using their religion to condemn others and stuff. The only concern I have though is that I read a statistic where 70% of transgender people commit suicide. I don’t know if it’s because they regret the surgery and feel lost or it’s because of the abuse they face but I just don’t want them to die =( Also children should be given time to decide their gender and not have surgery or chemically treated at a young age as that affects their developmental brains.


The idea that a significant portion of trans* people regret their decision to go through with transitioning and/or wish to detransition is something that is predominantly pushed by transphobic groups. It does happen, but it’s pretty darn rare. Trans* suicide rates are practically entirely down to society’s treatment of them/trans* issues, trauma, or the reasons any other person might take their life. A disproportionate number of trans* people end up in situations where they’re vulnerable in other ways, such as in homelessness or abusive relationships.

Minors _are_ given time to work things out, if they can get access to the appropriate services in time. The drugs prescribed to minors are generally puberty blockers, which can buy them a few years to be sure without going through bodily changes that can intensify dysphoria and negatively impact their chances of “passing” in the future. Puberty blockers are already prescribed for minors with other medical issues. Again, the idea that children are given hormones willy-nilly is an anti-trans* talking point with very little basis in reality.

I’m not trying to say that you’re concerned about these things out of transphobia; they’re sadly pretty widely spread by a variety of people out of either malice or ignorance. It’s understandable that someone might come across these ideas not being deeply educated on the issue and accepting them as sounding reasonable - because they’re designed to! I only want to make sure that you know what sort of people usually push them.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> Hey, where'd the endzone go? I could have sworn the goal was just a 100 meters way last time I looked.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I'm the one shifting goal posts, huh?





Punji said:


> The following line is once again, of course not. I would never expect to see this actually taken into consideration in sentencing where evidence supported a case of rape beyond a shadow of a doubt but because the victim wore a particular item of clothing it was pardoned. This is ridiculous and not realistic.
> 
> This likewise is nonsensical and would not matter if ample evidence of the crime was present.





Punji said:


> The only examples they're able to pull out are from over twenty to thirty years ago, and if this was at all a common and accepted practice we'd have many more modern examples, not to mention a data set to base a claim off of.





Attaman said:


> The article was written in 1993 you disingenuous gubbin, and includes citation up to and including _*the Supreme Court of the United States*_ justifying the use of a woman's dress in evidence for being flashed, fondled, and fucked by her boss over forty times during _four years of work at a bank_.
> 
> I honestly am impressed that people keep trying to misrepresent and downplay fucking legal scholar work from people who in many cases took up law _decades before they were born_ as "SJWs dunking on grasped straws". First Stanley Fish and his writings on speech, now scholarly thesis' by legal scholars on rape very specifically targeted towards the use of "She was dressed provocatively".
> 
> For fuck's sake, we have international examples from after that such as "Women in jeans cannot be raped", and in 2005 a third of Britons openly admitted in a poll "Yeah, well, a women's dress is at least in part to blame for whatever happens after".





Punji said:


> Yes, exactly. If it was common and accepted practice you'd have one from 2020. I think we can all guarantee there's been more than just a few rape cases taken to court this year or in the last twenty-odd years to draw from.


I don't know, going from "I would never expect to see this actually taken into consideration" to "Your only examples are from 20-30 years ago" to "Okay, but do you have publicly released example of court musings from this year?" sounds an _*awful fucking lot*_ like goalpost shifting to me. Likewise moving from "It's nonsensical" to


Punji said:


> Person A reports any crime against person B. There has to be sufficient evidence to prove the occurrence of a crime as well as the guilt of person B. Without both, the justice system cannot act. Rape is very hard to prove, and when it happens between strangers it's almost never solved. This isn't the system conspiring against the victim by destroying evidence, it's the system protecting the general public from wrongful imprisonment.


"Look, it's a thing that never happens. Also if it does happen it's merely protecting innocent strangers from wrongful imprisonment by spiteful bitches."

Again, this is a discussion better held elsewhere, but if so desired I have zero qualms bringing up official citations of how rare it is for somebody to be raped by a stranger versus somebody they know, or how there's reasonable evidence to suggest hundreds of thousands of rape kits have been left to rot by police departments (let alone tens of thousands _explicitly confirmed_ from just a few thousand precincts).

Or, at least, I would if it wasn't blatantly clear at this point that your entire tactic is Sea Lioning and Just Asking Questions-ing the thread because for some reason you're dedicated to the idea that the amount of sexual violence, physical violence, et al faced by Trans individuals just "Isn't that bad" (despite claiming just a few pages ago that you _really_ want to have a genuine discussion on the subject matter and _totally_ want to face the problem).



Punji said:


> Well firstly, it wouldn't be doxxing me if you tell me in private a detail about myself which I obviously would already know.





Punji said:


> Yeah, I did say that. Can you prove me wrong? PM me a private piece of information about me which I haven't listed publicly,* much less my current address.* You might not even find everything I've said _here_ on the forums. I don't know about you, but *I sure as Hell wouldn't even know where to being to dox someone* even if I wanted to, much less knowing when they'd be at home to be arrested for anything. *It's really not a valid threat*.


Case in point: You literally cannot even recall your directly asking a user to _doxx - specifically using the word dox, and citing address as a valid option - you to prove their point_, and that seems like one of those things that somebody who was interested in having a genuine discussion would remember vomiting out on their keyboard.

I would, with the above in mind, strongly suggest that people punt Punji on ignore and let them shout at clouds until the end of the Internet, because I think we've established (between rapidly shifting goal posts, the likely _purposefully_ shoddy representation of statistics, direct expressing that every train of argument they make will eventually end with either "Stop being emotional" or "We cannot improve society") that their purpose in this thread is to at best throw up smoke and mirrors and prevent genuine discussion on matters of Trans Rights / Solidarity / News, and that at worst they're going to use it as a bully pulpit to actively argue that "Legal scholars are wrong, Trans people are wrong, Trans people being raped and beaten in disproportionate numbers is fine and - like rape 'victims' dressing that way - they're bringing it on their self", which is both nothing more than bait _*and*_ something FAF already has some pretty clear-cut rules on.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 27, 2020)

Now, for some genuinely positive examples of Trans Rights and / or Trans Success and Solidarity, have the following: In retaliation of Hungary's 2020 ban on legally recognized Gender Identity, designer Fabian Kis-Juhasz has released their first 'zine whose proceeds will go towards TransVanilla. Pakistan's first Trans Lawyer is starting to make some waves, as well as using their position to speak out and stand up for Trans Rights. And while support has overall declined approximately 2% in the US between 2015 and 2019, the majority of Americans (including all religious groups) are in favor of "broad nondiscrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people". 

There are some obvious shadows to each story, but a degree of light is none the less always welcome news.


----------



## Flamingo (Nov 27, 2020)

It is not my place to wade in and join the discussion as a moderator - but, as a moderator, I will say it makes me suck spit through my teeth when the discussion has turned to quibbling over the meaning of percentages and whether or not its okay if a small number of people are victimized due to their clothing choices. I would encourage everyone to try to be good stewards of the community. It may not be a violation of the Code of Conduct to have a contrarian opinion or alternative opinion to the topic, but there is a point where I start to scratch my head that every time a "support for X" thread has someone saunter in and go "yeah, but what about?" Again, that is not necessarily a violation, but it does not have to be a violation to still be kind of a rude thing to do.

Edit: in short, if your only joy on the Fur Affinity forums is to poo on other people's parades, you may need a new hobby.


----------



## Mambi (Nov 27, 2020)

Flamingo said:


> It is not my place to wade in and join the discussion as a moderator - but,



Why not? Your moderator status doesn't invalidate your opinions as a person, feel free to jump into discussions!

...though I'd avoid maybe this _particular _dumpster fire...for your own sanity's sake. <shudder>


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

Mambi said:


> Why not? Your moderator status doesn't invalidate your opinions as a person, feel free to jump into discussions!
> 
> ...though I'd avoid maybe this _particular _dumpster fire...for your own sanity's sake. <shudder>


Maybe because it would seem like FAF is endorsing what they say, so if they say the wrong thing it could be bad.


----------



## Flamingo (Nov 27, 2020)

Objectivity, but thank you.


----------



## Kope (Nov 27, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> The idea that a significant portion of trans* people regret their decision to go through with transitioning and/or wish to detransition is something that is predominantly pushed by transphobic groups. It does happen, but it’s pretty darn rare. Trans* suicide rates are practically entirely down to society’s treatment of them/trans* issues, trauma, or the reasons any other person might take their life. A disproportionate number of trans* people end up in situations where they’re vulnerable in other ways, such as in homelessness or abusive relationships.
> 
> Minors _are_ given time to work things out, if they can get access to the appropriate services in time. The drugs prescribed to minors are generally puberty blockers, which can buy them a few years to be sure without going through bodily changes that can intensify dysphoria and negatively impact their chances of “passing” in the future. Puberty blockers are already prescribed for minors with other medical issues. Again, the idea that children are given hormones willy-nilly is an anti-trans* talking point with very little basis in reality.
> 
> I’m not trying to say that you’re concerned about these things out of transphobia; they’re sadly pretty widely spread by a variety of people out of either malice or ignorance. It’s understandable that someone might come across these ideas not being deeply educated on the issue and accepting them as sounding reasonable - because they’re designed to! I only want to make sure that you know what sort of people usually push them.


i would be willing to admit i dont know much about it being a straight guy and all so if you have evidence to the contrary from a credible source I’d believe you about it and would admit I might have been mislead


----------



## Kope (Nov 27, 2020)

Attaman said:


> Now, for some genuinely positive examples of Trans Rights and / or Trans Success and Solidarity, have the following: In retaliation of Hungary's 2020 ban on legally recognized Gender Identity, designer Fabian Kis-Juhasz has released their first 'zine whose proceeds will go towards TransVanilla. Pakistan's first Trans Lawyer is starting to make some waves, as well as using their position to speak out and stand up for Trans Rights. And while support has overall declined approximately 2% in the US between 2015 and 2019, the majority of Americans (including all religious groups) are in favor of "broad nondiscrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people".
> 
> There are some obvious shadows to each story, but a degree of light is none the less always welcome news.


Yeah no one should be treated poorly based on what they identify as


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 27, 2020)

Weirdo9018 said:


> i would be willing to admit i dont know much about it being a straight guy and all so if you have evidence to the contrary from a credible source I’d believe you about it and would admit I might have been mislead


I don’t have them handy offhand, and I’ve burned through much of my spoon allotment for the day already so I really don’t feel up to digging right now. A good first search might be responses to JK Rowling’s horribly transphobic public statement/letter earlier this year, as she brought up these or very similar points. Someone else in the thread might have resources more readily to hand.


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I am uncertain why you're trying to persuade me that higher sexual assault rates in transgender people are acceptable; I'm only trying to explain how to compare the size of fractions.
> 
> I have highlighted the bold text in your comment because this is not mathematically correct.
> 
> ...


It's funny that you say you're only trying to explain how to compare the size of fractions, because that's exactly what I'm doing! Stop misrepresenting my position please. No amount of crime is good but we will always have crime. When the rates of death during a surgery drop to a certain point, it's said to be an acceptable risk of the surgery. Dying on an operating table isn't good, but it happens despite our best efforts and wishes as a society.

Say someone comes to the party and adds 50mL vodka to every container containing the punch. The punch bowl is large, so 50mL isn't very much. Sally's cup is smaller, so 50mL is a lot more compared to the amount of punch she has. Both the bowl and the cup have an identical amount of vodka in them, but due to the relative size the percentage of vodka is dramatically different.

Now, does this mean Sally isn't being targeted? No, not necessarily. She's disproportionately drunk after all. However there is an equal amount of reasoning to believe she's more drunk because her cup has a higher percentage of vodka even though she's drinking the same amount as the larger punch bowl contains as there is reasoning to assume she'd been targeted.

Can you see my math now? A similar amount of instances within populations of different sizes will give varying percentage rates.



quoting_mungo said:


> In the US, the closest equivalent might be birth certificate information (surely that is stored somewhere?), DMV information, or voter rolls, IDK. Birth certificates certainly include gender and FAIK can have that designation changed with enough hoop-jumping. I believe one or both of the others also include a gender marker. I _know_ Canada keeps birth certificate information on file, at the very least on a per-province basis.
> 
> 
> *But that’s not how percentages work.*
> ...


I don't believe this is so for Canada. Canadian birth certificates, or at least my province's ones, only list sex at birth, not gender. And once one obtains a SIN card and probably also a first passport it's quite an irrelevant document. And I'm not totally sure, but I think individuals can request the listed sex to be changed?

Now, I'd love to make a new diagram with millions of circles but obviously I don't actually. Fair enough with some small flaws in the analogy, I already made the diagram before then. Each circle can represent a larger number of individuals. I suggested removing circles from the 50 because trans people don't make up even close to this proportion of the population. 

If we start with a new set of circles and add lines after they're been separated into categories: 50 is an example of the idea, at best we'd have maybe 5 circles for the remaining 95. One line over one of the five will give a 20% occurrence rate, while 19 lines would have to be added to the larger sample to yield the same per capita. Do you see? Because the population is so much smaller, any occurrence is more significant in terms of percentage. The actual amount of lines doesn't have to even be higher to give a substantially larger percentage. It's simply less likely via Occam's Razor for transgender people to be disproportionately targeted given the relatively small population. Without further evidence of this, it's not very valid to say there is a difference.

This is not important for us. Again, I know that sounds bad, but introducing yet another source with numbers that favour one's position more isn't very good. We're not talking about the 2% rate right now, or at least I'm not. You're sliding in a different argument than what we're current discussing.



> If the defense is arguing that an encounter was consensual, they’ve already conceded that intercourse occurred.
> 
> Sentencing occurs _after_ the question of whether there was consent has been decided by the court. If clothing is relevant to establishing consent (hint: it isn’t) then it must be considered before sentencing.
> 
> If you consider clothing a mitigating factor in sentencing, you’re also suggesting that being unable to control oneself in the face of a sexy outfit is a normal and integral part of the human condition. And, like... you can be that misanthropic if that’s what makes you tick, but I think most reasonable people would vehemently disagree. _I’m_ certainly not a skimpy outfit away from committing rape. This is not some kind of omegaverse dystopia.



Not strictly so. "IF any such intercourse occurred between the opponent and my client, it would have simply been consensual." --Lawyer. And again even then, if intercourse was proven to have occurred, the crime isn't the intercourse, the crime is the lack of consent. A crime has not been proven yet anyways! A court needs for than one person's word against the other to convict.

I really think you should try to separate my words from the idea of me you have in your mind. I've never said even once it should be, obviously that's stupid as I've said. Intentionally or otherwise, you're trying to paint me as some misanthrope while I'm still one of the most amiable members on this forum. I've specifically stated already that clothing is not and should not be considered in a court of law. I'm not defending this practise, I'm saying it doesn't actually happen to any realistic degree and has no impact on an actual case where evidence exists in a great enough degree to procure a sentence.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 27, 2020)

Breaking news. FaF moderator makes a comment in a thread where people are actively trying to maks trans people look bad and doesn't give a slap oj the wrist for transphobia.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 27, 2020)

@Punji 

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you don't seem to understand that percentages are fractions- and that 'risk' can be expressed as a percentage. 

I am not sure how I can help you if you are not able to grasp this. 

The simplest example I can possibly provide you with is that in a room of 100 people, there are 100 pairs of shoes,
and in a room of 20 people, there are 20 pairs of shoes. 

The amount of shoes differs between the two rooms, but the chance that any single person is wearing shoes is the same in each room. 

Get it? 

Do you understand why, if these two different rooms had the same number of shoes overall, that would indicate something very strange was happening?


----------



## Flamingo (Nov 27, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Breaking news. FaF moderator makes a comment in a thread where people are actively trying to maks trans people look bad and doesn't give a slap oj the wrist for transphobia.



Glad to see you decided not to quit the forums despite threatening otherwise!


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

Attaman said:


> I don't know, going from "I would never expect to see this actually taken into consideration" to "Your only examples are from 20-30 years ago" to "Okay, but do you have publicly released example of court musings from this year?" sounds an _*awful fucking lot*_ like goalpost shifting to me. Likewise moving from "It's nonsensical" to
> 
> "Look, it's a thing that never happens. Also if it does happen it's merely protecting innocent strangers from wrongful imprisonment by spiteful bitches."
> 
> ...


Goalpost shifting? If it happened at all, you'd be able to find any recent cases showing this. We're not talking about crimes and court cases from 20-30 years ago, we're talking about it now. Creating fake quotes and sticking them very close to real (well, real and real-enough) ones is hilariously dishonest of you.

If you keep trying your best to detract from a real discussion, I'm just going to stop responding to you. You're clearly not interested in actually talking about the issue.

If you can't keep an honest discussion going there's no point in talk to you. Like I said to you before, how would you prevent *all* rapes? You can't, no one can. We can only limit it. The strongest cap that can be achieved is an acceptable amount of this unfortunate event occurring. Stop strawmanning for me about four seconds, won't you? I'm all for a genuine discussion, hence why I'm calling you out of your dishonesty.



> Case in point: You literally cannot even recall your directly asking a user to _doxx - specifically using the word dox, and citing address as a valid option - you to prove their point_, and that seems like one of those things that somebody who was interested in having a genuine discussion would remember vomiting out on their keyboard.
> 
> I would, with the above in mind, strongly suggest that people punt Punji on ignore and let them shout at clouds until the end of the Internet, because I think we've established (between rapidly shifting goal posts, the likely _purposefully_ shoddy representation of statistics, direct expressing that every train of argument they make will eventually end with either "Stop being emotional" or "We cannot improve society") that their purpose in this thread is to at best throw up smoke and mirrors and prevent genuine discussion on matters of Trans Rights / Solidarity / News, and that at worst they're going to use it as a bully pulpit to actively argue that "Legal scholars are wrong, Trans people are wrong, Trans people being raped and beaten in disproportionate numbers is fine and - like rape 'victims' dressing that way - they're bringing it on their self", which is both nothing more than bait _*and*_ something FAF already has some pretty clear-cut rules on.


I asked you to prove your point. It is and was an empty threat and rather than just accept it's not meaningful you're trying to say me calling you out of a false narrative is somehow not asking for a conversation?

You've just flat out not addressed almost everything I've said. What little you have you've responded through fallacy more than actual thought. I'm not going to respond to you further, but you if want to talk in private or if you're willing to act reasonably, I'll still all for it.

Ignore me if you'd like, I'll still be the better of the bunch and give decency where I find it wanting.



Fallowfox said:


> The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you don't seem to understand that percentages are fractions- and that 'risk' can be expressed as a percentage.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: By @ing me instead of quoting you're hiding my words to make it easier to attack my position.

Percentage describes the relationship of a thing and the frequency of this thing compared to another.

Shoes is a terrible example, because _literally_ everyone should have a pair of shoes. Consider kidney stones instead, most people don't have kidney stones. One stone in a group of 30 people is 3.33%. One stone in 10 people is 10%. The number of stones is not different between populations. By measuring a different size of groups, we've artificially altered the percentage, even though the number of stones has remained identical.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 27, 2020)

@Punji I'm atting you because it's easier. 

In your kidney stone example you're *not* artificially changing the percentage by changing the group size. 

If the chance of a kidney stone being found is 1 in 10, then if you measure 3 people the most likely outcome is that you fail to find a stone.
This is called sampling error and it increases *variance* of a statistic for small sample sizes. 
It *does not* mean that rare events should be expected to become more frequent when the subjects being studied belong to populations who are themselves rare.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

The forum admins deleted and banned the politics section and then unbanned several alt-right trolls and you’re surprised there’s been more transphobia lately? I’m astonished really.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Look, it's afraid



Are you using the word “it” to deliberately misgender someone and start an argument?


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> Goalpost shifting? If it happened at all, you'd be able to find any recent cases showing this. We're not talking about crimes and court cases from 20-30 years ago, we're talking about it now. Creating fake quotes and sticking them very close to real (well, real and real-enough) ones is hilariously dishonest of you.
> 
> If you keep trying your best to detract from a real discussion, I'm just going to stop responding to you. You're clearly not interested in actually talking about the issue.
> 
> ...



If you do the science correctly and sample accurately and according to statistical science, the percentage of kidney stones will likely remain the same. You could then control for things like area, diet, race, gender, and so forth to identify any common factors. 

Your assertion that changing the population size would result in a different percentage simply shows a  lack of math ability.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Are you using the word “it” to deliberately misgender someone and start an argument?


Just ignore/report them. :V


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Cry more



Bullying isn’t cool. Also it’s a reflection of the person, indicating that you’re likely alone and in pain so you lash out at people. But that doesn’t excuse the behavior.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Bullying isn’t cool. Also it’s a reflection of the person, indicating that you’re likely alone and in pain so you lash out at people. But that doesn’t excuse the behavior.


"bUllYinG sNt cOOl"


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> "bUllYinG sNt cOOl"


Dude, we don't need it. Go do something else, would ya?


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

I guess I found my first person to block? But that isn’t cool.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 27, 2020)

What a bunch of snowflakes


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> I guess I found my first person to block? But that isn’t cool.


Yeah, it's not, but just block and report them.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Yeah, it's not, but just block and report them.


I thought you left. You came back. Can't help yourself do you?


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm atting you because it's easier.
> 
> In your kidney stone example you're *not* artificially changing the percentage by changing the group size.
> 
> ...


I mean, you can literally just click reply... Middle mouse clicking reply opens it in another tab for easily switching back and forth. It should be easier to quote me directly than to type my name out purely based on the number of actions it would require. Now, I'm not strictly saying you are doing so but not quoting me hides the parts of my response which one doesn't care to respond to and helps hide misrepresentation.

It is. Why? Because kidney stones aren't a universal thing. Not every single person is at the same risk of developing one, just as not every person is at the same risk of violence. Diet and lifestyle impact the probability, likely genetics as well. The rate at which a person develops a kidney stone will absolutely vary in different groups, and thus a broad percentage isn't a very accurate method of measuring it.

In this same sense, trans and non-trans people may or may not be exposed to the same contributing factors and therefore the two groups are not synonymous and cannot have a single percentage attached to both.



LightArrow said:


> If you do the science correctly and sample accurately and according to statistical science, the percentage of kidney stones will likely remain the same. You could then control for things like area, diet, race, gender, and so forth to identify any common factors.
> 
> Your assertion that changing the population size would result in a different percentage simply shows a  lack of math ability.


As above, different people are going to be a different risks for developing a kidney stone.

The exact same age group, sex, and race may very well express a higher or lower amount of kidney stones based entirely on environmental factors alone.

I've already demonstrated this, but you're more than welcome to prove the counter point if you're so inclined.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Are you using the word “it” to deliberately misgender someone and start an argument?


LOL it's a movie quote


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 27, 2020)

Frank Gulotta said:


> LOL it's a movie quote


Shh.. quiet. He might get offended :V


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> The forum admins deleted and banned the politics section and then unbanned several alt-right trolls and you’re surprised there’s been more transphobia lately? I’m astonished really.



Whose alt are you?


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> I mean, you can literally just click reply... Middle mouse clicking reply opens it in another tab for easily switching back and forth. It should be easier to quote me directly than to type my name out purely based on the number of actions it would require. Now, I'm not strictly saying you are doing so but not quoting me hides the parts of my response which one doesn't care to respond to and helps hide misrepresentation.
> 
> It is. Why? Because kidney stones aren't a universal thing. Not every single person is at the same risk of developing one, just as not every person is at the same risk of violence. Diet and lifestyle impact the probability, likely genetics as well. The rate at which a person develops a kidney stone will absolutely vary in different groups, and thus a broad percentage isn't a very accurate method of measuring it.
> 
> ...



I can’t counter something that itself isn’t even a point.  you’re just discussing basic stats, but it feels more like you’re working through on your own experimental knowledge. 


Frank Gulotta said:


> LOL it's a movie quote



I could pull any manner of movie quotes. Do movie quotes somehow lose their value upon their usage? The power of fiction is the truth within the lie. What truth do you see? 


ASTA said:


> Whose alt are you?



I’m not part of the alt-right.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> I can’t counter something that itself isn’t even a point.  you’re just discussing basic stats, but it feels more like you’re working through on your own experimental knowledge.
> 
> 
> I could pull any manner of movie quotes. Do movie quotes somehow lose their value upon their usage? The power of fiction is the truth within the lie. What truth do you see?
> ...



"Alt" as in "alternative account". 

What's your main account?


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> I could pull any manner of movie quotes. Do movie quotes somehow lose their value upon their usage? The power of fiction is the truth within the lie. What truth do you see?


That's really pulling hair, I'm at a loss of words and hope you can't think of a way to twist this into implying some sort of phobia. Have a blessed day.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

ASTA said:


> "Alt" as in "alternative account".
> 
> What's your main account?



This is my main. I don’t understand. 



Frank Gulotta said:


> That's really pulling hair, I'm at a loss of words and hope you can't think of a way to twist this into implying some sort of phobia. Have a blessed day.



“Have a blessed day”= usually means the opposite, ie sarcasm. I don’t know if you’re implying bigotry or not since you’re being deliberately vague.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> This is my main. I don’t understand.
> 
> 
> 
> “Have a blessed day”= usually means the opposite, ie sarcasm. I don’t know if you’re implying bigotry or not since you’re being deliberately vague.


Just ignore them for the sake of your own mental health, they are only trying to rile you up.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> In this same sense, trans and non-trans people may or may not be exposed to the same contributing factors and therefore the two groups are not synonymous and cannot have a single percentage attached to both.


Yes! And it would be interesting to see what the contributing factors are. Societal discrimination is almost certainly a big one here. This could actually be discussed and studied in more detail: what leads to trans people facing more rapes?
I suspect it comes from greater level of poverty, which forces them to be around worse crowds. Big contributors to poverty are likely employment discrimination and communal/familial ostracization.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> “Have a blessed day”= usually means the opposite, ie sarcasm. I don’t know if you’re implying bigotry or not since you’re being deliberately vague.


???
holy shit

Here find a hidden meaning to this too


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

My brother got this really cool shirt


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 27, 2020)




----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> My brother got this really cool shirtView attachment 94881


Pride flag dragons are always so cool.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Just ignore them for the sake of your own mental health, they are only trying to rile you up.



Wisdom.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

mangomango said:


> Pride flag dragons are always so cool.


Yes, they really are! I also really enjoy the design of those furry pride pins that had a massive Kickstarter :3


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Yes, they really are! I also really enjoy the design of those furry pride pins that had a massive Kickstarter :3


If you're talking about the Fursona Pins Pride Pins stuff, I may or may not have like 10 of those...


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

mangomango said:


> If you're talking about the Fursona Pins Pride Pins stuff, I may or may not have like 10 of those...


Luckkkyy I wanttt


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Luckkkyy I wanttt


Let me see if I can grab a picture


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

mangomango said:


> Let me see if I can grab a picture


I should tell my brother, he’s not a furry but he would like


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I should tell my brother, he’s not a furry but he would like







I have a lanyard, a PVC badge, a wristband, and some pins (in my defense they were on sale). My favorite is definitely the cheetah pin.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> My brother got this really cool shirtView attachment 94881


I have seen all sorts of interesting shirts at LGBT+ Pride events. I should try to get some of those shirts for myself.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

Izzy4895 said:


> I have seen all sorts of interesting shirts at LGBT+ Pride events. I should try to get some of those shirts for myself.


If I was super publicly out I would definitely get one. Especially the dragon ones, they are cool.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> If I was super publicly out I would definitely get one. Especially the dragon ones, they are cool.


I have a unicorn-style shirt (bisexual pride) but not a dragon one. I like the basic unicorn and dragon designs that can be customized for gay, bi, trans, etc. pride.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Just ignore them for the sake of your own mental health, they are only trying to rile you up.






The irony


----------



## soulbox (Nov 27, 2020)

mangomango said:


> View attachment 94884View attachment 94885
> I have a lanyard, a PVC badge, a wristband, and some pins (in my defense they were on sale). My favorite is definitely the cheetah pin.


That’s amazing. I hope they come out with a hedgehog one.


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> That’s amazing. I hope they come out with a hedgehog one.


They're adding new ones in expansion packs occasionally, so they might come out with one eventually!


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

Speaking of pride merch, does anyone have any pride flags?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

mangomango said:


> Speaking of pride merch, does anyone have any pride flags?


Sadly, no


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)




----------



## soulbox (Nov 27, 2020)

Genderqueer and nonbinary pins...


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> View attachment 94892
> Genderqueer and nonbinary pins...


Those are pretty cool! : 3


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> View attachment 94892
> Genderqueer and nonbinary pins...


Nice pins!

I like how this thread is being spammed with actual trans pride other than trolls xP


----------



## mangomango (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Nice pins!
> 
> I like how this thread is being spammed with actual trans pride other than trolls xP


Shhh - don't say their name - it's like voldemort.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

mangomango said:


> Shhh - don't say their name - it's like voldemort.


Damn can’t do laugh reaction on phone :/


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Nice pins!
> 
> I like how this thread is being spammed with actual trans pride other than trolls xP



Rainbows everywhere!


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Rainbows everywhere!


God I love trans flag colors, they are amazing


----------



## Sirocco~ (Nov 27, 2020)

Squawk. Trans rights <3


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

Sirocco~ said:


> Squawk. Trans rights <3


Good birb
*scritches*


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 27, 2020)

having boobs for a change is nice
Here's hoping another year of HRT works wonders


Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Look, it's afraid


weren't you like, lamenting that you were barely treading the line of being perm'd for a while?
Please reconsider mocking people. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

TrishaCat said:


> having boobs for a change is nice
> Here's hoping another year of HRT works wonders


Help everything goes well and glad you are enjoying the boobs ^w^


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

TrishaCat said:


> having boobs for a change is nice
> Here's hoping another year of HRT works wonders
> 
> weren't you like, lamenting that you were barely treading the line of being perm'd for a while?
> Please reconsider mocking people. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.


Thank you ^.^

Also boobies are nice (I think I’m allowed to say this in this context?)


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> I mean, you can literally just click reply... Middle mouse clicking reply opens it in another tab for easily switching back and forth. It should be easier to quote me directly than to type my name out purely based on the number of actions it would require. Now, I'm not strictly saying you are doing so but not quoting me hides the parts of my response which one doesn't care to respond to and helps hide misrepresentation.
> 
> It is. Why? Because kidney stones aren't a universal thing. Not every single person is at the same risk of developing one, just as not every person is at the same risk of violence. Diet and lifestyle impact the probability, likely genetics as well. The rate at which a person develops a kidney stone will absolutely vary in different groups, and thus a broad percentage isn't a very accurate method of measuring it.
> 
> In this same sense, trans and non-trans people may or may not be exposed to the same contributing factors and therefore the two groups are not synonymous and cannot have a single percentage attached to both.



Punj I feel you're getting distracted. 

You do understand that the size of a studied population is not causally related to the percentage who experience random events, right?

This is a mathematical truth. 

Now, you've aptly pointed out that the *reason* transgender people experience greater incidence of sexual assault is because sexual assault isn't a random event. 
If you find that different populations have significantly different likelihoods of experiencing different events, it's good evidence pointing towards those events having a non-random distribution. 

Just like people who suffer peanut allergies are more likely to experience allergic reactions, or people who go surfing are more likely to drown. 
Those identities- as people who have allergies or as people who spend time in the sea- are causally related to their likelihood to experience those events. 

This is what several users have been trying to convince you of.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Punj I feel you're getting distracted.
> 
> You do understand that the size of a studied population is not causally related to the percentage who experience random events, right?
> 
> ...



You don’t convince someone of basic maths, you educate them. Haha. Not criticizing you. I often see conversations on the internet where one person tries to argue something, but they can’t because they lack the basics first.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)




----------



## softmouse17 (Nov 27, 2020)

Nice to see mostly love in the comments <3


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

softmouse17 said:


> Nice to see mostly love in the comments <3


Yes, there were some mean people but we blast beams of love at them!


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Punj I feel you're getting distracted.
> 
> You do understand that the size of a studied population is not causally related to the percentage who experience random events, right?
> 
> ...


I feel like you're trying to gaslight me.

Do refer to the circles and lines again. The size of the group is directly proportional to the percentage of the affect. An equal frequency can result in a different percentage given the size of the population. It's demonstrated this to be so.

Obviously it's not a random event, generally it's one of opportunity. The victim in the position of vulnerability is what is random, as far as bathrooms go. It's probably not going to happen in a public washroom in a grocery store or a mall or whatever with a lot of people going in and out and past and generally loitering nearby. However, only now has this come up. Before this every post touching on it has been more or less "it's because they're trans" without any reasoning at all.

Let me say it like this: What is the total sum of all violent attacks on non-trans people occurring within a bathroom? What is the total sum of all violent attacks on trans people occurring in a bathroom? The difference in the two is what matters, not the percentage. If the sum is significantly higher, we must then ask why. Does it even have anything to do with the fact that they're trans? If so, is it because of transphobia or because of another reason? It could be anything from they're perceived to be less likely to report the crime due to social factors to trans people seeking more secluded bathrooms for fear of social judgment, and therefore making themselves an opportunity.

No, that is just not true. Several users have been saying it's because they're trans. I'm saying the trend might not even exist as it is being represented, but rather than look at the numbers in a different angle it's just "your math is wrong" without proper explanations or justifications. Literally none of the users in this thread have tried to convince me anything beyond trans people are victims.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

I'm on my laptop so I can spam more trans pride for all the trans folk out there ^w^

I found a mug


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> I feel like you're trying to gaslight me.
> 
> Do refer to the circles and lines again. The size of the group is directly proportional to the percentage of the affect. An equal frequency can result in a different percentage given the size of the population. It's demonstrated this to be so.
> 
> ...



Even if there wasn’t an increase in the rate trans people are targeted (there is), would that somehow delegitimize the attacks? If they’re attacked at an equal rate as everyone else is it suddenly okay or something?


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Even if there wasn’t an increase in the rate trans people are targeted (there is), would that somehow delegitimize the attacks? If they’re attacked at an equal rate as everyone else is it suddenly okay or something?


There is nothing to suggest definitively that there is and mere assertions aren't useful.

Obviously it's still bad no matter who is attacked or why. If they're being attacked for reasons other than being trans this would mean they could be prevented to some degree.

And lastly, if they're being attacked at the same rates as non-trans people, the issue is no longer one of human rights not extended to all of humanity. It's still a problem but it would have nothing to do with the concept of trans rights in relation to human rights as per the title.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> And lastly, if they're being attacked at the same rates as non-trans people, the issue is no longer one of human rights not extended to all of humanity.


Clearly, human rights are not yet extended to all people when trans folks can still get legally fired for no other reason other than being trans in 26 states.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> There is nothing to suggest definitively that there is and mere assertions aren't useful.
> 
> Obviously it's still bad no matter who is attacked or why. If they're being attacked for reasons other than being trans this would mean they could be prevented to some degree.
> 
> And lastly, if they're being attacked at the same rates as non-trans people, the issue is no longer one of human rights not extended to all of humanity. It's still a problem but it would have nothing to do with the concept of trans rights in relation to human rights as per the title.



So why aren’t we digging into the data? Unfortunately, according to this article, reporting in the US on hate crimes is not great. 

“If they're being attacked for reasons other than being trans this would mean they could be prevented to some degree.”

But if they’re trans then the attacks can’t be prevented? What are you trying to say there? 









						Anti-transgender hate crimes soared 20 percent in 2019
					

Less than 15 percent of law enforcement departments nationwide report hate crime data to the FBI, stymying efforts to get an accurate picture of the crisis.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




Hate crimes in America climbed steeply, especially in the last for years and for transgenders. And reporting from law enforcement actually went down, so it’s good you had the conversation with Fallow already, because if the percentage went up while the pool of data declined, then it means that even more trans people are/were targeted than are even accounted for. 

And they’re even on the rise in Canada and even the U.K.  I bet we can thank Jordan for at least some of that. 









						Transgender hate crimes are on the rise even in Canada
					

A recent report on crime statistics leaves out transgender and nonbinary folk. A security and surveillance expert says this invisibility is harmful. Without stats, we cannot counter violence.




					theconversation.com


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

My brother also has a shirt like this (minus the hot guy in the image)


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Clearly, human rights are not yet extended to all people when trans folks can still get legally fired for no other reason other than being trans in 26 states.


Is this actually true? That's shitty! 

However, I will of course remind everyone a world exists outside of the US.

Also, there isn't really a basic human right to universal employment as far as I'm aware. I'd class this more as a right to avoid discrimination but that's a bit loose. It's also not very relevant to the current argument of physical safety being presented by others which we've been responding to and about this whole time.



LightArrow said:


> So why aren’t we digging into the data? Unfortunately, according to this article, reporting in the US on hate crimes is not great.
> 
> “If they're being attacked for reasons other than being trans this would mean they could be prevented to some degree.”
> 
> ...


That's what I want to know, you're asking the wrong raccoon.

According to the article this seems more related to enforced reporting of hate crimes by law enforcement agencies rather than an actual increase. This quote explains it well:




Different reasons bare different causes, some of which may be more negatable than others. For example, if the crimes are occurring because the victims are seeking more quiet and remote bathrooms to avoid social pressure, they're increasing their risk of being targeted. If they're being targeted regardless purely because they're trans, the perpetrators are more likely to simply not care about opportunity as much or engage in stalking or similar behaviours.

Regardless, according to this news article the number of known deaths due to violent crime is not even 40 as of this year. Again, it sounds bad but this is an acceptable amount and while it should be lowered as much as possible we have to realize it's going to happen to some degree anyway. Compare this to the number of deaths due to nearly any cause, ranging from other murders to cardiovascular disease and it's not exactly an epidemic.

Another news article, just as a general rule not a very good source. It does however link to actual sources. Here's a screenshot from Stats Canada listing the number of reported "hate crime, by type and motivation."





Sexual orientation, I assume is what transgenderism is listed under, is at it's highest in recorded history in Canada as reported by Stats Canada. However, it's still not that high in comparison to race and religion. Again, no amount is good but this amount is not overwhelming.

Similarly, the BBC news article cites it's figures as "Freedom of Information requests." I won't take a screenshot of this table because it's far too long, but it's located at the very bottom of the UK article. Some figures went up, some went down, the overall trend is increasing. The information is displayed in two-year periods, which will influence the data to some degree.

No other figures are given to relate the issue to.

Lastly, with both nations new laws have been created classifying offences as "hate crimes" where previously they may not have been. This undoubtedly increases the reported figures, one way or another.

And so we come back to the point: In Canada the number of hate crimes committed against transgender people is relatively low compared to the number of hate crimes committed against people of non-Caucasian races or non-Christian/Catholic religions. (Or so I assume, knowing full well how that works). Obviously this still doesn't tell us the population sizes, but it's also incredibly broadly defined as a number of different variations depending on the province.

I think this one is the best, the province of Ontario's Policing Standards Manual's definition: "A criminal offence committed against a person or property which is motivated by the suspect/offender's hate/bias against a racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or disability group." It seems the most inclusive.

However, the downside of this is that hate speech is considered a hate crime, meaning a good number of these offences are non-violent. As is damage to property. As you can see, we don't have clear data on the actual sum of occurrences of violence against trans people and how this compares to non-trans people.

Asserting that trans people are disproportionately the victims of violence has little to no solid statistical backing, who already have complete legal protection in Canada and the UK, as well as parts of the US. (A legal protection not afforded equally in some cases I might add.) Suffice it to say, it's more than a little difficult to claim transgender people are not extended the basic human right to physical safety. This doesn't mean they aren't being prevented the right or not _by the general public_, just that it can't be said with total certainly.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 27, 2020)

Punji said:


> However, I will of course remind everyone a world exists outside of the US.


Your point being? The issue of not all human rights being extended to trans folk is clearly not fixed, here or anywhere else in the world. You are legally not allowed to fire people because of their race, but you can because of them being trans. You clearly just want to say you've done all you can and that trans people are being entitled, when that is very clearly not the case.


----------



## Punji (Nov 27, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Your point being? The issue of not all human rights being extended to trans folk is clearly not fixed, here or anywhere else in the world. You are legally not allowed to fire people because of their race, but you can because of them being trans. You clearly just want to say you've done all you can and that trans people are being entitled, when that is very clearly not the case.


My point being the final paragraph. Though, to be fair I suppose it wasn't clearly directed at you as well:

"Asserting that trans people are disproportionately the victims of violence has little to no solid statistical backing, who already have complete legal protection in Canada and the UK, as well as parts of the US. (A legal protection not afforded equally in some cases I might add.) Suffice it to say, it's more than a little difficult to claim transgender people are not extended the basic human right to physical safety. This doesn't mean they aren't being prevented the right or not _by the general public_, just that it can't be said with total certainly."

Only in some states in one of the most notoriously screwed countries in the Western world. Canada and the UK seem to be alright, why narrow the focus down to only one country or widen the focus to every country? Overall the broad Western world is very supportive of trans people with its legislation.

Our concern has once again been the general population and their violent tendencies.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

Punji said:


> My point being the final paragraph. Though, to be fair I suppose it wasn't clearly directed at you as well:


Yes, don't make a nub of a post and then edit in all the content :/

Oh well, I really don't know why I keep coming back here, it's not like I'm ever going to change anyone's mind. No, trans people are very much not treated equally, if you have even spoken to one you would see that's not the case. I'm just going to be ignoring and moving on, for real, I'm sorry I keep saying this and then come back. Will still be posting trans pride stuff because I wanna make everyone feel welcome~


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 28, 2020)

Punji said:


> Is this actually true? That's shitty!
> 
> However, I will of course remind everyone a world exists outside of the US.
> 
> ...



Yes, according to these numbers, the overall amount of hate crimes perpetrated against trans is lower than the other groups. And yet you also admit any number is bad, and that we need more numbers. Yes, that is a good point. I trust you will become an advocate for better reporting of hate crime against trans, and have it be considered a separate category? 

But I don't think that would work in your favor. Your argument leans on downplaying all of this, when there's no reason or need to. You only reason you would want to downplay it is–well I don't know, you tell me. Are you threatened by trans people, like so many others? Do you feel like they get all the attention, while you and others don't? Why can't we just see them as people–another group of people, with their own amazing, unique stories, their own things they bring to the table, their own additions to this great circle of life.

That's what we fight for. Recognition, and the freedom to simply be who we want. It's a fight for liberty and freedom, self-actualization. And that scares the shit out of a lot of people.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 28, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Yes, don't make a nub of a post and then edit in all the content :/
> 
> Oh well, I really don't know why I keep coming back here, it's not like I'm ever going to change anyone's mind. No, trans people are very much not treated equally, if you have even spoken to one you would see that's not the case. I'm just going to be ignoring and moving on, for real, I'm sorry I keep saying this and then come back. Will still be posting trans pride stuff because I wanna make everyone feel welcome~



I used to think that if I yelled enough, or found enough fancy words, or enough data, I could change people's minds. I really thought it could work. But after a while I realized, no, I can't get to these people. They can only change if they want to change. It's all bred out of ignorance and fear. One of the best ways to change peoples minds is for them to encounter someone who upends their preconceived notions. Their friend comes out of trans, or they encounter a trans bank teller, or just anyone. And they realize they're just another person going through this life like them.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

I know, I know, I just said I would leave. What I meant is I would stop arguing, not going to stop with the trans pride, you can't make me ;3~

Our trans friends already have to go through enough on their own (with dysphoria and all that), so we shouldn't have society making it worse. Be nice to trans folks, tell them you support them. A simple "I support you, you are valid, you go girl!" can be all it takes to brighten someone's day.



LightArrow said:


> I used to think that if I yelled enough, or found enough fancy words, or enough data, I could change people's minds. I really thought it could work. But after a while I realized, no, I can't get to these people. They can only change if they want to change. It's all bred out of ignorance and fear. One of the best ways to change peoples minds is for them to encounter someone who upends their preconceived notions. Their friend comes out of trans, or they encounter a trans bank teller, or just anyone. And they realize they're just another person going through this life like them.


Yeah, it sucks. Unfortunately, people only change their minds when they want to, even if they are presented with the most perfect argument served to them on a golden platter. I used to be in a giant pit where I used to believe some terrible shit, then I got actual friends and I clawed my way out, unfortunately, people want to sit in the pit in anger.


----------



## Eremurus (Nov 28, 2020)

Is even 1% of the global population transgender? Seems like a LOT of attention, negative and positive, for such a small demographic.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

️‍Everyone️‍Is️‍Valid,️‍Be️‍Yourself!️‍

edit: my pride emojis got deleted, stupid faf ;w;


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 28, 2020)

Eremurus said:


> Is even 1% of the global population transgender? Seems like a LOT of attention, negative and positive, for such a small demographic.



It's getting a lot attention here on a furry forum. Which is a place where LGBT folk find a place to be themselves in. Why be open and accepting to gays and lesbians, but then treat transgender folk as some statistic and like they're some disease or experiment? Of course we'd want to have a place where they can be treated just as anyone else. They already get enough shit everywhere else. Why is it that no one bats an eye when someone says "I'm gay af and I like werewolf daddies", but every time transgender topics are brought up, it's suddenly mass hysteria, and threads get locked and people are (rightfully) banned?

On an average, day-to-day basis, no - it doesn't get any attention, at least not for me. I have never been a part of a discussion IRL about transgender issues, or any lgbt topic for that matter, unless there was some media frenzy happening, after which it is met with a lot of hate since I live in a place where killing gay men is considered okay. And after a few days, no one cares anymore and we're back to whatever the normal is here.

Here, at least, I feel somewhat safer to discuss these topics. As far as I'm concerned, it should be talked about more.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

Rimna said:


> It's getting a lot attention here on a furry forum. Which is a place where LGBT folk find a place to be themselves in. Why be open and accepting to gays and lesbians, but then treat transgender folk as some statistic and like they're some disease or experiment? Of course we'd want to have a place where they can be treated just as anyone else. They already get enough shit everywhere else. Why is it that no one bats an eye when someone says "I'm gay af and I like werewolf daddies", but every time transgender topics are brought up, it's suddenly mass hysteria, and threads get locked and people are (rightfully) banned?
> 
> On an average, day-to-day basis, no - it doesn't get any attention, at least not for me. I have never been a part of a discussion IRL about transgender issues, or any lgbt topic for that matter, unless there was some media frenzy happening, after which it is met with a lot of hate since I live in a place where killing gay men is considered okay. And after a few days, no one cares anymore and we're back to whatever the normal is here.
> 
> Here, at least, I feel somewhat safer to discuss these topics. As far as I'm concerned, it should be talked about more.


^ This ^


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

In probably most of the world, you can be openly straight and nobody would care. If you are openly trans, you will get beaten up and tormented over it. It costs almost nothing to be nice to trans people or anyone, really.


----------



## Punji (Nov 28, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Yes, don't make a nub of a post and then edit in all the content :/
> 
> Oh well, I really don't know why I keep coming back here, it's not like I'm ever going to change anyone's mind. No, trans people are very much not treated equally, if you have even spoken to one you would see that's not the case. I'm just going to be ignoring and moving on, for real, I'm sorry I keep saying this and then come back. Will still be posting trans pride stuff because I wanna make everyone feel welcome~


Ah, that wasn't on me. I was fighting with the forum to display my post. The issue was I replaced your links with "[ URL ]" (without the spaces) to save space not thinking the forum would think I tried to turn my entire response into a URL.

You surely can't assume I typed up that _entire response in two minutes flat_.

Don't come back then. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's clear what side of the fence your on and you're not here for a discussion about it. Simply assertions don't make for a compelling argument.



LightArrow said:


> Yes, according to these numbers, the overall amount of hate crimes perpetrated against trans is lower than the other groups. And yet you also admit any number is bad, and that we need more numbers. Yes, that is a good point. I trust you will become an advocate for better reporting of hate crime against trans, and have it be considered a separate category?
> 
> But I don't think that would work in your favor. Your argument leans on downplaying all of this, when there's no reason or need to. You only reason you would want to downplay it is–well I don't know, you tell me. Are you threatened by trans people, like so many others? Do you feel like they get all the attention, while you and others don't? Why can't we just see them as people–another group of people, with their own amazing, unique stories, their own things they bring to the table, their own additions to this great circle of life.
> 
> That's what we fight for. Recognition, and the freedom to simply be who we want. It's a fight for liberty and freedom, self-actualization. And that scares the shit out of a lot of people.


Yes, absolutely. It's not at all clear with the current distinctions for trans people and other things which could just as easily be classed under "sexual orientation." It's not even clear it is listed under that, we can only assume so because it's probably not under "sex" nor under "other similar factor." We ought to have much better, clear and concise categories with clear definitions so we are all able to utilize the data better.

No, I think it would. Removing non-trans people from "sexual orientation" also removes all the hate crimes done towards people of a differing sexuality, which would objectively yield a lower amount of hate crimes targeted towards transgender people.

I don't want to down play it, I want it to be seen in a realistic capacity. Too many people are too quick to call themselves victims over imagined slights, and while there is undoubtedly a large amount of harassment and social implications of being trans, violence is still a very uncommon and totally unacceptable response.

It's this mentality I take issue with. "Fighting." No one is _fighting_ for anything, it's just trying to make life seem a little bit more interesting, pretending the odds are stacked against oneself when the system in place does little to impede any given person over another, with the sole exception being monetary wealth. Wanting less violence in our societies is good, but pretending like lynch mobs forming in the streets is a real concern is not. It doesn't help the real issue when it's stretched and blown all over. This is why we're looking at the statistics, to look at the problem as it really is and not as it is perceived to be.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 28, 2020)

Punji said:


> Ah, that wasn't on me. I was fighting with the forum to display my post. The issue was I replaced your links with "[ URL ]" (without the spaces) to save space not thinking the forum would think I tried to turn my entire response into a URL.
> 
> You surely can't assume I typed up that _entire response in two minutes flat_.
> 
> ...



Admittedly there are some cases where people with thin skin think the odds are stacked against them and complain. But those types of people are annoying regardless of who or what they are, trans doesn’t have relevance there. 

Now, being blunt, you are speaking from a position of privilege when you say no one is fighting... that is actually quite false. For me and many others, admitting we are different opens us to attack. I watched my neighbor open her door and scream at a transgender caretaker for several minutes about how abnormal and bizarre she was. (Sunday school teacher too, go figure.) Instances like that, they disappear. There’s too many of them, they’re a part of life for these people. 

It’s easy to say no one is fighting, when you haven’t had to fight for the right to simply exist. 

And I know simply saying that won’t change your mind but it is the truth.


----------



## Punji (Nov 28, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Admittedly there are some cases where people with thin skin think the odds are stacked against them and complain. But those types of people are annoying regardless of who or what they are, trans doesn’t have relevance there.
> 
> Now, being blunt, you are speaking from a position of privilege when you say no one is fighting... that is actually quite false. For me and many others, admitting we are different opens us to attack. I watched my neighbour open her door and scream at a transgender caretaker for several minutes about how abnormal and bizarre she was. (Sunday school teacher too, go figure.) Instances like that, they disappear. There’s too many of them, they’re a part of life for these people.
> 
> ...


Not specifically trans, that's just the current flavour.

Believe me, I'm not. But no one is actually fighting, period. Some dickhead making a scene over a stranger isn't a fight, it's some dickhead making a scene.

There is no risk or difficulty. The woman didn't physically attack the caretaker, the government didn't strip them of their rights, they didn't lose their job, and almost everyone would antagonize the neighbour instead. To say the person's existence had to be "fought" for is just not honest.

The truth can be shown, can it not? We don't have to agree, but we can try.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 28, 2020)

Eremurus said:


> Is even 1% of the global population transgender? Seems like a LOT of attention, negative and positive, for such a small demographic.


I'll hold my tongue on the obvious comparison I could make.
But of course they're worth attention. Transgender people should have safety and security from prejudice, harm and unfair treatment.

Vast majority of people in the world aren't LGBTQ+, anyway, but the point is not to measure. Rather, it's to get along with people and treat everybody fairly.


----------



## BayoDino (Nov 28, 2020)

Every time I enter this topic:








KD142000 said:


> But of course they're worth attention. Transgender people should have safety and security from prejudice, harm and unfair treatment.


I agree with that, they're still humans, like others.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 28, 2020)

BayoDino said:


> Every time I enter this topic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course. Point of equality: Everyone should get equal treatment.

Yeah, the popcorn...I feel that. Wish it was a 100% positive thread.


----------



## zandelux (Nov 28, 2020)

I've been mostly ignoring this thread, but I felt I had to get a word in about this 1% comment.

It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how prevalent transgenderism is. If you are trans, 100% of YOU is trans, and that's what matters.

You may as well point out how rare peanut allergies are. It may not matter much to people without the allergy. To people with the allergy, it is a big deal. Numbers don't enter into it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 28, 2020)

I think we (collectively, as a society) need to get over the idea that “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.” There’s plenty of research showing that abuse isn’t always physical. There’s plenty of research showing that non-physical abuse can cause serious long-term damage.

Some people are more resilient than others to verbal/emotional attacks. Just like some people can take a physical beating better than others.

A lot of the abuse trans* people face will focus on their identity; dehumanizing them and trying to invalidate who they are. This is something they already have to struggle with, just because they have been put in one gender box at birth and are climbing into another one. Nobody is weak for eventually reaching a breaking point under those circumstances.

Like... there’s plenty of people who have PTSD due to non-physical abuse. Their trauma is just as valid as anyone’s.

So yeah. Trans* people have a right to expect to be allowed to go about their lives without receiving abuse for an intrinsic attribute that they cannot change about themselves. They have a right to have their choice of names and pronouns be respected _at the very least_ by friends, family, government, caregivers, and in professional settings. That’s just basic human dignity. I don’t identify as trans*, but I _have_ changed my name, and it’s been maddening to have medical professionals and educational institutions use the wrong name; it’s taken me literal years to get through to my father especially that it’s _not okay for him to introduce me by the name I haven’t used since 6th grade_. If your deadname is also associated with dysphoria that’s a struggle that’s going to be so much worse.

I’m super brain foggy, so I don’t have a clever end point to this post. I just want to say that trans* trauma is real and valid even if it doesn’t involve physical violence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2020)

Punji said:


> I feel like you're trying to gaslight me.
> 
> Do refer to the circles and lines again. The size of the group is directly proportional to the percentage of the affect. An equal frequency can result in a different percentage given the size of the population. It's demonstrated this to be so.



Punji I'm only explaining the same mathematics Americans are taught between third and sixth grade. 

Try to consider that, by your argument, 
if 100 deaths from eating peanuts occur in a population of 1 million random people, and 100 deaths from eating peanuts occur in a population of 1000 people with allergies, that both of these death rates would be considered 'equal frequencies', by your arguments.

In fact the allergy sufferers are much more likely to be killed by peanuts. You have to divide the absolute frequency by the size of the population.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

I really like the peanut allergy analogy. Such a small portion of people have peanut allergies so why should we develop things like EpiPens to help them? I'm going to save that for later~

Anyways, good morning all, more pride stuff because I have nothing productive to do x3!


----------



## Mambi (Nov 28, 2020)

Eremurus said:


> Is even 1% of the global population transgender? Seems like a LOT of attention, negative and positive, for such a small demographic.



Um, even 1% of 8 billion people is 80 million people, but even if it was a *single person* on the planet, we're talking about basic rights. I don't care if one single mutant on the planet has 4 dicks and 2 sets of breasts, they deserve to be treated like a human being. To me, that's full stop...arguing majority or "are there enough of them to be worth the trouble" is a false argument right from the start coming from a bad place.

Let's put it another way. If the ONLY black people on the planet were located on an island in the pacific and they totalled 100 tops on that island, what possible difference would that make when asking the question "Do they deserve to live with the same freedoms and peace as we do" when dealing with slavery or racist issues? Sounds like a dumb thing to say, doesn't it? Same with trans...when dealing with rights and basic decency, it is NOT a numbers game...it's a moral one. A town that has ONE trans person and a town that has the vast majority trans should change nothing at all...rights are not a convenience issue and majority or even relevant minority is meaningless..


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

Mambi said:


> Um, even 1% of 8 billion people is 80 million people, but even if it was a *single person* on the planet, we're talking about basic rights. I don't care if one single mutant on the planet has 4 dicks and 2 sets of breasts, they deserve to be treated like a human being. To me, that's full stop...arguing majority or "are there enough of them to be worth the trouble" is a false argument right from the start coming from a bad place.
> 
> Let's put it another way. If the ONLY black people on the planet were located on an island in the pacific and they totalled 100 tops on that island, what possible difference would that make when asking the question "Do they deserve to live with the same freedoms and peace as we do" when dealing with slavery or racist issues? Sounds like a dumb thing to say, doesn't it? Same with trans...when dealing with rights and basic decency, it is NOT a numbers game...it's a moral one. A town that has ONE trans person and a town that has the vast majority trans should change nothing at all...rights are not a convenience issue and majprity or even relevant minority is meaningless..


Well put


----------



## Mambi (Nov 28, 2020)




----------



## Punji (Nov 28, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Punji I'm only explaining the same mathematics Americans are taught between third and sixth grade.
> 
> Try to consider that, by your argument,
> if 100 deaths from eating peanuts occur in a population of 1 million random people, and 100 deaths from eating peanuts occur in a population of 1000 people with allergies, that both of these death rates would be considered 'equal frequencies', by your arguments.
> ...


For someone who claims to be a biologist you don't seem to want to take genetic demographics into play. You and I both know fully well two groups of 1000 people from different areas are likely to have different sums of allergy responses to the same source.

Dividing the total number across the entire population by the number of people in the population only gives a broad overall percentages and tells us nothing beyond what any random person's probability of possessing the allergy _might_ be.

Regardless, you're not even arguing why this matter anymore.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2020)

Punji said:


> For someone who claims to be a biologist you don't seem to want to take genetic demographics into play. You and I both know fully well two groups of 1000 people from different areas are likely to have different sums of allergy responses to the same source.
> 
> Dividing the total number across the entire population by the number of people in the population only gives a broad overall percentages and tells us nothing beyond what any random person's probability of possessing the allergy _might_ be.
> 
> Regardless, you're not even arguing why this matter anymore.



Punji these questions are irrelevant to the maths of fractions. 

Your objection to the use of percentages to express risk is that you expect the percentage of rare events to increase when samples are drawn from populations that are smaller- regardless of sample size. 

This is materially false. 

It should be intuitively obvious to you why this is, but I will write a simulation to demonstrate it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2020)

I wrote a code to simulate a die. 

I then simulated rolling 1 die, 2 dice, 3 dice, all the way up to 10,000 dice. 

and I recorded the probability as a fraction that the dice rolls produce 6's. Finding a 6 represents our unlikely event. 

The code is as follows:

likelihood_of_six<-list()
for(a in 1:10000){

	outcomes<-c(1:6)

	rolls<-sample(outcomes,a,replace=T)

	likelihood_of_six[[a]]<-sixes<-length(which(rolls=='6'))/ a
}


The result of the simulation show that when populations decline to very small numbers, the *variance* of the statistic becomes larger, but that the *mean* remains the same; the likelihood of finding a 6 does not inherently increase when the populations of dice are small.


----------



## Punji (Nov 28, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> Punji these questions are irrelevant to the maths of fractions.
> 
> Your objection to the use of percentages to express risk is that you expect the percentage of rare events to increase when samples are drawn from populations that are smaller- regardless of sample size.
> 
> ...


Prove it then. Demonstrate how this is irrelevant and how a single broad percentage is totally applicable to this situation moreso than anything else.

I'd show you the map of hate crime occurrences in Canada to show you that it is not a perfectly even spread, but the Stats Canada website is down. Cool.

Instead we'll have to use the UK's data found at the bottom of this news article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48756370

The instances reported vary wildly. An overall percentage implies it's overall consistent when this is obviously untrue. If the percent of hate crimes against transgender people isn't even uniform how are we to assume it's uniformly disproportionate?

Please do demonstrate this then.



> I wrote a code to simulate a die.


This is yet another strawman. As with the circles, it isn't the _probability_ of _finding_ a line, it's how the amount of lines is represented.

Two lines in a group of 100 and two lines in a group of 50 have an identical frequency of two, but per capita they represent 2% and 4% respectively. This is purely the result of the size of the population, and does not accurately depict the sum of lines. Probability is irrelevant and measuring evens which have already occurred.

If the lines represent something to be removed or mitigated, 4% seems like a bigger problem when in reality it's equally as bad as the larger population.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2020)

Punji said:


> Prove it then. Demonstrate how this is irrelevant and how a single broad percentage is totally applicable to this situation moreso than anything else.
> 
> I'd show you the map of hate crime occurrences in Canada to show you that it is not a perfectly even spread, but the Stats Canada website is down. Cool.
> 
> ...



I wrote a code simulating dice populations that you can run yourself. 

You can also try this with real dice, to satisfy yourself that if you have a population of only 2 dice, and roll them 100 times, that you will be no more likely to find 6's than if you have a population of 200 dice and roll them 100 times. 


Your question about uniformity- which mathematicians call 'variance', is also addressed by my simulation. Explaining how mathematicians accommodate 'variance' in studies is a more complicated question. 

I can explain this to you, but if you don't understand my dice simulation, you will not be able to understand the concept of variance- since it relies on this knowledge.


----------



## Punji (Nov 28, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I wrote a code simulating dice populations that you can run yourself.
> 
> You can also try this with real dice, to satisfy yourself that if you have a population of only 2 dice, and roll them 100 times, that you will be no more likely to find 6's than if you have a population of 200 dice and roll them 100 times.
> 
> ...


See above, added a response already.

However you once again did not address my post.

It's not about probability and never has been.


----------



## ben909 (Nov 28, 2020)

What point is all this math trying to make in the first place?

Is it just trying to make a small sample size argument to something, or is it something else


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2020)

ben909 said:


> What point is all this math trying to make in the first place?



Punji and Raevar objected to comparing the percentage of transgender people, and the general population, who experience sexual assault in a given year. 

They believe that, because transgender people are a minority, that this will artificially increase the percentage of people who experience rare events such as sexual assault. 

This is mathematically false, to put things simply.



Punji said:


> See above, added a response already.
> 
> However you once again did not address my post.
> 
> It's not about probability and never has been.



Punji you have dice right?

Try rolling them 50 times, and then 100 times. 

You will see that as you roll the dice a greater number of times, you will encounter the rare event of 6 a greater number of times- and that the consequence is that the overall percentage of rolls that turn up a six remains similar.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 28, 2020)

This is the part where my brain dies upon seeing the same arguments repeated ad Infinitum. If someone doesn’t understand basic stats, you can’t debate with them. You can only educate and hope they’ll move on. It’s a type of fallacy I see with these types of people: focus on one vanishingly small part of the equation - in this case, the percentage of trans abuse in population sizes - and nitpick it until everyone’s eyes glaze over. It’s obfuscation, it’s very effective, and also very dishonest. 
Know when you’re being duped.


----------



## RogueNoodle (Nov 28, 2020)

I feel we are beating a dead horse. As such, I wish to give this horse a nice funeral by bringing some positivity back to this thread (and maybe getting it back on topic). Here's some wholesome goodness for any trans friends that may be having a rough day. Remember to be kind to one another - including yourself.


----------



## Mambi (Nov 28, 2020)

ben909 said:


> What point is all this math trying to make in the first place?
> 
> Is it just trying to make a small sample size argument to something, or is it something else



..distraction probably. <sigh> When anyone starts arguing nuances and technicalities _this _deeply as if it matters, it usually means the main point is indefensible so they try to change the question to one more to their liking.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 28, 2020)

Is wanting to be treated like a normal human being like everyone else entitlement now? Hmmm


----------



## ben909 (Nov 28, 2020)

Should not be at least


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 28, 2020)

I find it pretty dehumanizing to see that trans people have been reduced to some percentages. What is the point to repeat the same thing for 10 pages?


----------



## Punji (Nov 28, 2020)

Since taking the issue seriously is apparently a very unpopular idea met with strawmen and calls of "distractions" and "reducing people to percentages," I'm just not going to bother to carry on anymore. All I'll say is progress towards a solution can't begin until we understand the scope and extent of the issue. Not like this forum is an appropriate place for such a discussion, but here we all are anyways.

I'm all for being positive, but next time let's all just not even mention anything negative.



Fallowfox said:


> Punji you have dice right?
> 
> Try rolling them 50 times, and then 100 times.
> 
> You will see that as you roll the dice a greater number of times, you will encounter the rare event of 6 a greater number of times- and that the consequence is that the overall percentage of rolls that turn up a six remains similar.


Did you miss the part where I specifically told you it's not about probability? The events being referred too, the 2% of trans people from the survey reporting violent attacks are something which has already occurred. There is a set number of instances, we're not trying to figure out what the probability is, I'm saying the number of assaults may or may not be large compared to the size of the transgender demographic and that a raw percentage doesn't indicate anything about this.

Talking about probability is distracting form the issue. It's a strawman, plain and simple. It holds no relevance. Are you simply out of things to say and want the last word? This is why I referred to the circles & lines time and time again, because they're observable quantifiable events.

Regardless, as above I say to you good day! (Unless you or anyone wants to keep talking in PMs, that's always fine).


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 28, 2020)

Mambi said:


> Let's put it another way. If the ONLY black people on the planet were located on an island in the pacific and they totalled 100 tops on that island, what possible difference would that make when asking the question "Do they deserve to live with the same freedoms and peace as we do" when dealing with slavery or racist issues? Sounds like a dumb thing to say, doesn't it? Same with trans...when dealing with rights and basic decency, it is NOT a numbers game...it's a moral one. A town that has ONE trans person and a town that has the vast majority trans should change nothing at all...rights are not a convenience issue and majority or even relevant minority is meaningless..



I'm probably going to have about four people attempt to lecture me about how I'm wrong by using a healthy dose of intersectional theory mixed with a splash of condescending guilty white liberal (and at least one or two of you who are going to immediately go for the obvious, "But ASTA, there are _black _trans people too!"), but I really wish people would stop attempting to draw hard parallels between the challenges transgender people habitually contend with and the historical hardships that black people have faced globally for centuries.

And holy shit, this doesn't even stop at LGBT issues but even extends to _pitbulls _of all things!

Someone could be arguing in support of the pitbull's reputation as an innately dangerous dog breed and that they should be gradually phased out of existence via the drafting and universal implementation of stern legislation that forbids both their ownership and breeding and *someone*,_ usually a white pit bull owner_, will swoop in with a black person conveniently tucked underneath their arm and loudly proclaim to every single soul within earshot that suggesting that pitbulls naturally harbor biological qualities that make them disproportionately more unsafe than other dog breeds is diametrically equivalent to suggesting that black people suffer from an inborn propensity towards criminality and violence.

What is with certain segments of western society and using black people to forward their own social agendas and ideologies?


----------



## Mambi (Nov 28, 2020)

...and alas, the point of the post soars totally over @ASTA 's head. <sigh> 

Not one word of what you wrote even comes close to referring to what I wrote...in that basic rights do not depend on convenience nor population density. _Not a single word _in 3 reasonably-sized paragraphs. That's actually quite impressive. <giggle> So in accordance to your seeming wish in the start of paragraph one, I *won't *lecture you on what you wrote...because it's irrelevant and I just _really _don't want to...not worth it. 

So, anything actually relevant to add when it comes to rights vs numbers, or can we move on? <grin>


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 28, 2020)

Mambi said:


> ...and alas, the point of the post soars totally over @ASTA 's head. <sigh>



_Fuck *right *off_ and_ fuck *this *thread especially_. It was a poorly-constructed point to begin with and an obvious attempt to tug at the racial heartstrings of anyone who read it. 

*You wouldn't condemn the last one-hundred black people on earth to a life of second-class citizenship would you? Now think of the trans!"

You could've easily laid out a minute and straightforward explanation of why the decision to extend rights to particular demographics shouldn't be based upon numerics but upon morality, yet you instead elected to hang a race angle to it.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 28, 2020)

hey i like watching furries duke it out over the internet, chill with the profanity before the mods lock this trans thread too


----------



## Mambi (Nov 29, 2020)

ASTA said:


> _Fuck *right *off_ and_ fuck *this *thread especially_. It was a poorly-constructed point to begin with and an obvious attempt to tug at the racial heartstrings of anyone who read it.
> 
> *You wouldn't condemn the last one-hundred black people on earth to a life of second-class citizenship would you? Now think of the trans!"
> 
> You could've easily laid out a minute and straightforward explanation of why the decision to extend rights to particular demographics shouldn't be based upon numerics but upon morality, yet you instead elected to hang a race angle to it.



Ok...fun's fun and all, but to be clear, you're needing me to *explain *why giving _basic decency and rights_ to someone has to be done "just because" it's the right thing to do??? And you're just pissed because I used a metaphor you _want _to say something it doesn't, to try to make what should be obvious clearer?? <_snicker_> You're just hopeless...you know that, right?

Sorry, hard to type out anything more coherent when I'm laughing this hard at you. Really now, if you need the concept of "everyone deserves decency and respect" clarified, then it simply _cannot _be explained to _you_. You'll apparently never get it, you don't want to..._<sighs and shakes head>_


----------



## Foxy Emy (Nov 29, 2020)

Ugggg... you know things are going crazy when someone starts writing code.  

'Aight Let me try to straighten things up.

@Fallowfox The percentages do not represent any one trans individuals risk for suffering violence. I won't have the same risk as Vee. Nor will I have the same risk depending on my location. I think this is what Punj is pointing out.

@Punji Fallowfox is correct that there is an increased risk of suffering violence in the trans population. The fact that a greater percentage of trans people have suffered sexual violence than the general population is a problem. While it may not assess risk for any one individual, it does show that there is a prevelance of factors that increase the risk in the trans population that do not exist, or at least are less common, for the general population.

If you don't feel you can rely on numbers because of the small percentage of the population, take some anecdotal evidence by asking some of us how people reacted when we first came out as trans. We may have some good experiences, but many of us have had bad experiences. Myself included.


----------



## Eremurus (Nov 29, 2020)

Mambi said:


> Ok...fun's fun and all, but to be clear, you're needing me to *explain *why giving _basic decency and rights_ to someone has to be done "just because" it's the right thing to do??? And you're just pissed because I used a metaphor you _want _to say something it doesn't, to try to make what should be obvious clearer?? <_snicker_> You're just hopeless...you know that, right?
> 
> Sorry, hard to type out anything more coherent when I'm laughing this hard at you. Really now, if you need the concept of "everyone deserves decency and respect" clarified, then it simply _cannot _be explained to _you_. You'll apparently never get it, you don't want to..._<sighs and shakes head>_



Could you be any more obnoxious with your posting style? Christ.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

Eremurus said:


> Could you be any more obnoxious with your posting style? Christ.



So you disagree with extending basic humans rights to trans people? Why is this such a hard concept for people?


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Nov 29, 2020)

Mambi said:


> Ok...fun's fun and all, but to be clear, you're needing me to *explain *why giving _basic decency and rights_ to someone has to be done "just because" it's the right thing to do??? And you're just pissed because I used a metaphor you _want _to say something it doesn't, to try to make what should be obvious clearer?? <_snicker_> You're just hopeless...you know that, right?
> 
> Sorry, hard to type out anything more coherent when I'm laughing this hard at you. Really now, if you need the concept of "everyone deserves decency and respect" clarified, then it simply _cannot _be explained to _you_. You'll apparently never get it, you don't want to..._<sighs and shakes head>_



I never said that you had to explain anything to me and I wasn't challenging your assertion that giving rights to disenfranchised demographics is the morally correct thing to do. If that's what you got from my two previous posts then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, whenever someone goes to painstaking lengths to openly let _everyone _know that they find something in a heated internet scuffle comical to the point of real-life laughter is usually an indicator that they're either coping for something incorrect and/or stupid that they said during said scuffle or they're attempting to get a rise out of their opponent.




LightArrow said:


> So you disagree with extending basic humans rights to trans people? Why is this such a hard concept for people?



They find Mambi's distinct posting style offensive to the eye and the first thing _you _leap to is that Eremurus is _somehow _directly opposed to the assertion that trans people deserve basic human rights?

And you all call _me _dense?

This thread is a joke and you're the whole circus.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

Some people are trans in different ways, and that's okay!

For example:
* It's okay to be a feminine trans guy and vice versa
* It's okay if you don't have large amounts of dysphoria. (Gender euphoria is valid too!)
* It's okay if you don't fully transition. Some trans folk are simply fine with using different pronouns, some dress differently, some take hormones, some get surgery, etc. but these people are all valid.
*It's okay to transition and then de-transition. These are just stepping stones to find your way.
*It's okay to be you!

Call this virtue signaling all you want, I don't care. This is a message some people really need to hear.


----------



## RogueNoodle (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Some people are trans in different ways, and that's okay!
> 
> For example:
> * It's okay to be a feminine trans guy and vice versa
> ...


I like your chill vibe right now. Keep that train going! While ya'll duke it out, imma post more trans positivity.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

RogueNoodle said:


> I like your chill vibe right now. Keep that train going! While ya'll duke it out, imma post more trans positivity.


Oh god, that sounds like hell. I can barely survive in 100* with minimal clothes on, let alone with layers and having your boobs pancake-ified.


----------



## Balskarr (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> hey i like watching furries duke it out over the internet, chill with the profanity before the mods lock this trans thread too


Oh? You too?! Glad to meet a kindred spirit in this mess.

All I have to say here is that the animosity from both sides make it real hard to sympathise with anyone who's doing the arguing.

Whilst I'm here though... Trans folk are valid! Keep the positivity going all who are bringing the positivity.


----------



## Eremurus (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> So you disagree with extending basic humans rights to trans people? Why is this such a hard concept for people?



So now we're just putting words into other people's mouths?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 29, 2020)

There is clearly an effort to derail this thread by starting pointless arguments. The people doing this know that their arguments are silly, but that's not the point. 
As Lightarrow pointed out- the point is to shut down any thread in which transgender issues are discussed, or to portray accepting attitudes towards transgender identity as being rooted in obnoxious politically correctness. 
I contributed towards helping them to this end, by incorrectly thinking I was helping somebody understand maths, when really the aim was to saturate the thread with an irrelevant discussion- so I'd like to apologise for being tricked into taking that bait. 

Towards the actual thread topic, I think the reception of this thread is really demonstrating the OP's point that- for reasons unfathomable- some users are very affronted by transgender identity being discussed. 

There's no reason that they need to go around the forum telling people to 'fuck off', calling people 'obnoxious', or to 'cry more'.
I want to say I respect those users who are trans being able to put up with this, even though nobody should expect to receive personal insults over the internet like this for any reason.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Nov 29, 2020)

Perhaps it's best for people to stop fighting and leave this thread alone so the people who are actually trans or support them can enjoy it with each other.

Not everything has to be a fight, and it generally just ends up making everything worse. It's always better to just leave.

Look at it like this: This is a small furry forum, on the internet, filled with people none of us will most likely never meet in person,  yet I see them spend entire holidays on here picking at each other.

Seriously, last Christmas there were dumpster fires. On Christmas. It's ridiculous.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Seriously, last Christmas there were dumpster fires.


what were they about? religion?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> what were they about? religion?


I completely forgot. It honestly could have been about anything.


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 29, 2020)

This forum was a mistake.


----------



## Mambi (Nov 29, 2020)

Tendo64 said:


> This forum was a mistake.


No just this thread apparently....the main forum's actually MUCH better and more friendly, I promise!


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

There is still hope for these forums if the mods kicked up their moderation, maybe add one or two new mods so that can be done without needing more time from the current ones? This sort of thing happens all the time and nothing much is done of it.


----------



## Troj (Nov 29, 2020)

Cis people who feel a reflexive need to always butt in with "whataboutery," fringe examples, hypotheticals, and strawmen because they just can't accept the basic existence, rights, and dignity of trans people are the real snowflakes.


----------



## ben909 (Nov 29, 2020)

WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUEING?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

ben909 said:


> WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUEING?


Amazing contribution


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 29, 2020)

Mambi said:


> No just this thread apparently....the main forum's actually MUCH better and more friendly, I promise!


Nah, I've been here for over three years. There's decent threads but a stupidly large amount turn into threads like this.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Amazing contribution


but its facts though, why are we still arguing when there's like 6 six threads exactly like this one where nothing progressive happens and do nothing but get people banned and make people leave


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> but its facts though, why are we still arguing when there's like 6 six threads exactly like this one where nothing progressive happens and do nothing but get people banned and make people leave


Because certain people can't fathom the idea of letting a trans positive thread exist peacefully without someone coming to dismiss trans fok


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Because certain people can't fathom the idea of letting a trans positive thread exist peacefully without someone coming to dismiss trans fok


it's being beaten to death already, there's been six trans threads already and nothing is changing, can we all just shut the fuck up about it already


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> it's being beaten to death already, there's been six trans threads already and nothing is changing, can we all just shut the fuck up about it already


Well, it would be nice if people just let there be a space to post trans positive stuff, wow, shocking concept, I know


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

Eremurus said:


> So now we're just putting words into other people's mouths?



You tell me.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> it's being beaten to death already, there's been six trans threads already and nothing is changing, can we all just shut the fuck up about it already



There’s also been about 6 threads probably about gay stuff. Can we just shut up about that? Wait, that’s bigoted? Huh, interesting...


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

Please stop trying to instigate.
Some people are communicating with different contexts.
Others are using generalizations or incredibly er... 'relaxed' wording (can't think of the word atm) but there's no need to go making enemies where there are none.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> There’s also been about 6 threads probably about gay stuff. Can we just shut up about that? Wait, that’s bigoted? Huh, interesting...


are you calling me a bigot??? my point to him was that the threads were being beaten to death and that there was no point in moving forward with these threads.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> are you calling me a bigot??? my point to him was that the threads were being beaten to death and that there was no point in moving forward with these threads.


Ah yes, blame the thread and not the people beating them to death


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> blame the thread


if you see repeating something over and over again is not working for you and nothing positive is coming out of it, maybe you should stop doing it? that's like playing something you don't like, getting your dander up over it, and continuing to play it.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> if you see repeating something over and over again is not working for you and nothing positive is coming out of it, maybe you should stop doing it? that's like playing something you don't like, getting your dander up over it, and continuing to play it.


Nah, it's more like playing a board game in the corner with friends and some stranger bodyslams the board sending pieces everywhere. Ok, I'll admit, I just made myself giggle there.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> are you calling me a bigot??? my point to him was that the threads were being beaten to death and that there was no point in moving forward with these threads.



I’m not calling you one, but peoples reaction to these threads tends to say a lot about them.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> I’m not calling you one, but peoples reaction to these threads tends to say a lot about them.


that's the weird thing about you people, if you think someone is racist/ableist/whatever the fuckist then just SAY IT. everyone here just beats around the bush and implies it.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> that's the weird thing about you people, if you think someone is racist/ableist/whatever the fuckist then just SAY IT. everyone here just beats around the bush and implies it.


Some people also beat around the bush and don't go around saying "Yeah, fuck trans people" but they certainly think it.


----------



## Eremurus (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> You tell me.


You lack reading comprehension. Please stop pestering me about this, unless of course, you'd like to demonstrate to the class; where and when I supposedly said or implied these hurtful things. 

I'll wait. Try not to prematurely jump the gun to grandstand. You look very silly & disconnected from reality.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

Also, I would like to say that my trans-related thread hasn't been beaten to death yet, suck it @pilgrimfromoblivion. 

This is not an invitation to go and be shitty there, I will beat you up ÒｗÓ


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> that's the weird thing about you people, if you think someone is racist/ableist/whatever the fuckist then just SAY IT. everyone here just beats around the bush and implies it.



But I don’t know. That’s why I asked you to tell me. Or maybe it was the other guy, idk lol. I’m pretty sure you are the one beating around the bush. I suppose we could do a litmus test. Do you support extending basic human rights to trans people? 



Eremurus said:


> You lack reading comprehension. Please stop pestering me about this, unless of course, you'd like to demonstrate to the class; where and when I supposedly said or implied these hurtful things.
> 
> I'll wait. Try not to prematurely jump the gun to grandstand. You look very silly & disconnected from reality.



Any time someone mentions reading comprehension, I immediately assume they’re 12.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

????


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Do you support extending basic human rights to trans people?


of course i do, i'm just tired of seeing everyone argue over nothing


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> argue over nothing


I would just like to take a moment to say that trans rights are not nothing (unless you didn't mean that of course) ;P

Also, tell that to the people coming to these threads to start arguments, not us.


----------



## Eremurus (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Any time someone mentions reading comprehension, I immediately assume they’re 12.



So you admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Thanks for the clarification, and well, perhaps next time you won't try being so dishonest.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

If you guys complain about how annoying we are and hate us so much, why do you gotta keep coming here and interacting with us? Genuine question.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> of course i do, i'm just tired of seeing everyone argue over nothing



You don’t have to click on the threads. That’s like complaining about too much pink glitter when you decided to visit JoAnns. 



Eremurus said:


> So you admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Thanks for the clarification, and well, perhaps next time you won't try being so dishonest.



Nope, I’m completely honest. Your personal attacks don’t stick and indicate loss of argument. Try again please.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> You don’t have to click on the threads. That’s like complaining about too much pink glitter when you decided to visit JoAnns.


Yes, exactly. Or complaining about how there is too much kitchenware and not enough video games at a kitchen supply store.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 29, 2020)

I'm off FAF for a day and immedieatly its turned unclean again. 

This site is amazing.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> I'm off FAF for a day and immedieatly its turned unclean again.
> 
> This site is amazing.


Time to make it wholesome


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Time to make it wholesome
> View attachment 95108



this is batman's trans cousin.


----------



## Eremurus (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Nope, I’m completely honest. Your personal attacks don’t stick and indicate loss of argument. Try again please.



You have not been able to address a single point I've made, and in fact, the statement you use to dismiss my argument is objectively false. It's like you don't understand the words and contexts of those words that are coming out of my mouth.

You're accusing me of ad hominum? Was this before or after you lambasted me as a transphobe, despite me asking you to find some sort of proof and indication I..even made such comments? The class is still waiting, LightArrow. 

Again, you are incredibly dishonest. It won't work against me. Have a good day.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> this is batman's trans cousin


Yuss


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> If you guys complain about how annoying we are and hate us so much, why do you gotta keep coming here and interacting with us? Genuine question.


I don't think they will answer but I will ask anyways ;3


----------



## soulbox (Nov 29, 2020)

Pokeball pronoun buttons!





						This item is unavailable - Etsy
					

Find the perfect handmade gift, vintage & on-trend clothes, unique jewelry, and more… lots more.




					www.etsy.com


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> View attachment 95110
> Pokeball pronoun buttons!
> 
> 
> ...


Hehe, noice! Might want one of those if I come out to my parents :3


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> You don’t have to click on the threads. That’s like complaining about too much pink glitter when you decided to visit JoAnns.


they fucking take over everything, these trans threads have been popping up for weeks now. you know another "positive trans thread" has been created when a bunch of people are suddenly duking it out with numbers and statistics and logic and telling each other to fuck off and the recent posts have been filled with nothing but acid and the forum games people are trying their hardest to drown you out. what the fuck do you call that, I'm curious.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> they fucking take over everything, these trans threads have been popping up for weeks now. you know another "positive trans thread" has been created when a bunch of people are suddenly duking it out with numbers and statistics and logic and telling each other to fuck off and the recent posts have been filled with nothing but acid and the forum games people are trying their hardest to drown you out. what the fuck do you call that, I'm curious.


Yeah, "taking over," there are only like one of these threads active at a time, and you still don't have to click it, read it, and then spend your time yelling. All we are trying to do is have a positive space, but people keeping coming back to wreck it with no consequences.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Yeah, "taking over," there are only like one of these threads active at a time, and you still don't have to click it, read it, and then spend your time yelling. All we are trying to do is have a positive space, but people keeping coming back to wreck it with no consequences.



Sometimes just ignoring the naysayers and not to jump over every stick held out by people is more productive than sending replies out to everyone. If people piss you off or are trying to derail your thread, report - ignore - block. 

Engage with those people that are positive.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> i'm not yelling. my point to you was stop making these threads. nothing good is coming of them. they keep getting locked for a reason. recent posts gets flooded with nothing but people stabbing each other with facts and logic and then the forum games people have to out-flood you. if you see the same people keep coming back for the 6th time in a row to derail the thread and get it locked, that's a message to stop making them. there is no safespace.


No, it's a message that these same people should receive a talking to from staff, no?


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> Sometimes just ignoring the naysayers and not to jump over every stick held out by people is more productive than sending replies out to everyone. If people piss you off or are trying to derail your thread, report - ignore - block.
> 
> Engage with those people that are positive.


All I'm saying is that if people keep coming to ruin your threads and make everything toxic, stop giving them opportunities to do so. But hey, that's you guys continuing on.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> All I'm saying is that if people keep coming to ruin your threads and make everything toxic, stop giving them opportunities to do so. But hey, that's you guys continuing on.


Victim blaming -_-


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> What part of STOP GIVING PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO MESS WITH YOU is victim blaming?





VeeStars said:


> No, it's a message that these same people should receive a talking to from staff, no?


Blame the people messing with us, not us.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> But if you see the mods aren't doing anything to stop them, take it upon yourself to stop people from messing with you


"my right to not have to read arguments is infringed by you wanting to be able to post trans shit!!!"


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

Eremurus said:


> You have not been able to address a single point I've made, and in fact, the statement you use to dismiss my argument is objectively false. It's like you don't understand the words and contexts of those words that are coming out of my mouth.
> 
> You're accusing me of ad hominum? Was this before or after you lambasted me as a transphobe, despite me asking you to find some sort of proof and indication I..even made such comments? The class is still waiting, LightArrow.
> 
> Again, you are incredibly dishonest. It won't work against me. Have a good day.



I’m not addressing your points because I’m not going to play your game. You refuse to explain yourself or your statements, plain and simple. We don’t know what you actually believe or think. My posts have been an invitation for you to clarify, but to refuse. 



pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> What part of STOP GIVING PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO MESS WITH YOU is victim blaming?



People are just posting threads about trans. If that’s all it takes to being in a bunch of personal attacks on trans people, we’ve discovered the problem, haven’t we?


----------



## RogueNoodle (Nov 29, 2020)

People have a right to make threads about whatever they please so long as it follows site rules, is respectful, and does not bring real harm to anyone. However, it is also up to site users (especially the OP) to interact politely and responsibly. There is nothing wrong with discussing data, research, or differing opinions. What _is_ wrong is the amount of anger and vitriol in this thread. Too much bait and too many people taking the bait (this goes for both sides). Want to discuss the topic of how to successfully debate your viewpoint on an internet forum about _cartoon animals_? Then we should probably make a new thread. 

How about we get back to the regularly scheduled trans positivity programing as per the intended topic of the thread?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

RogueNoodle said:


> People have a right to make threads about whatever they please so long as it follows site rules, is respectful, and does not bring real harm to anyone. However, it is also up to site users (especially the OP) to interact politely and responsibly. There is nothing wrong with discussing data, research, or differing opinions. What _is_ wrong is the amount of anger and vitriol in this thread. Too much bait and too many people taking the bait (this goes for both sides). Want to discuss the topic of how to successfully debate your viewpoint on an internet forum about _cartoon animals_? Then we should probably make a new thread.
> 
> How about we get back to the regularly scheduled trans positivity programing as per the intended topic of the thread?


How tf do I be as cute as this anime character, please help


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> How tf do I be as cute as this anime character, please help


Just do your makeup with copic markers, silly!


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Just do your makeup with copic markers, silly!


I've never done makeup in my life x.x


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I've never done makeup in my life x.x


I haven't either! (Don't actually use copics, those are markers artists use to make comics/mangas)
My mom tried giving me mascara but I have doubled eyelids so all I'm good at is getting black stuff all over every part that isn't my eyelashes.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> I haven't either! (Don't actually use copics, those are markers artists use to make comics/mangas)
> My mom tried giving me mascara but I have doubled eyelids so all I'm good at is getting black stuff all over every part that isn't my eyelashes.


My eyelashes are incredibly long though, so long it makes it hard for the optometrists to look at my eyes with their fancy machine. I'm AMAB x3


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> My eyelashes are incredibly long though, so long it makes it hard for the optometrists to look at my eyes with their fancy machine. I'm AMAB x3



)8< I think it's weird how all the girls are wearing fake lashes because it's the stereotype, BUT ALL THESE DUDES HAVE THE LONG LASHES
AND THEY JUST DONT WANNA SHARE


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> )8< I think it's weird how all the girls are wearing fake lashes because it's the stereotype, BUT ALL THESE DUDES HAVE THE LONG LASHES
> AND THEY JUST DONT WANNA SHARE


As a lady I am keeping them >8(


----------



## MrSpookyBoots (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> What part of STOP GIVING PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO MESS WITH YOU is victim blaming?





pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> but its facts though, why are we still arguing when there's like 6 six threads exactly like this one where nothing progressive happens and do nothing but get people banned and make people leave



There _is _a degree of responsibility on everyone's part.

Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's heads saying "Oh, you *HAVE *to respond to this thread." Some who are debating the topic seriously aren't the ones I'm talking about specifically, however, if people don't like the topic or the way it's going, the best option would be to not say anything at all and just walk away. I do this with several threads that I feel are too touchy for my liking, yet this is something that people around my age on this board still have yet to grasp, for whatever reason. I'm almost 30. People need to grow up. For those who feel a need to complain about it, there are some options:

Unpopular opinions are for the unpopular opinions thread.

Bitching, pissing and moaning is for the Vent Thread.

If people don't like the fact that these topics exist, they can stick their input in either of those threads...at their own risk.


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> As a lady I am keeping them >8(


I doubt they would have matched my color anyway. Humph! UnU


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> I doubt they would have matched my color anyway. Humph! UnU


They are AT LEAST a centimeter long


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> They are AT LEAST a centimeter long



WWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW way to flex on everyone!!! 
Mine are probably close to that...th-they just curl up so... T_T


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

MrSpooky said:


> Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's heads saying "Oh, you *HAVE *to respond to this thread." If people don't like the topic or the way it's going, the best option would be to not say anything at all and just walk away.


you're not listening to me. at all. no one is. what part of the threads fill up recent posts with nothing but toxicity and anger and everyone else has to work together TO DROWN YOU OUT are you not getting?  Do i have to clap my hands while i type it out?


MrSpooky said:


> Unpopular opinions are for the unpopular opinions thread.
> 
> Bitching, pissing and moaning is for the Vent Thread.
> 
> If people don't like the fact that these topics exist, they can stick their input in either of those threads...at their own risk.


I dunno why you bothered posting these at all, you and i both know these are not viable alternatives to discuss any of these topics AT ALL.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> WWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW way to flex on everyone!!!
> Mine are probably close to that...th-they just curl up so... T_T


Oh and very thick, they totally look like I got them done somehow, but I haven't, that's just how they are >:3


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> you're not listening to me. at all. no one is. what part of the threads fill up recent posts with nothing but toxicity and anger and everyone else has to work together TO DROWN YOU OUT are you not getting? Do i have to clap my hands while i type it out?


No, literally no one is working together to "drown us out." And you don't have to click every thread on recent posts, you can just ignore them, and block us. Why are you even arguing this??


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Oh and very thick, they totally look like I got them done somehow, but I haven't, that's just how they are >:3


Curse you and your flawless eyelashes!!!


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Curse you and your flawless eyelashes!!!


IDK, I've been spoiled, I've never really thought of them x3

*gives you one singular eyelash*


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> No, literally no one is working together to "drown us out."


Yes, they are. Go ask the people in forum games what they were doing in the LAST THREAD like this one before it got locked. hell, ask @ben909  he was there. 


VeeStars said:


> And you don't have to click every thread on recent posts, you can just ignore them, and block us.


They fill up everything in recent posts, and once one gets locked after two people leave the sites and other people get banned, ANOTHER ONE pops right back up.


VeeStars said:


> Why are you even arguing this??


I'm arguing this because I'm tired of you people slinging shit at each other, it's been going on for weeks now. *THE DRAMA BULLSHIT INFECTS OTHER THREADS TOO*. What do you think I'm arguing for? Just for fun? Do you think I get off on this?


----------



## MrSpookyBoots (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> you're not listening to me. at all. no one is. what part of the threads fill up recent posts with nothing but toxicity and anger and everyone else has to work together TO DROWN YOU OUT are you not getting?  Do i have to clap my hands while i type it out?


If your posts aren't changing anything, then why are you bothering? My main point is that the ones who don't like the topic can get lost and do their own thing. Unfortunately, that can't really be controlled by other people _outside of the Moderation team. _Best thing to do in their absence, if it makes someone heated or troll-like, is to YES, ignore them, but again...the responsibility goes both ways.

If someone doesn't like a topic or the way it's going, people can, AGAIN, walk away.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> Yes, they are. Go ask the people in forum games what they were doing in the LAST THREAD like this one before it got locked. hell, ask @ben909  he was there.
> 
> They fill up everything in recent posts, and once one gets locked after two people leave the sites and other people get banned, ANOTHER ONE pops right back up.
> 
> I'm arguing this because I'm tired of you people slinging shit at each other, it's been going on for weeks now. *THE DRAMA BULLSHIT INFECTS OTHER THREADS TOO*. What do you think I'm arguing for? Just for fun? Do you think I get off on this?


The original point was literally for trans positivity created by an actual trans person, but people had to keep being asses and mods didn't do much. If you really don't want to see this, the block button is a feature that has always existed.


----------



## ben909 (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> Yes, they are. Go ask the people in forum games what they were doing in the LAST THREAD like this one before it got locked. hell, ask @ben909  he was there.


... i have been summoned into a thread i left... ...


if you are asking what happened it seemed like every thread went silent except for me and a small few others that tried to make lpw have the top spot in what's new over the combat thread...


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

You know what, you're right. I said what I said and I stand by it. GG or whatever the fuck, i no longer care. i'm blocking you both.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> You know what, you're right. I said what I said and I stand by it. GG or whatever the fuck, i no longer care. i'm blocking you both.


Cool, you're kind of annoying, anyways. Have a nice day.


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> IDK, I've been spoiled, I've never really thought of them x3
> 
> *gives you one singular eyelash*





Spoiler


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95122


...did you draw that???


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> ...did you draw that???



It was a quick scribble yes. XD


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> It was a quick scribble yes. XD


I may have the eyelashes but you have actual talent... ;w;

edit: that drawing gives me massive jojo vibes


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I may have the eyelashes but you have actual talent... ;w;
> 
> edit: that drawing gives me massive jojo vibes



 Awww. XD Well thank you!
At first I was gonna draw something creepy and unsettling, but I figured you'd appreciate this rendition a little more.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Awww. XD Well thank you!
> At first I was gonna draw something creepy and unsettling, but I figured you'd appreciate this rendition a little more.


Ah, I get it now, it looks like Cars from Jojo!!!! (you know, the sexy pillarman)


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Ah, I get it now, it looks like Cars from Jojo!!!! (you know, the sexy pillarman)


Of course! I am very knowledgeable of the hit TV series you call...
*Looks down at hand*
_Jube-Jubes. _


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Of course! I am very knowledgeable of the hit TV series you call...
> *Looks down at hand*
> _Jube-Jubes. _


Yes, jube jubes


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

I'm starting to accept more and more each day that I am actually genderfluid. Genderfluid falls under the trans umbrella so I can revel in the glorious pride x3


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> Isn't genderfluidity basically trans on demand?


Genderfluidity is like a TV but the remote is busted and switches channels every once in a while with no input

Edit: I wouldn't think of it as on-demand, because I don't have that much control over it, I'm just here for the ride xP


----------



## RogueNoodle (Nov 29, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Genderfluidity is like a TV but the remote is busted and switches channels every once in a while with no input
> 
> Edit: I wouldn't think of it as on-demand, because I don't have that much control over it, I'm just here for the ride xP


A good friend of mine from high school is genderfluid. The longer they explored their identity, the happier they were. We eventually lost touch once I graduated but last we saw each other, I could tell they were the happiest they had ever been. Literally cutting their hair a certain way was enough to start getting the ball rolling for them in terms of getting comfortable with their body. It was really nice to watch. I wish you the best!


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

RogueNoodle said:


> A good friend of mine from high school is genderfluid. The longer they explored their identity, the happier they were. We eventually lost touch once I graduated but last we saw each other, I could tell they were the happiest they had ever been. Literally cutting their hair a certain way was enough to start getting the ball rolling for them in terms of getting comfortable with their body. It was really nice to watch. I wish you the best!


hehe


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 29, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> Yes, they are. Go ask the people in forum games what they were doing in the LAST THREAD like this one before it got locked. hell, ask @ben909  he was there.
> 
> They fill up everything in recent posts, and once one gets locked after two people leave the sites and other people get banned, ANOTHER ONE pops right back up.
> 
> I'm arguing this because I'm tired of you people slinging shit at each other, it's been going on for weeks now. *THE DRAMA BULLSHIT INFECTS OTHER THREADS TOO*. What do you think I'm arguing for? Just for fun? Do you think I get off on this?



You’re stirring up an awful lot of drama for someone complaining about too much drama.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> You’re stirring up an awful lot of drama for someone complaining about too much drama.


^


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Nov 29, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> You’re stirring up an awful lot of drama for someone complaining about too much drama.


cool


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> Isn't genderfluidity basically trans on demand?


Certainly not. I have no control over my gender. It changes on its own, and at random intervals.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

Tendo64 said:


> Certainly not. I have no control over my gender. It changes on its own, and at random intervals.


^ This.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Nov 30, 2020)

Tendo64 said:


> Certainly not. I have no control over my gender. It changes on its own, and at random intervals.


Wouldn't that be similar to something like DID?


----------



## soulbox (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> Wouldn't that be similar to something like DID?


Not at all. DID is... a whole other thing, not related to gender at all.

The way I experienced my genderfluidity when I identified as it was basically feeling masculine some days, and feminine the other, and other days feeling neither.


----------



## ☆Crow☆ (Nov 30, 2020)

As someome with DID, I can confirm that DID has no correlation with gender whatsoever! It would be more like, PTSD but really intense and some extra symptoms that can make life a lot more interesting!

But it has no relation to gender. Me being nonbinary and me having DID and alters are not correlated.


----------



## BayoDino (Nov 30, 2020)

Things are going off-topic.


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 30, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> Not at all. DID is... a whole other thing, not related to gender at all.
> 
> The way I experienced my genderfluidity when I identified as it was basically feeling masculine some days, and feminine the other, and other days feeling neither.


And in my case, I feel like neither most of the time but feel feminine occasionally.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> Wouldn't that be similar to something like DID?


No-no-no-no. I am still the same person with the same thoughts and emotions and humanity, and I still act somewhat feminine. Just that sometimes I feel like a feminine guy and sometimes I feel like an actual woman. ^^



BayoDino said:


> Things are going off-topic.


Not really. GF issues are trans-issues after all, and having more people understand gender-fluidity is important for GF folks like myself and Tendo.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)




----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Nov 30, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> Not at all. DID is... a whole other thing, not related to gender at all.
> 
> The way I experienced my genderfluidity when I identified as it was basically feeling masculine some days, and feminine the other, and other days feeling neither.





VeeStars said:


> No-no-no-no. I am still the same person with the same thoughts and emotions and humanity, and I still act somewhat feminine. Just that sometimes I feel like a feminine guy and sometimes I feel like an actual woman. ^^


What if these, feelings, are just forms of overthinking about oneself because of a chemical imbalance, like, maybe it is similar to DID, or maybe even a combination of OCD and body dysmorphia, in some way, in the sense that it's like a sudden switch, and you have these sort of personality intervals changing throughout the day with obsessive compulsive thoughts about who you are and try to reassure that? It's not easy to comprehend that gender identity is possibly a mental disorder that needs to be treated so the patient doesn't hurt themselves further by doing all these different drastic things to their body to make them happy but still end up unhappy about themselves because many times, the lengths that are gone through are still never enough for the person to feel fully happy. I'm not saying rules by society aren't contributing, but I've met a lot of trans and genderfluid people who say things that are stunningly similar to that of someone with a DID-related disorder and/or OCD tendencies, and often contradict their goals for being happy with themselves because of their minds playing tricks, and especially with genderfluid folks, is in a constant state of being convinced of changing genders throughout certain periods of time, and so do the rules about themselves to follow in their minds.


I do personally believe that trans and genderfluidity are mental disorders, however, those who are on the spectrum should try to be better understood both academically and socially, and should not be mistreated, and those who are not on the spectrum but see things from the outside, have ideas and personal experiences with these patients that should be taken into consideration by science as well.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> What if these, feelings, are just forms of overthinking about oneself because of a chemical imbalance, like, maybe it is similar to DID, or maybe even a combination of OCD and body dysmorphia, in some way, in the sense that it's like a sudden switch, and you have these sort of personality intervals changing throughout the day with obsessive compulsive thoughts about who you are and try to reassure that? It's not easy to comprehend that gender identity is possibly a mental disorder that needs to be treated so the patient doesn't hurt themselves further by doing all these different drastic things to their body to make them happy but still end up unhappy about themselves because many times, the lengths that are gone through are still never enough for the person to feel fully happy. I'm not saying rules by society aren't contributing, but I've met a lot of trans and genderfluid people who say things that are stunningly similar to that of someone with a DID-related disorder and/or OCD tendencies, and often contradict their goals for being happy with themselves because of their minds playing tricks, and especially with genderfluid folks, is in a constant state of being convinced of changing genders throughout certain periods of time, and so do the rules about themselves to follow in their minds.
> 
> 
> I do personally believe that trans and genderfluidity are mental disorders, however, those who are on the spectrum should try to be better understood both academically and socially, and should not be mistreated, and those who are not on the spectrum but see things from the outside, have ideas and personal experiences with these patients that should be taken into consideration by science as well.


I'm confused. Can you explain this better?


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I'm confused. Can you explain this better?


I'm trying to think about how to simplify what I meant, but I have literally no energy atm, perhaps someone else can weigh in and help?


----------



## mangomango (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> What if these, feelings, are just forms of overthinking about oneself because of a chemical imbalance, like, maybe it is similar to DID, or maybe even a combination of OCD and body dysmorphia, in some way, in the sense that it's like a sudden switch, and you have these sort of personality intervals changing throughout the day with obsessive compulsive thoughts about who you are and try to reassure that? It's not easy to comprehend that gender identity is possibly a mental disorder that needs to be treated so the patient doesn't hurt themselves further by doing all these different drastic things to their body to make them happy but still end up unhappy about themselves because many times, the lengths that are gone through are still never enough for the person to feel fully happy. I'm not saying rules by society aren't contributing, but I've met a lot of trans and genderfluid people who say things that are stunningly similar to that of someone with a DID-related disorder and/or OCD tendencies, and often contradict their goals for being happy with themselves because of their minds playing tricks, and especially with genderfluid folks, is in a constant state of being convinced of changing genders throughout certain periods of time, and so do the rules about themselves to follow in their minds.
> 
> 
> I do personally believe that trans and genderfluidity are mental disorders, however, those who are on the spectrum should try to be better understood both academically and socially, and should not be mistreated, and those who are not on the spectrum but see things from the outside, have ideas and personal experiences with these patients that should be taken into consideration by science as well.


If you are able to provide reasonable and recent peer reviewed research or academic journals on the subject, I would feel more inclined to entertain the viewpoint, but, much of the argument leans on assumptions from observations you have made, which do not represent the trans community as a whole. As someone outside the spectrum, and (I assume without experience with gender studies or psychology) it may be difficult for you to understand trans/ genderfluid identities as well as someone who has experienced it. In short, trans/genderfluid identities are based in many aspects of biology, similar to binary and cisgender identities. It's a combination of mental and physical science, but I would not describe the variety of genders possible as a mental disorder. I definitely encourage you to look more into the science and form an opinion based off of research!

A good article to check out : http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

mangomango said:


> If you are able to provide reasonable and recent peer reviewed research or academic journals on the subject, I would feel more inclined to entertain the viewpoint, but, much of the argument leans on assumptions from observations you have made, which do not represent the trans community as a whole. As someone outside the spectrum, and (I assume without experience with gender studies or psychology) it may be difficult for you to understand trans/ genderfluid identities as well as someone who has experienced it. In short, trans/genderfluid identities are based in many aspects of biology, similar to binary and cisgender identities. It's a combination of mental and physical science, but I would not describe the variety of genders possible as a mental disorder.
> 
> A good article to check out : http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/


Ah, you actually said something, ignore my last posts, it's too early...


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I don't have DID or OCD and if I did it would have probably been picked up by the few therapists I have been to. So?


I've been through so many therapists 6+ who've never properly assessed me, they would just ask questions every visit. In one office, about 9 years ago maybe, I was once given Abilify for anxiety and panic attacks, yeah, I know. These psych people are not always going to properly assess you, if at all, and a big part of it is communication. Therapists especially, are just there to give tools to help cope with symptoms, but they are not specialists or there to diagnose, and sometimes they don't have the right tools or answers for complicated disorders.

I will say this, I feel like the mental health industry in many places is lacking in how they are treating patients, because visiting a psych office is very much like essentially renting a place to sit for 20-60 minutes and some words, and you keep going there only to wonder if these people are here to actually help, because you never stop going realizing that you are merely a customer to a business, and what incentive is there to make people better if they would just stop visiting? Maybe some things are not fully understood in mental health, or is lacking because the money-making machine compromised the mental health industry, and doesn't allow for potentially affective treatments outside the hands of large corporations that are afraid to lose money, as well as sociopolitical stuff getting involved about how whether certain issues being seen as disorders or not, etc. That's a different topic I won't get into, because it's beyond my scope of discussion.

What I really want to say, is to think outside the box.


----------



## BayoDino (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Not really. GF issues are trans-issues after all, and having more people understand gender-fluidity is important for GF folks like myself and Tendo.


I guess I misunderstood it, I myself am GF so eh...


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

BayoDino said:


> I guess I misunderstood it, I myself am GF so eh...


Ah, I didn't know that! :3


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> And no, being transgender should not be seen as a disorder, just as being cis isn't..


It's a given that cis isn't because it is the default position at birth for someone who doesn't face the issue of gender identity, with transgenderism/fluidity you are getting into the topic of dysphoria, that is why the subject of disorder comes up, so there is no juxtaposition really.

I have my own opinions on it, so I will take a step back from this thread.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> It's a given that cis isn't because it is the default position at birth for someone who doesn't face the issue of gender identity, with transgenderism/fluidity you are getting into the topic of dysphoria, that is why the subject of disorder comes up, so there is no juxtaposition really.
> 
> I have my own opinions on it, so I will take a step back from this thread.


I just wanna say a few things.

Being transgender is not and should never be considered a mental illness.
Please don't call it "transgenderism," being trans is not an ideology just as much as being cis or straight or gay isn't.
We should encourage transitioning and sex reassignment surgery because it's very helpful to the mental health of trans people.
edit: imma leave it there, Im too tired to counter anything


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> What if these, feelings, are just forms of overthinking about oneself because of a chemical imbalance, like, maybe it is similar to DID, or maybe even a combination of OCD and body dysmorphia, in some way, in the sense that it's like a sudden switch, and you have these sort of personality intervals changing throughout the day with obsessive compulsive thoughts about who you are and try to reassure that? It's not easy to comprehend that gender identity is possibly a mental disorder that needs to be treated so the patient doesn't hurt themselves further by doing all these different drastic things to their body to make them happy but still end up unhappy about themselves because many times, the lengths that are gone through are still never enough for the person to feel fully happy. I'm not saying rules by society aren't contributing, but I've met a lot of trans and genderfluid people who say things that are stunningly similar to that of someone with a DID-related disorder and/or OCD tendencies, and often contradict their goals for being happy with themselves because of their minds playing tricks, and especially with genderfluid folks, is in a constant state of being convinced of changing genders throughout certain periods of time, and so do the rules about themselves to follow in their minds.
> 
> 
> I do personally believe that trans and genderfluidity are mental disorders, however, those who are on the spectrum should try to be better understood both academically and socially, and should not be mistreated, and those who are not on the spectrum but see things from the outside, have ideas and personal experiences with these patients that should be taken into consideration by science as well.


By far the most effective method of treatment for trans people is transitioning. There is no cure for gender dysphoria, and also trans people experience a lot of harassment, which is why they continue to have low self-esteem. If you are suggesting trans people be encouraged to "accept their birth sex," what you are suggesting is conversion therapy, which is extremely harmful to trans people just like it is to gay, bi, etc. people. 


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/09/11/conversion-therapy-associated-with-severe-psychological-distress-transgender-people-study-says/
		

You cannot change your gender. Trans people are born with their gender not matching their sex. This includes anyone on the non-binary spectrum. You can't turn somebody cis or make them comfortable with their birth gender. That's not how it works.



Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> I've been through so many therapists 6+ who've never properly assessed me, they would just ask questions every visit. In one office, about 9 years ago maybe, I was once given Abilify for anxiety and panic attacks, yeah, I know. These psych people are not always going to properly assess you, if at all, and a big part of it is communication. Therapists especially, are just there to give tools to help cope with symptoms, but they are not specialists or there to diagnose, and sometimes they don't have the right tools or answers for complicated disorders.
> 
> I will say this, I feel like the mental health industry in many places is lacking in how they are treating patients, because visiting a psych office is very much like essentially renting a place to sit for 20-60 minutes and some words, and you keep going there only to wonder if these people are here to actually help, because you never stop going realizing that you are merely a customer to a business, and what incentive is there to make people better if they would just stop visiting? Maybe some things are not fully understood in mental health, or is lacking because the money-making machine compromised the mental health industry, and doesn't allow for potentially affective treatments outside the hands of large corporations that are afraid to lose money, as well as sociopolitical stuff getting involved about how whether certain issues being seen as disorders or not, etc. That's a different topic I won't get into, because it's beyond my scope of discussion.
> 
> What I really want to say, is to think outside the box.


Are you implying you, someone who thinks genderfluidity is a type of DID, knows more about transgender people than mental health professionals? You think people are trying to turn people trans for money? Every trans person I've ever talked to has stated they feel happier after transitioning. And I've talked to hundreds, as someone who is active in the art community where there are lots of them.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

No one is making anyone trans. The discrimination that our trans friends here face is so harsh, so clearly it isn't a choice either, because nobody would choose to be trans. What is your argument here, lupus? I genuinely want to know.


----------



## Balskarr (Nov 30, 2020)

_The horde has found another victim..._


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Nov 30, 2020)

I didn't use "transgenderism" in the ideological sense, but the phenomena itself. Context literally got thrown out the window...

I see there is no conversation to be made here, and this isn't my place to speak, especially when there's rampant strawmans, hyperboles, and false equivalencies, and next comes accusations, which is why I'm leaving now.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

I gtg to school now, can't argue, byeeeeeee


----------



## Mambi (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> I didn't use "transgenderism" in the ideological sense, but the phenomena itself. Context literally got thrown out the window...
> 
> I see there is no conversation to be made here, and this isn't my place to speak, especially when there's rampant strawmans, hyperboles, and false equivalencies, and next comes accusations, which is why I'm leaving now.



_<looks around at the flames in the distance form the last "discussion"> _Yeeeah, probably safer that way...


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

Still don't use 'transgenderism,' no one uses 'cisgenderism.'


----------



## Balskarr (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> I didn't use "transgenderism" in the ideological sense, but the phenomena itself. Context literally got thrown out the window...
> 
> I see there is no conversation to be made here, and this isn't my place to speak, especially when there's rampant strawmans, hyperboles, and false equivalencies, and next comes accusations, which is why I'm leaving now.


You're wiser than most. Take care traveller.


----------



## mangomango (Nov 30, 2020)

Bringing the conversation back to something positive...

trans dragon


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 30, 2020)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> I didn't use "transgenderism" in the ideological sense, but the phenomena itself. Context literally got thrown out the window...
> 
> I see there is no conversation to be made here, and this isn't my place to speak, especially when there's rampant strawmans, hyperboles, and false equivalencies, and next comes accusations, which is why I'm leaving now.


Please do. You are clearly very uneducated and don't need to be having this conversation.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

mangomango said:


> Bringing the conversation back to something positive...
> 
> trans dragon


That is wonderful. I like that, a lot.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 30, 2020)

@luffy @Flamingo @Dragoneer 
I'm kind of sick and tired of this thread becoming a dumpster fire every ****ing day. Could you give a couple of people a talking to? Thanks.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 30, 2020)

zerotwo said:


> Not at all. DID is... a whole other thing, not related to gender at all.
> 
> The way I experienced my genderfluidity when I identified as it was basically feeling masculine some days, and feminine the other, and other days feeling neither.



Is that the thing that upsets a bunch of people, where they accuse trans people of swapping their genders every day and somehow reducing it to meaninglessness?


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> Is that the thing that upsets a bunch of people, where they accuse trans people of swapping their genders every day and somehow reducing it to meaninglessness?


Yeah, people accuse all trans people of that sometimes, even though that's genderfluid and eve though there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 30, 2020)

I believe there's a lot of confusion surrounding what is a mental illness and what isn't.

Dysphoria, as of right now, IS a mental illness. It affects people's mental health and causes symptoms akin to depression, anxiety and the like.
However, being transgender is NOT a mental illness. I'd go as far as to say the process of transitioning is a treatment for dysphoria, as that way, people can feel more like the gender they feel they should have.

It is quite sad to see this thread continue in the way it does. I wake up every day to see something being fought about for...little to no reason, as I see. Not a clue as to why this topic is getting such contention.

It's a simple title making a simple point.
Why we need to argue any of the following:
Whether being transgender is a mental illness or not (spoiler alert, it isn't)
To what extent trans people receive unfair treatment (spoiler alert, point is they do receive unfair treatment, regardless of how it's measured)
Whether they deserve attention because of their commonality (spoiler alert, they do, regardless of how much of a minority they are.

And many more besides is beyond me. It's like watching children fight over a dump truck in a sandbox. Absolutely pointless endeavour.

Perhaps we should stop with the arguing? Already about 20 dumpster fires too late, but hey, surprise me.


----------



## luffy (Nov 30, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> @luffy @Flamingo @Dragoneer
> I'm kind of sick and tired of this thread becoming a dumpster fire every ****ing day. Could you give a couple of people a talking to? Thanks.


We'll need to have specific posts reported.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 30, 2020)

luffy said:


> We'll need to have specific posts reported.


That's a fair request. Thank you.
I'll make the reports on them


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 30, 2020)

Honestly! The way this thread was framed and the way people acted, you can't really blame those who jumped in for assuming that this thread was supposed to be a general discussion on trans issues. The people who got hounded here came with honest intent to discuss the matter this thread seemed to be about, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them bringing up nuances and viewpoints you don't like (which, under closer examination, aren't really transphobic). Them sometimes doing that in a clumsy way isn't exactly a crime either.

You can't just misrepresent past events, bring up grievances against other users (and even mods), bring up very serious, complex and definitely non-positive topics; and then suddenly decide that this thread is supposed to be about "positivity and validation".

There already is a trans thread that's focused exclusively on positivity and validation, and it's running along just fine. The thread is right here:
https://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/coming-out-message-to-trans-lgbt-friendos.1671360/
Do you know why that thread is running just fine? It's because it was properly framed as being about positivity and validation, and has been honestly run as such. *This* *thread *is a different story.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Honestly! The way this thread was framed and the way people acted, you can't really blame those who jumped in for assuming that this thread was supposed to be a general discussion on trans issues. The people who got hounded here came with honest intent to discuss the matter this thread seemed to be about, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them bringing up nuances and viewpoints you don't like (which, under closer examination, aren't really transphobic). Them sometimes doing that in a clumsy way isn't exactly a crime either.
> 
> You can't just misrepresent past events, bring up grievances against other users (and even mods), bring up very serious, complex and definitely non-positive topics; and then suddenly decide that this thread is supposed to be about "positivity and validation".
> 
> ...


Now that you've linked my thread it's going to be brutally stabbed and killed. I can sense it. .w.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Honestly! The way this thread was framed and the way people acted, you can't really blame those who jumped in for assuming that this thread was supposed to be a general discussion on trans issues. The people who got hounded here came with honest intent to discuss the matter this thread seemed to be about, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them bringing up nuances and viewpoints you don't like (which, under closer examination, aren't really transphobic). Them sometimes doing that in a clumsy way isn't exactly a crime either.
> 
> You can't just misrepresent past events, bring up grievances against other users (and even mods), bring up very serious, complex and definitely non-positive topics; and then suddenly decide that this thread is supposed to be about "positivity and validation".
> 
> ...


None of us have brought up past events or non-positive stuff. We genuinely want to support trans people, which was the point of the original thread (that was brutally murdered), but people come in and make degrading jokes, complain trans people are entitled, claim being trans is a mental disorder, etc. How do you explain that, huh? Also, my thread was not really made for discussion like this thread, it was made for me to come out.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Now that you've linked my thread it's going to be brutally stabbed and killed. I can sense it. .w.


We shall see. I hope not ...
It's been running fine for a while now though, so that's reason for optimism, isn't it? At the very least, the reports will be justified *there*.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> We shall see. I hope not ...
> It's been running fine for a while now though, so that's reason for optimism, isn't it? At the very least, the reports will be justified *there*.


Like I said, it was made for coming out, not for general discussion, really.


----------



## Tendo64 (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Honestly! The way this thread was framed and the way people acted, you can't really blame those who jumped in for assuming that this thread was supposed to be a general discussion on trans issues. The people who got hounded here came with honest intent to discuss the matter this thread seemed to be about, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them bringing up nuances and viewpoints you don't like (which, under closer examination, aren't really transphobic). Them sometimes doing that in a clumsy way isn't exactly a crime either.
> 
> You can't just misrepresent past events, bring up grievances against other users (and even mods), bring up very serious, complex and definitely non-positive topics; and then suddenly decide that this thread is supposed to be about "positivity and validation".
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as a thread where it's appropriate to debate trans issues. There is no debate. Trans rights are human rights. Period.

This thread was not made for positivity, that is correct. But this thread WAS made to address the problems people have been causing and trying to encourage the mods to take action. It says so on the first post.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> None of us have brought up past events or non-positive stuff. We genuinely want to support trans people, which was the point of the original thread (that was brutally murdered), but people come in and make degrading jokes, complain trans people are entitled, claim being trans is a mental disorder, etc. How do you explain that, huh? Also, my thread was not really made for discussion like this thread, it was made for me to come out.


The stupid joke got dealt with pretty quickly. The reason it got derailed so bad was because people were extremely eager to pick fights with a certain individual who didn't really say anything bad.
The rest of the derailments happened because people were obsessed with bringing up old fights.



VeeStars said:


> Like I said, it was made for coming out, not for general discussion, really.


Also seems like a thread for general trans-positivity, and that's what it has been about.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> The rest of the derailments happened because people were obsessed with bringing up old fights.


Actually, no. Was @Lupus Et Revertetur comparing being trans to OCD and DID us bringing up old fights? You make no sense, honsetly.


----------



## mangomango (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Honestly! The way this thread was framed and the way people acted, you can't really blame those who jumped in for assuming that this thread was supposed to be a general discussion on trans issues. The people who got hounded here came with honest intent to discuss the matter this thread seemed to be about, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them bringing up nuances and viewpoints you don't like (which, under closer examination, aren't really transphobic). Them sometimes doing that in a clumsy way isn't exactly a crime either.
> 
> You can't just misrepresent past events, bring up grievances against other users (and even mods), bring up very serious, complex and definitely non-positive topics; and then suddenly decide that this thread is supposed to be about "positivity and validation".
> 
> ...


I feel like there shouldn't be one thread for positivity only, and a thread for debating the validity of trans identities. We should try to be accepting regardless of the thread.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 30, 2020)

Tendo64 said:


> There is no such thing as a thread where it's appropriate to debate trans issues. There is no debate. Trans rights are human rights. Period.


There are nuances to this topic, and there's nothing wrong with discussing those nuances. I'm pretty certain that literally everyone here thinks that trans people shouldn't be harassed or mistreated for being trans.



Tendo64 said:


> This thread was not made for positivity, that is correct. But this thread WAS made to address the problems people have been causing and trying to encourage the mods to take action. It says so on the first post.


The mods have already addressed the problems. Quite a few people disagree with your opinions on what the problems are. Also, I suspect you are giving a pass to the person who actually started derailing this into a more general discussion ... not that it matters, I already explained how things got to the point they did.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

@mangomango made a separate pride thread. If you are tired of arguments and just want positivity, go there. Now no one can complain.


----------



## mangomango (Nov 30, 2020)

https://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/lgbtq-positivity-thread-w.1671530/#post-6906971
		


Here's the link if anyone wants to come over and say hi! ^^


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 30, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Actually, no. Was @Lupus Et Revertetur comparing being trans to OCD and DID us bringing up old fights? You make no sense, honsetly.


That was not you bringing up old fights, and that was not derailment. This is not what I was talking about here. I was mostly talking about what happened at the beginning here, and in the other two threads.



mangomango said:


> I feel like there shouldn't be one thread for positivity only, and a thread for debating the validity of trans identities. We should try to be accepting regardless of the thread.


Feel free to create as many threads for positivity as you need! However, if a thread comes across as being a discussion on the nuances of trans topics, don't be surprised when people treat it as such, and don't be surprised when people express viewpoints that you might not agree with. Also, I recommend not being so quick in interpreting those viewpoints in the worst light possible.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

Well for the sake of my mental health I will be in the other thread. Cya.


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 30, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> I believe there's a lot of confusion surrounding what is a mental illness and what isn't.
> 
> Dysphoria, as of right now, IS a mental illness. It affects people's mental health and causes symptoms akin to depression, anxiety and the like.
> However, being transgender is NOT a mental illness. I'd go as far as to say the process of transitioning is a treatment for dysphoria, as that way, people can feel more like the gender they feel they should have.
> ...



It’s an interesting conversation. Interesting conversations are rarely just a bunch of memes and positivity posts. In the real world trans people are subjected to all manner of discriminations. We should learn how to counter that.


----------



## KD142000 (Nov 30, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> It’s an interesting conversation. Interesting conversations are rarely just a bunch of memes and positivity posts. In the real world trans people are subjected to all manner of discriminations. We should learn how to counter that.


Isn't that literally the point of the latter half of my post?


----------



## mangomango (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> That was not you bringing up old fights, and that was not derailment. This is not what I was talking about here. I was mostly talking about what happened at the beginning here, and in the other two threads.
> 
> 
> Feel free to create as many threads for positivity as you need! However, if a thread comes across as being a discussion on the nuances of trans topics, don't be surprised when people treat it as such, and don't be surprised when people express viewpoints that you might not agree with. Also, I recommend not being so quick in interpreting those viewpoints in the worst light possible.


I can see some of the points you were making, but at the same time I feel that discussion could take place more healthily, as these discussions often end in one party giving up.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Nov 30, 2020)

mangomango said:


> I can see some of the points you were making, but at the same time I feel that discussion could take place more healthily, as these discussions often end in one party giving up.


Yes! They often could. People are flawed, and miscommunications happen all the time. Let's hope things slowly improve ...


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 30, 2020)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Yes! They often could. People are flawed, and miscommunications happen all the time. Let's hope things slowly improve ...



The main problem with forums is that they attract people who want to cause trouble and get their jimmies all rustled from riling people up. Not to mention I’m pretty sure there’s a large amount of people who join furries for no other reason than to poke at them.


----------



## Punji (Nov 30, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> The main problem with forums is that they attract people who want to cause trouble and get their jimmies all rustled from riling people up. Not to mention I’m pretty sure there’s a large amount of people who join furries for no other reason than to poke at them.


Well you're here. Either you fall into one of the former categories or like the rest of us we're just furries who want to chat on a forum. 

Don't look for enemies!


----------



## LightArrow (Nov 30, 2020)

Punji said:


> Well you're here. Either you fall into one of the former categories or like the rest of us we're just furries who want to chat on a forum.
> 
> Don't look for enemies!



I’ll defend LGBT, minority, and any other compromised minority that needs defending. And I’ll always target the people who try to undermine that.


----------



## VeeStars (Nov 30, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> I’ll defend LGBT, minority, and any other compromised minority that needs defending. And I’ll always target the people who try to undermine that.


Just ignore them, LightArrow, they are baiting you. :/


----------



## LightArrow (Dec 1, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Just ignore them, LightArrow, they are baiting you. :/



True. This place is so oddly moderated.


----------



## VeeStars (Dec 1, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> True. This place is so oddly moderated.


It really is. If you see them elsewhere, like on the positivity thread (where they are trying and failing because no one is taking the bait) don't respond either.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Dec 1, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> It really is. If you see them elsewhere, like on the positivity thread (where they are trying and failing because no one is taking the bait) don't respond either.


Aren't you supposed to ignore the 'trolls'? I though that ignoring meant something different than 'constantly talk about and obsess over'.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Dec 1, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> It really is. If you see them elsewhere, like on the positivity thread (where they are trying and failing because no one is taking the bait) don't respond either.



Aside from maybe Yakamaru liking a few posts, none of the "trolls" have even posted in the positivity thread. Your gender fluidity appreciation thread (which is more or less dead at this point may I add) was spared as well. If you mean the LGBTQ+ one, no one aside from me has really touched it and the only sin I was guilty of was posting "Lol" or whatever.

If FAF had an actual troll problem, the moderation element would have dealt with it a long time ago.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 1, 2020)

ASTA, remember, you're an adult man. You shouldn't be trying to antagonise 14 year olds over the internet. 
If you discover you are upsetting people online, it's probably time to do the mature thing and step back.

If you do get pleasure and amusement from the knowledge you're upsetting children- it might be worth asking whether that's really something you want to spend the best years of your life doing, or whether you would respect another man who behaved in the same way.


----------



## LightArrow (Dec 1, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Aside from maybe Yakamaru liking a few posts, none of the "trolls" have even posted in the positivity thread. Your gender fluidity appreciation thread (which is more or less dead at this point may I add) was spared as well. If you mean the LGBTQ+ one, no one aside from me has really touched it and the only sin I was guilty of was posting "Lol" or whatever.
> 
> If FAF had an actual troll problem, the moderation element would have dealt with it a long time ago.



What is even the point of this post


----------



## VeeStars (Dec 1, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> What is even the point of this post


what did I say ._.


----------



## LightArrow (Dec 1, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> what did I say ._.



I must learn from you, grasshopper.


----------



## VeeStars (Dec 1, 2020)

LightArrow said:


> I must learn from you, grasshopper.


I... did not say that


----------



## LightArrow (Dec 1, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I... did not say that



That’s what I’m saying.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Dec 1, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> ASTA, remember, you're an adult man. You shouldn't be trying to antagonise 14 year olds over the internet.
> If you discover you are upsetting people online, it's probably time to do the mature thing and step back.



If responding to a post in a straightforward manner counts as "antagonizing" a 14 year old then I really don't know what to tell you. This sounds like a personal problem that you and six other users need to figure out for yourselves since this is about as "nice and warm" as I can be. I wish you all luck.

And from what I can gather, the only way that I'd stop upsetting people on FAF is to adopt a typical FAF user's psychological profile and worldview. That or I get banned.

Neither one of those things is likely to occur.



LightArrow said:


> What is even the point of this post



You tell me.


----------



## Toasty9399 (Dec 1, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Before this thread possibly turns into a fight, which I hope not, I will say I agree.



19 pages later


----------



## Toasty9399 (Dec 1, 2020)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> Yes, they are. Go ask the people in forum games what they were doing in the LAST THREAD like this one before it got locked. hell, ask @ben909  he was there.
> 
> They fill up everything in recent posts, and once one gets locked after two people leave the sites and other people get banned, ANOTHER ONE pops right back up.
> 
> I'm arguing this because I'm tired of you people slinging shit at each other, it's been going on for weeks now. *THE DRAMA BULLSHIT INFECTS OTHER THREADS TOO*. What do you think I'm arguing for? Just for fun? Do you think I get off on this?


Before the politics section got removed, I made a thread complaining about derailed political threads spanning the recent post section.
Guess what.
It got derailed.


----------



## Tendo64 (Jan 18, 2021)

Boxxed said:


> I love scaring children tbh. It's my favorite pass time.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Jan 19, 2021)

This came up again?  Y'know what, given what's been ruminating in my head for several days now I'll put in another affirmation to try and purge my mind, something that I hope doesn't wind up spicy but might:

"You have the right to fully understand your body, and while an expert can help, you're under no obligation to wait for them."

I file it under "standard of living" (which includes medical care) and "education" as the human rights declaration goes.

How, you may ask, is that even remotely spicy?  Well... there's two parts and if any of this comes up word-salad-y, PLEASE clue me in so I can try to correct it.

One, the trauma a lot of trans people (trans folk?  I'm not in a circumstance where I get exposed to the terms enough) experience.  While giving diagnoses over the Internet is generally a BAD thing, everything in my brain has been screaming that it sounds an awful lot like some form of PTSD.... and what do you know, one of the symptoms is hypervigilance.  AKA the whole "triggered" thing.  I stumbled across C-PTSD recently due to something less related and... the repeated trauma basis seems to match, and it apparently comes up as something NEUROlogical, rather than PSYCHOlogical - pushing it into the realm of the body and not just "mental health".  What's spicy about this, other than my lack of medical degree, is I have to insist on the "no obligation to wait" thing and press the idea of researching and understanding one's own condition despite the "no Internet medicine" taboo - my reason is that supposedly too many therapists still haven't caught on to why traditional therapies aren't as effective yet and waiting for them might be too late.  (Unfortunately, one of the videos I saw on it says that you have to learn to understand and control your triggers yourself, and that lesson sounds too easy if you're not ACTIVELY IN THE GRIP OF A TRIGGER MOST OF THE TIME.)

The second.... let me put it this way.  I tend to require something more solid to accept a lot of contexts.  Have previously had to look up a couple conditions that probably fall under the "intersex" umbrella to make it easier to accept the whole trans thing.  So... the spice here fits under "fully understand your body": my brain has been ruminating over the whole sports debacle, so is it a bad sign that I *specifically tried to look up cases of a woman having the skeletal build of a man*, to try and shut down the kinds of basis that transphobes like to use for sports exclusion?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 20, 2021)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> my brain has been ruminating over the whole sports debacle, so is it a bad sign that I *specifically tried to look up cases of a woman having the skeletal build of a man*, to try and shut down the kinds of basis that transphobes like to use for sports exclusion?


Sadly, these people don’t care; they can and do attack cis women who have what they consider to be an “unfair advantage” already. I don’t have any real memory for names, but there was a lot of drama a number of years back over a female athlete who produced atypical amounts of testosterone (I think?), with people demanding that she take medication to counter her natural production of testosterone to bring it down to “normal” levels.

I understand, sorta, why these things come up. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and we’ve decided to pave a way for women into sports by separating men’s and women’s sports. And that’s alright on its own. The problem comes when people start hand-wringing about this kind of thing.

Not every trans woman will _also_ have the athletic potential required for high-level professional sports. Not every trans woman that does will have an interest in going for a career in sports. It gets especially rich when you see people bring this hand-wringing to children’s sports. Before puberty, the advantage from sexual dimorphism is minuscule if any.

If you (gen) want a sport that’s artificially made “fair,” get into horse racing. Adding weight to horses to (ostensibly) give every horse in the race a fighting chance is the name of the game _there_. Unless you want to do the same with human athletes, you kind of have to accept that individual potential varies and you can’t expect “fairness.”


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Jan 20, 2021)

KD142000 said:


> So that this thread doesn't get shut down, can we keep things civil, thanks? Not gonna help anybody if this devolves into a squabble over what should be pretty obvious.


Too late for that, folks.  I can see the negativity and I can feel the discomfort even through my phone screen.  Posts like this should not be created. trans are people, they have rights. It's a given, and people should already know this without posting about it and possibly creating grounds on witch negative feedback or discomfort will arise from.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Jan 20, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Too late for that, folks.  I can see the negativity and I can feel the discomfort even through my phone screen.  Posts like this should not be created. trans are people, they have rights. It's a given, and people should already know this without posting about it and possibly creating grounds on witch negative feedback or discomfort will arise from.


Um, no.
How about blaming the people causing the actual problem instead of trying to make this weird spin.


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Jan 20, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> [...]trans are people, they have rights. It's a given[...]


You're right with a that. But if dumbfuckery wouldn't be a consistent problem throughout this fandom as well as, for the most part, society in general, we wouldn't need threads like this.
Now very obviously, we absolutely do need this.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 20, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> they have rights. It's a given,


Ah I wish this statement was true but you see there are countries like America where that is not the case.
And when I say that I mean that we do not have equal human rights like everyone else does.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 20, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> Ah I wish this statement was true but you see there are countries like America where that is not the case.
> And when I say that I mean that we do not have equal human rights like everyone else does.


This


----------



## Tendo64 (Jan 20, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Before puberty, the advantage from sexual dimorphism is minuscule if any.


I think I read somewhere that even adult transwomen who medically transitioned at an early age have little to no advantage over cis women, too, if they regularly took puberty blockers and hormones. It's a fairly nuanced thing... but people say to just ban them altogether. And even say looking into it is a "waste of money" and to just assume all transwomen have an advantage because "xy chromosomes equal stronger", which is stupid because science is never about assuming things, it's about testing things even when they seem likely because new evidence can appear with better technology and more precise studies.

These people don't actually care about keeping the competition fair, it's just another excuse they pull so they can try to justify them mistreating trans people because inconveniencing this marginal group they despise for no reason brings them some weird sadistic joy.

It's so weird to me how someone saying "hi, please call me a woman and call me a she" is enough to make people go ballistic to the point of doing everything in their power to hurt her.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Jan 20, 2021)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> Um, no.
> How about blaming the people causing the actual problem instead of trying to make this weird spin.


My point exactly.  Blame other people, fighting the fire with fire makes a bigger fire.  I'm not saying your wrong.  Fucks sake, that's not the point I'm trying to make.  The point I'm making, is that this is already turning into a shitstorm.  Who da hell said that I'm against trans, or that I'm denying your rights...? I'm saying this post is already turning into a uncomfortable situation.  Don't shoot the messenger...


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 20, 2021)

Tendo64 said:


> I think I read somewhere that even adult transwomen who medically transitioned at an early age have little to no advantage over cis women, too, if they regularly took puberty blockers and hormones. It's a fairly nuanced thing... but people say to just ban them altogether. And even say looking into it is a "waste of money" and to just assume all transwomen have an advantage because "xy chromosomes equal stronger", which is stupid because science is never about assuming things, it's about testing things even when they seem likely because new evidence can appear with better technology and more precise studies.
> 
> These people don't actually care about keeping the competition fair, it's just another excuse they pull so they can try to justify them mistreating trans people because inconveniencing this marginal group they despise for no reason brings them some weird sadistic joy.
> 
> It's so weird to me how someone saying "hi, please call me a woman and call me a she" is enough to make people go ballistic to the point of doing everything in their power to hurt her.


Also very true; as access to puberty blockers is nowhere near what it should be in a lot of the world it didn’t occur to me to specifically make that point.

I suspect a lot of transphobia rests on fear of the unknown and/or being unable to understand the experience. Things they can’t wrap your head around scare a lot of people, as well as lead to people absorbing lies without realizing that it’s the bigoted mess that it is. Which, of course, doesn’t excuse being a dick about it. It doesn’t even mean that pushing back against transphobia should be done with kid gloves. I just don’t know that it’s very productive to ascribe a motivation of cruelty for cruelty’s sake to _anyone_ without very strong evidence.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Jan 20, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> It doesn’t even mean that pushing back against transphobia should be done with kid gloves.


.....somehow, your sentence ran across my brain as "don't be soft with a transphobe".  So I feel the need to add something just to calm my brain down.

I would rather treat "pushing back against transphobia" as if trying to get people out of any other toxic doctrine, and my understanding of getting someone to leave toxic doctrines is that you are going to HAVE to softball it a bit.  These are people who don't trust trans people after having their fears or lack of comprehension exploited with all the bigoted lies.  Even if the doctrine itself is shameful, the fact that they were afraid or didn't understand in the first place is not.  Playing hardball on the whole subject is likely going to push them RIGHT back into transphobia because you've just fulfilled their programming - thus the toxic doctrine winds up more comforting to them.

Take "pushing back against transphobia" seriously if that's what you actually meant to say.  Shaming a transphobe strikes me as horribly counterproductive in this fight.

(There's a part of me that wants to find hormone therapies that help cis people, that were only discovered through trans people - JUST so I have demonstratable proof on hand that transphobia harms cis people.  Actual ways to induce the break that could get these people pulled out of the doctrine might not work as effectively though.)


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 20, 2021)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> .....somehow, your sentence ran across my brain as "don't be soft with a transphobe".  So I feel the need to add something just to calm my brain down.
> 
> I would rather treat "pushing back against transphobia" as if trying to get people out of any other toxic doctrine, and my understanding of getting someone to leave toxic doctrines is that you are going to HAVE to softball it a bit.  These are people who don't trust trans people after having their fears or lack of comprehension exploited with all the bigoted lies.  Even if the doctrine itself is shameful, the fact that they were afraid or didn't understand in the first place is not.  Playing hardball on the whole subject is likely going to push them RIGHT back into transphobia because you've just fulfilled their programming - thus the toxic doctrine winds up more comforting to them.
> 
> ...


personally I think they can either accept us or we throw them out.
We should have no quarter given to transphobes around these parts nor should they be given the platform to utter a single line of their bigotry.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Jan 20, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> personally I think they can either accept us or we throw them out.
> We should have no quarter given to transphobes around these parts nor should they be given the platform to utter a single line of their bigotry.


Fair enough with this place specifically given some of the... past incidents.  I always forget to draw the line between general practice and what's gone on with this forum in particular.

This forum is NOT the best area to try to deprogram someone.  And my understanding of deprogramming is... that it generally can't be forced outside of a dedicated therapy setting, which this place is most decidedly NOT meant to be.  So my above statements are much more generalized when it comes to pushing back.

I think I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jan 20, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> personally I think they can either accept us or we throw them out.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Jan 20, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> personally I think they can either accept us or we throw them out.
> We should have no quarter given to transphobes around these parts nor should they be given the platform to utter a single line of their bigotry.


And you think hating on all CIS people is the answer?  What's that saying..? Tea Kettle calling the frying pan black..? 

I'd say that's bigotry as well.  Hating all doesn't do you any good.  To defend the BLM movement a bit, oddly enough..  here's an example. not all black people are bad. Just like not all white people are bad.  There's bad seeds in every single type of life form, hating all just because you see one bad seed here and there act up, doesn't mean they all are out to get you.  Just like hating all police officers..  that's basically assuming all civilians are good. Are they? No. Are all police good? No.  Do you see my point..? Hating all is not the answer..  it just fuels the fire. Possibly even making the fire bigger.  Gives the slimeball scum of people in the wrong more verbal ammo to sling your way.   Show your good side. Help others understand you want to fit in. Killing your enemies with kindness is more effective than you think.  Just like a bully. Don't give them more ammo to fight you with.  Stand up, be confident in who you are, but in a firm way.   Easier said than done, but it is possible.  I believe in peace.
War just makes the human race weaker, it devided us up more and more.  Like a single twig.  Its easy to break in half on it's own. But have a big bundle of twigs..  then it's a bigger challenge to break in half. do you see my point here?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 20, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> And you think hating on all CIS people is the answer?  What's that saying..? Tea Kettle calling the frying pan black..?
> 
> I'd say that's bigotry as well.  Hating all doesn't do you any good.  To defend the BLM movement a bit, oddly enough..  here's an example. not all black people are bad. Just like not all white people are bad.  There's bad seeds in every single type of life form, hating all just because you see one bad seed here and there act up, doesn't mean they all are out to get you.  Just like hating all police officers..  that's basically assuming all civilians are good. Are they? No. Are all police good? No.  Do you see my point..? Hating all is not the answer..  it just fuels the fire. Possibly even making the fire bigger.  Gives the slimeball scum of people in the wrong more verbal ammo to sling your way.   Show your good side. Help others understand you want to fit in. Killing your enemies with kindness is more effective than you think.  Just like a bully. Don't give them more ammo to fight you with.  Stand up, be confident in who you are, but in a firm way.   Easier said than done, but it is possible.  I believe in peace.
> War just makes the human race weaker, it devided us up more and more.  Like a single twig.  Its easy to break in half on it's own. But have a big bundle of twigs..  then it's a bigger challenge to break in half. do you see my point here?


God you infer a lot from someone's posts. I litterally see no words saying hate all cis people.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 20, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> And you think hating on all CIS people is the answer?  What's that saying..? Tea Kettle calling the frying pan black..?
> 
> I'd say that's bigotry as well.  Hating all doesn't do you any good.  To defend the BLM movement a bit, oddly enough..  here's an example. not all black people are bad. Just like not all white people are bad.  There's bad seeds in every single type of life form, hating all just because you see one bad seed here and there act up, doesn't mean they all are out to get you.  Just like hating all police officers..  that's basically assuming all civilians are good. Are they? No. Are all police good? No.  Do you see my point..? Hating all is not the answer..  it just fuels the fire. Possibly even making the fire bigger.  Gives the slimeball scum of people in the wrong more verbal ammo to sling your way.   Show your good side. Help others understand you want to fit in. Killing your enemies with kindness is more effective than you think.  Just like a bully. Don't give them more ammo to fight you with.  Stand up, be confident in who you are, but in a firm way.   Easier said than done, but it is possible.  I believe in peace.
> War just makes the human race weaker, it devided us up more and more.  Like a single twig.  Its easy to break in half on it's own. But have a big bundle of twigs..  then it's a bigger challenge to break in half. do you see my point here?


I said transphobes not cis...
So uhhh yeah you made a lot of words to grab at something I didn’t say


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 21, 2021)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> .....somehow, your sentence ran across my brain as "don't be soft with a transphobe". So I feel the need to add something just to calm my brain down.


Yes and no, I guess. Nothing good will come of treating the matter like the anti-trans talking points have merit. Be firm on the fact that their _words/actions_ are wrong and harmful. That’s the sense in which there needs to be little coddling.
Doesn’t mean any of the pushing back needs to be done with aggression or by demonizing people, either, certainly. I’m all for offering people an out; “you might not have known this, but...” and so on.

It also depends on how the individual chooses to use what platform they have. JK Rowling published a frightfully transphobic letter/article last year. She’s a rich woman whom a lot of people look up to due to her success as an author. If she chooses to use her platform and privilege to punch down at trans people, the (public) pushback needs to be stronger than you might need for that aunt who just reposted something transphobic on Facebook in relatively good faith out of ignorance. Does that make sense? The more harm a person is in a position to do, the less space there is to ease them through their fears and ignorance. Protecting their feelings at the expense of trans people is just revictimizing the victims at that point.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> And you think hating on all CIS people is the answer?  What's that saying..? Tea Kettle calling the frying pan black..?



I don't think Lucy suggested hating cisgender people.

To my knowledge comments insulting people's gender already count as bullying according to the site's rules- and people who do this would, by the book, be thrown out if they kept doing it. 

But there's a bit of a culture on the forum that bullying is okay and that the real problem is when people complain that they don't like being bullied, as you can see from these responses to users who were bullied. 



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> "bUllYinG sNt cOOl"





Frank Gulotta said:


> Sometimes being nice means providing criticism when someone's being annoying constantly





Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> What a bunch of snowflakes


----------



## Tendo64 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> personally I think they can either accept us or we throw them out.
> We should have no quarter given to transphobes around these parts nor should they be given the platform to utter a single line of their bigotry.


I agree.

There's people who are clearly just uneducated but can be reasoned with and there's people who seek out trans people in comment sections or forum threads so they can harass them.

Transphobic people are like anti-vax people. They shut down at conflicting information. They outright refuse to read articles that contradict what they believe and call them "fake science and sjw propaganda." I know this because of how many people I've tried to educate, only for them to completely ignore me and outright tell me "I'm not reading that, it's leftist garbage, I'm right and you're wrong and you're a girl kys," or they don't respond and continue to be transphobic to other people like our conversation never happened.

Take for example, my former friend, whos evidence amounted to a tumblr post without sources from some random person who was not a medical professional, which contained all the classic, easily debunkable transphobe arguments like "but chromosomes and estrogen/testosterone!!!", and then said all my articles drawn from credible sources backed with sources of scientific studies were fake and she wasn't going to read them. Replace "tumblr" with "facebook." Sound familiar?

There's no arguing with these people. There's no reasoning. What they spread is hurting people and they, like you said, don't need a platform. There's a point where you need to say "fuck off" because they're spreading misinformation and are directly contributing to the transphobia that plagues people and keeps them from having equal rights.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> But there's a bit of a culture on the forum that bullying is okay and that the real problem is when people complain that they don't like being bullied, as you can see from these responses to users who were bullied.


But why complain about being bullied instead of taking part in the huge massive internet movement all the grown-ups are telling us to do and "BLOCK REPORT AND MOVE ON." That's my two cents.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> But why complain about being bullied instead of taking part in the huge massive internet movement all the grown-ups are telling us to do and "BLOCK REPORT AND MOVE ON." That's my two cents.



There's a very simple and unfortunate answer.
People did report the bullying, but it wasn't stopped- so they ended up posting in public in the hope that other users would back them up, and that this would draw staff attention to the issue.

It's difficult to state this in a way that the staff won't perceive as critical of course- but it's the honest answer.

It is obviously very delicate to discuss.
It is also worth noting that when bullies say 'if you don't like it just block me', that this often just means they move on to their next victim.


----------



## Tendo64 (Jan 21, 2021)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> But why complain about being bullied instead of taking part in the huge massive internet movement all the grown-ups are telling us to do and "BLOCK REPORT AND MOVE ON." That's my two cents.


"Being bullied? Just ignore it" 
Oh yes, good argument. Because ignoring bullies has totally been shown to work and not just make people try harder and harder to push your buttons. It also totally stops those bullies from spreading misinformation and lies about trans people, which furthers societal stigma and makes it harder for trans people to be seen as... y'know, _people_. Those people don't just stop existing the second you block them. As Fallowfox said, they pick another target, and some of them even circumvent blocks.

And then you have situations like, say, a certain person on YouTube who made videos on trans people he thought weren't "trans enough" that got millions of views, and then those people get literal thousands of people in their DMs sending them death threats and telling them they're terrible people who deserve to die. It even proceeded to bleed into real life where real life people would spot them on the streets and hurt insults their way. Blocking didn't exactly do those people very good, now did it?

But, then again, I shouldn't expect empathy or critical thinking from someone who has "supergendered" in their signature like it's still 2016 and attack helicopter jokes are still considered funny. You sound like the exact kind of person we're talking about here.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Jan 21, 2021)

After reading over this thread it is a little surprising how many are confusing human rights with individual rights, and rights over privilege and choice. Not that I have the answers for any of them, just an observation.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

To clarify my earlier post I'm going to ping @quoting_mungo as she was a previous staff member. 

Quoting mungo will remember that some behaviours, such as posting youtube videos containing hateful content, rarely resulted in staff action against the user- and she will be able to clarify that this reticence to remove the content and users spreading it from the site resulted from some ambiguity in the rules at that time and strain on staff ability to respond to a very large volume of said content being posted between 2015 and 2018. 

eventually these problems were fixed, after consultation and clarification of the rules, and the community benefited from those higher standards.



pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> But why complain about being bullied instead of taking part in the huge massive internet movement all the grown-ups are telling us to do and "BLOCK REPORT AND MOVE ON." That's my two cents.



I suppose an adjunct I should mention, I repeatedly get quoted or referred to negatively by users I have blocked.
I don't know whether other users experience this also?

Personally it doesn't bother me that much because I have a lot of other things that my mind is taken up with, but if I was say, a 14 year old who was consistently being quoted by people who were laughing about how silly they thought my gender identity was, then you know- 'block and move on' might not be such an effective strategy to stop the behaviour.


----------



## Flamingo (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> People did report the bullying, but it wasn't stopped


 our privacy policy prevents me from revealing action taken against users, but I'm sure if you asked nicely someone would be happy to air their grievances in the opposite direction.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

Flamingo said:


> our privacy policy prevents me from revealing action taken against users, but I'm sure if you asked nicely someone would be happy to air their grievances in the opposite direction.



I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'opposite direction'?
People who have been reported, but have not had action taken against them, are not made aware of reports.

I think some users feel it is unfair on them when users they've made negative comments about complain that they're being bullied- they feel they're being unfairly accused of being bullies.
By contrast, others openly delight in the fact that they've upset somebody, posting jeering memes and gifs to see whether they can cause further unhappiness.
I actually think the best resolution would be for staff to talk to them and explain why upsetting other users, or making insinuations about their gender, isn't very nice.

Because if the staff do take action against them, the drift I get is they just end up believing that everything is a conspiracy against them and they haven't done anything wrong, rather than changing the behaviour. It's a particular problem because making jaded comments about people's gender has become a politicised topic, so some users end up thinking that any effort to _prevent_ it represents politicisation of the forum.

You can probably see my point if you look at the posts I quoted, talking about how people are whiners or snowflakes for complaining about 'bUllYinG'.
The fact this is intended to upset transgender users who don't really enjoy being insulted, is pretty clear- but I gather it's difficult for staff to take action against those specific posts because while it's clear they're intended to harass, they may not be explicit enough to violate site rules (I'm guessing that's it anyway).


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> To clarify my earlier post I'm going to ping @quoting_mungo as she was a previous staff member.
> 
> Quoting mungo will remember that some behaviours, such as posting youtube videos containing hateful content, rarely resulted in staff action against the user- and she will be able to clarify that this reticence to remove the content and users spreading it from the site resulted from some ambiguity in the rules at that time and strain on staff ability to respond to a very large volume of said content being posted between 2015 and 2018.
> 
> eventually these problems were fixed, after consultation and clarification of the rules, and the community benefited from those higher standards.


In fairness I had very little involvement with the forums prior to the mass resignation of forum staff. When I personally was on forum staff I’d try to steer people towards Making Better Choices in regards to hateful content, which dovetailed decently well with me being CoC admin on mainsite. A lot of the time, on forums, I’d be doing this by posting in threads saying “can we please not?”

It’s my personal opinion/experience that standards on malicious speech have gotten slightly more forgiving since I left, but that’s a matter of degree. I highly doubt there’s any desire or intent on the part of current staff to let FAF reach its old toxic lows.

Regarding where the thread’s been going the last little bit: Saying that this thread should not have been made is not a good take no matter how you turn it. In theory @Attaman could effectively yeet problem individuals to some degree by blocking them, or at least could have with how the block system used to work. Whether it would work the same now I don’t really know. But it doesn’t change the underlying issue that a lot of digs at minority members are managing to stay juuust on the acceptable side of the line.

“Shut up instead of asking for staff to affirm a minority population that’s been getting hostility” isn’t a side I’d want to be on. The hostility and bad takes aren’t anything that we want to see, either. Nobody wants to see the conflict (except a select few who thrive on stirring up shit). But refraining from asking for a change because bad actors want to take the opportunity to turn it into a shit show isn’t how things change for the better in the long run.

Ultimately, complaining about where you think the thread is going or has gone, without actually engaging with the thread topic in a meaningful way, is disruptive and counterproductive. At _best_ it’s the same sort of misguided support that DADT was. For all that I generally try to assume the best of people until worse is proven, I’m having a hard time seeing it as anything but deliberate derailment, though. If it’s not a deliberate attempt to deplatform trans users and their supporters, it at least does a pretty good job of looking like it is.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> In fairness I had very little involvement with the forums prior to the mass resignation of forum staff. When I personally was on forum staff I’d try to steer people towards Making Better Choices in regards to hateful content, which dovetailed decently well with me being CoC admin on mainsite. A lot of the time, on forums, I’d be doing this by posting in threads saying “can we please not?”
> 
> It’s my personal opinion/experience that standards on malicious speech have gotten slightly more forgiving since I left, but that’s a matter of degree. I highly doubt there’s any desire or intent on the part of current staff to let FAF reach its old toxic lows.
> 
> ...



I remember taking screenshots of posts I reported in September 2018, because I got so exhausted being told that the real problem was that nobody was reporting harmful content.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> What's not true with what I said?



I got a notification saying you quoted me, but the quote doesn't appear in your post, so you may have deleted it by accident.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> I got a notification saying you quoted me, but the quote doesn't appear in your post, so you may have deleted it by accident.


You quoted an ancient comment I made by which I still stand. You should know which one, and I would normally not be touching these radioactive threads with a ten feet pole

So, what's not true with what I said?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> You quoted an ancient comment I made by which I still stand. You should know which one, and I would normally not be touching these radioactive threads with a ten feet pole
> 
> So, what's not true with what I said?


If you mean the quote 'Sometimes being nice means providing criticism when someone's being annoying constantly'
the posts you defended have been removed from the forum.
If I remember correctly the staff deleted them.

I brought this scenario up, simply to convey to Charleslr'93 that sometimes bullying of transgender individuals had occurred, and that the staff removing this content is normal.
Charleslr'93 seemed to think Lucyfur's suggestion meant she was 'hating on all CIS people', so I just wanted to show him that it's already the policy that the staff aim to pursue- and that clearly cisgender people like myself *aren't* being hated on as a result of that.

I think we have a _bit_ of a problem with users thinking that staff removing bullying comments towards transgender people is unfair, or- bizarrely- that it means they hate people who are _not_ trans.
and clearly some transgender users have said they feel nasty comments are still made- and that 'just block and report' hasn't solved everything.

In that situation I think we should just try to listen and understand better- because we'll make everybody feel better if we can show we are willing to be understanding.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> If you mean the quote 'Sometimes being nice means providing criticism when someone's being annoying constantly'
> the posts you defended have been removed from the forum.
> If I remember correctly the staff deleted them.
> 
> ...


No idea who that is and I frankly don't care about any of that. I would appreciate if you could not drag me into drama, especially as I'm recovering from coronavirus.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> No idea who that is and I frankly don't care about any of that. I would appreciate if you could not drag me into drama, especially as I'm recovering from coronavirus.



I'm not forcing you to post. I wish you a full recovery. In the future I will alter the BB code of older quotes by deleting the reference code, so that you do not receive a notification from them.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> I said transphobes not cis...
> So uhhh yeah you made a lot of words to grab at something I didn’t say


I suppose I'm assuming you think all CIS people are transphobic or anti trans, that's how you came off as sounding like.  No, we are all individuals, like trans people.   

I apologize.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> I remember taking screenshots of posts I reported in September 2018, because I got so exhausted being told that the real problem was that nobody was reporting harmful content.


I honestly can’t recall much in the way of specifics of what was going on then, or if I even was very active at the time, being that I resigned in December 2017.

Some of what’s been going on since has definitely been things that would have gotten at the very least an in-thread “this is not how we treat each other” from me pre-resignation. But I will grudgingly accept that conduct rulings are always going to be a sticky matter and it’s no longer my call.

I don’t want to think that a “hey guys, a reminder that trans people are people and real and valid” from site management should be necessary. It being needed says nothing good about, well, anything. At the same time, the pushback this thread has gotten clearly shows that there’s attitudes present that _might_ be helped by such a statement. All I want in the end is for people to not be deliberately nasty to each other, yanno?


----------



## luffy (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'opposite direction'?


They're saying you're complaining about us not doing anything but if you asked the right people theyd complain about being falsely accused for harassment and action taken.  Cause thats how it goes. 

People don't see us doing anything because of how our punishments are tiered, so they complain we don't do anything, and we cant defend or explain ourselves because of privacy policy. But if one of the frequently reported users rhat people think don't get any action taken against them were asked about it, they'd complain about all the unjustified harassment/other warnings they get.

Each side is complaining about the other constantly and I sit here like "If only they knew..." lol


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2021)

luffy said:


> They're saying you're complaining about us not doing anything but if you asked the right people theyd complain about being falsely accused for harassment and action taken.  Cause thats how it goes.
> 
> People don't see us doing anything because of how our punishments are tiered, so they complain we don't do anything, and we cant defend or explain ourselves because of privacy policy. But if one of the frequently reported users rhat people think don't get any action taken against them were asked about it, they'd complain about all the unjustified harassment/other warnings they get.
> 
> Each side is complaining about the other constantly and I sit here like "If only they knew..." lol



Of course, if somebody is being warned by the staff for breaking rules about hatred, then their position shouldn't be regarded as a 'side' anyway. 

From the perspective of average users, all we can see is whether the bullying behaviour ceases or continues. 
If you look at page 19 you'll see that a user who says that transphobia shouldn't be tolerated- simply furaffinity's official position- is met with jeering gifs- posted by another user who has a long history of trying to upset them. 

I'm posting a screenshot here with the username removed. 


Spoiler











This kind of behaviour isn't covered by the rules, and the people doing it have managed to get the staff recognising their behaviour as 'the other side', instead of simply being bullying.




quoting_mungo said:


> I honestly can’t recall much in the way of specifics of what was going on then, or if I even was very active at the time, being that I resigned in December 2017.
> 
> Some of what’s been going on since has definitely been things that would have gotten at the very least an in-thread “this is not how we treat each other” from me pre-resignation. But I will grudgingly accept that conduct rulings are always going to be a sticky matter and it’s no longer my call.
> 
> I don’t want to think that a “hey guys, a reminder that trans people are people and real and valid” from site management should be necessary. It being needed says nothing good about, well, anything. At the same time, the pushback this thread has gotten clearly shows that there’s attitudes present that _might_ be helped by such a statement. All I want in the end is for people to not be deliberately nasty to each other, yanno?



In many ways I feel that the folk who end up making a derisive attitude towards transgender people a defining part of their identity are themselves victims, because it surely isn't something that makes their life better or happier. 
It's kinda unhappiness breeding unhappiness.


----------



## luffy (Jan 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> If you look at page 19 you'll see that a user who says that transphobia shouldn't be tolerated- simply furaffinity's official position- is met with jeering gifs- posted by another user who has a long history of trying to upset them.


I'm not trying to turn this thread into an argument about protocol, but if you are met with an immature user, then you're supposed to be the mature one and block communication with that user.  If they contact or engage with you after that (quoting included - report it), we'll take action against them as long as you report it and it's not a third-party report.
​


Spoiler: Code of Conduct, Section 4.1 - Penalties






> 4.1 Penalties​Failure to abide by the content of this document may result in the following penalties. ("You" refers to you and all accounts you own/operate):
> 
> *1st Level Offense:* You will receive a *Warning Notice*.
> *2nd Level Offense:* You will be *Temporarily Suspended for 1 day*.
> ...



Thus, it's safe to assume that anyone you have submitted a valid report against is on their way to being punished more severely should it seem like they are not having action taken against them.  They do more bad things?  Report them more, and they get more punishment.



We are not here to babysit threads and watch people have little catfights with each other.  We are here to ensure that the policies that we have are enforced.  We have queues of hundreds of tickets a week that we tackle with much more harmful content in them.

If we took action on every single tiny quarrel or passive aggressive post, it would mean mini moderating at an insanely micro level and also that we would have to perceive a user's intentions in some cases.  User says, "Oh, screw you!" and a third party reports it but not the person the comment is aimed toward?  We don't know if the user is friends with the person they were engaging and can't assume that they aren't being sarcastic.

*Anyway, I'm shutting down discussion of how our policies are handled and leaving this thread to its original purpose.  I am asking that no one derails this thread again by posting more about what I've mentioned.  *If you want, you can make a new thread for this or just submit a ticket.

Thank you!

** Edit - please note I am specifically referring to harassment.  Transphobia and other malicious content are not tolerated and will be handled appropriately no matter who reports it.


----------



## KD142000 (Jan 21, 2021)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Too late for that, folks.  I can see the negativity and I can feel the discomfort even through my phone screen.  Posts like this should not be created. trans are people, they have rights. It's a given, and people should already know this without posting about it and possibly creating grounds on witch negative feedback or discomfort will arise from.


Posts like...what? Mine?
The kind that say 'trans rights are human rights' is an obvious fact?

Don't really understand what's wrong with my post, if you were referring to it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 22, 2021)

KD142000 said:


> Posts like...what? Mine?
> The kind that say 'trans rights are human rights' is an obvious fact?
> 
> Don't really understand what's wrong with my post, if you were referring to it.


Pretty sure they were referring to the thread as a whole. I wouldn’t worry about it; it’s a bad take and prioritizes bystanders’ comfort over supporting trans and non-binary users.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Jan 22, 2021)

God, these moral inquisitors are annoying as hell!
Look! There were two threads already that were honestly focused on validating and supporting trans people, and which were running along perfectly well until they died because people got bored of how peaceful they were. If you don't turn those threads into these moronic moral inquisitions against people who aren't really any threat to trans people, they'll run along just fine along their stated purpose. Unfortunately, some people seem to be pretty desperate to do just that ... and they do it very dishonestly, taking out all nuance and context, and wildly misrepresenting things, all for the sake painting a maximally negative picture of the targets they are trying to prosecute.

To the moral inquisitors, get this through your skulls (assuming your intents are honest)!  You aren't fighting neo-nazis, alt-righters or bigots. You are hounding centrists, libertarians and the mildest of conservatives! Also, you are being a complete detriment to the causes you proclaim to be fighting for!


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Jan 22, 2021)

KD142000 said:


> Posts like...what? Mine?
> The kind that say 'trans rights are human rights' is an obvious fact?
> 
> Don't really understand what's wrong with my post, if you were referring to it.



I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying that this post is making people argue and bicker bitterly. I'm not saying your wrong, you have excellent points. but this post itself, is making people devide up and argue against each other. that's what I'm trying to get at. Does that make sense?  I'm not trying to knock one against you or saying fuck trans people. that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just pointing out that this post is deviding up what is supposed to be family.  We are supposed to love each other and support each other and have each other's backs regardless of our personal opinions or identity descriptions.  But now everyone is arguing and being in negative moods.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 22, 2021)

I’d just like to point out that there are “leftists” who hold transphobic beliefs. There are transphobic “feminists.” There are transphobic queer people. To suggest that someone being less than a right-wing extremist should shield them from being called on making transphobic statements is not making life safer for trans* people. It’s implicitly saying that trans* issues are secondary to the issues where you agree with these people.

Not everyone who says something transphobic is a die-hard transphobe. The people who spend their time trying to undermine trans* rights are very good at making their talking points seem reasonable. People for whom these issues aren’t personally relevant may not have the knowledge to recognize that these arguments are bullshit and are being pushed in bad faith. And that’s okay. Everyone can’t know everything.

*B U T*

It is _at the very least_ a red flag when someone is called on making a transphobic statement and doubles down on it. It is _at the very least_ a red flag when someone is called on making a transphobic statement and isn’t willing to apologize and/or learn. We had users in this thread who asked questions about how specific statements are transphobic. That’s cool! We had users in this thread who admitted to not being well read on the subject and politely asked for further reading to confirm another user’s claim. That’s cool!

If you’re not willing to learn, you’re not entitled to a free pass just because you say “I’m not a transphobe, honest!” Nor are you entitled to a free pass if your friends repeat that line. People are apprehensive because your words don’t jive with your actions.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Jan 22, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> I’d just like to point out that there are “leftists” who hold transphobic beliefs. There are transphobic “feminists.” There are transphobic queer people. To suggest that someone being less than a right-wing extremist should shield them from being called on making transphobic statements is not making life safer for trans* people. It’s implicitly saying that trans* issues are secondary to the issues where you agree with these people.
> 
> Not everyone who says something transphobic is a die-hard transphobe. The people who spend their time trying to undermine trans* rights are very good at making their talking points seem reasonable. People for whom these issues aren’t personally relevant may not have the knowledge to recognize that these arguments are bullshit and are being pushed in bad faith. And that’s okay. Everyone can’t know everything.
> 
> ...


Don't launch personal attacks! Don't blow things out of proportion! Don't misrepresent past events! Stop ruthlessly bringing up old stuff that the mods have already looked over!

Suppose we have a person who's generally supportive of trans people and believed that they deserve equal rights.
Now suppose said person gets met with relentless and ruthless malice in response to saying something incredibly mild. Do you think they are going to become more or less supportive on trans issues?

I think you people should be more careful about throwing transphobia accusations around. People don't respond to it well, especially if they have no such intent or mentality. Also, do mind the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Frankly, I don't get the paranoia here in the first place. These forums are actually very friendly towards trans people. The mods deal with actual instances of transphobia very aggressively, and the demographics are probably around 90%+ pro-trans. Just given the numbers, why do you even fear transphobes that much? Real, serious ones would just get utterly piled.

Honestly, it's these inquisitions that make these forums look more trans-unfriendly than they actually are (especially when they derail trans-related threads). I've seen utter nothing being blown into massive mountains, and I've seen people use misrepresentative (transphobia) accusations as a tool to pursue petty personal quarrels. The mods are handling things just fine! If the inquisitors are acting honestly, then they are exhibiting very poor judgement, and should frankly just stop their vigilantism. Things need to be proportional, and based on looking at the whole picture.

Also, assuming that everyone is a transphobe and out to get you is simply not a healthy mentality to have.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 22, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> I’m all for offering people an out; “you might not have known this, but...” and so on.


I'll point out that the issue with offering an out is that it requires (both in assumption and effect) that the offending party is acting in good faith. And the issue with that is, well... despite how some people might be trying to spin things, this thread did not appear out of the blue to stir dreck. Nor was it an attempt to point fingers or start a witch hunt.

It was made in Site Discussion to make a request to an announcement banner. Because users were repeatedly making spontaneous posts arguing that the validity of one's pronouns is up for debate. Because multiple users were ganging up on trans- forum members, in pro-Trans threads, doing everything from telling them "No, you're wrong: This isn't transphobic. You're just overreacting / bullying / trying to thought police" to outright telling them "You're mentally damaged."

In immediate response to posting this thread in response to as much, we saw users doing everything from defending aforementioned transphobic content - removed, _*infracted*_ transphobic content - as "Not transphobic, just stupid to say out loud". Insinuating that LGBTQ+ protections are proof of _privilege,_ not harassment, and that what the pro-LGBTQ+ crowd _really_ should be doing is pushing to have explicit protections _removed_. Demanding scholarly and government sources _proving_ that transphobia is a real problem and that trans rights (humanitarian, civil, et al) are lacking, followed by intense nitpicking and sea lioning of any evidence provided for the two. We had people posting in Forum Games that threads like these were Virtue Signaling and teeth-gnashing about losing a corrupt Mod enforcing Right Think and all that jazz. Saying that all FAF’s transphobic content is “mild”, and as such should be ignored at best and tolerated / acceptable at worst. When this thread was temporarily locked, the typical refrain in follow-ups was "Just stop posting LGBTQ+ content and rising to the bait ". Hell, just on the last three pages we had people _openly laugh_ at the idea of the community and moderation enforcing _basic site CoC_ in regards to Transphobic Content, as well as making backhanded compliments intended to go after not only the Trans community but BLM at the same time. We’ve also seen a return of “Things we’re fine  Until the thought police game ” / “Are Attack Helicopter jokes really that bad?  Also I can’t be transphobic  I like trans people  If a trans users says I’m posting transphobic content, they’re the real problem ”.

Or, going right back where I started: The issue with offering an out is that it requires the offending party to be acting in good faith.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Jan 22, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Because multiple users were ganging up on trans- forum members, in pro-Trans threads, doing everything from telling them "No, you're wrong: This isn't transphobic. You're just overreacting / bullying / trying to thought police"


This is the 'blowing out of proportion' and 'taking things out of context' I was talking about. The trans individual herself was acting incredibly aggressive, and I genuinely don't think what she was calling out was transphobic in any way. Don't think it's a problem when people call out said aggression. Oh and the 'ganging up' was like 2 people at worst in the first thread, and in the second thread it was more of a several vs several situation.



Attaman said:


> In immediate response to posting this thread in response to as much, we saw users doing everything from defending aforementioned transphobic content - removed, _*infracted*_ transphobic content - as "Not transphobic, just stupid to say out loud".



That's not what was said. In reality, it simply wasn't acknowledged that the individual in question was a transphobe given just what they said, but it wasn't ruled out either. It was clearly stated that the behavior was stupid, and the statements themselves weren't defended in any way. You are completely misrepresenting past events here, just as I was talking about.

As for the rest of what you said, I don't even remember it that well anymore, but I don't trust you to be painting an accurate picture given your pattern of misrepresenting past events.

Anyhow! The mods have looked over pretty much all of this and taken the actions they deemed appropriate. Oh and they took those actions having seen more of the picture than you guys. Why do you even keep bringing this stuff up again? And then spinning it in such ways at that?



Attaman said:


> Or, going right back where I started: The issue with offering an out is that it requires the offending party to be acting in good faith.


You and your crowd are not good judges on whether people are acting in good faith. That much has been made very obvious!


----------



## Attaman (Jan 22, 2021)

I'd like to make something abundantly clear to people:

Support for Trans Rights (as well as Civil Rights in general and other pushes of equality) are *not *conditional. Under any circumstance. You're either in favor of basic human rights / treatment, equal rights, legal protections, et al, or you _aren't_. There is no middle ground. There is no "I _was_ going to support your right to humane treatment, but you were mean to me and so now I'm not." It is not "Well, I *normally* support the right pronouns, but this person is an asshole so I'll specifically misgender them". It is not 'allyship' to take a look at a protest, go "This is less civil than I would like: Where's the peaceful protest of [past prominent figure]?", and respond "If this does not clean up you're on your own."

If somebody - somebody who is trans - pulls you aside - aside in a trans positivity thread - to say "Please don't make that 'joke', it's transphobic" has *any chance at all* of making you go "How rude! How malicious! I will not take these insults! Maybe you should go without my company until you learn some manners", you aren't an ally of the community. At absolute *best*, you're a self-admitted _mercenary_ who is explicitly only around so long as you get sufficient platitudes and / or benefits for your current level of support, who can and / or *will* jump ship if the other side presents a better gig (more platitudes, more benefits of friendship, less social pushback, etcetera). At worst - for example, if you then argue that nothing was transphobic about the content at all, and that people should consider themselves lucky to have you as an ally at all - you're showing that your "ally" status was paper thin to begin with, and that you considered your (and others') right to _make trans people uncomfortable_ more important than a basic level of tolerance / comfort for trans members of the community. That if questioned "Are trans people a punchline?", your answer is "Yes, unless _they've curried enough of my favor otherwise_".


----------



## BlackDogYodel (Jan 22, 2021)

Attaman said:


> There is no "I _was_ going to support your right to humane treatment, but you were mean to me and so now I'm not."


Tbh, i've seen this a lot during my time. It's less to do with trans discrimination than it is with responding in a petty and childish way to percieved insult imo. You make a lot of good points, but i think the issue you're touching on is bigger than the trans rights issue and speaks to the fractured nature of current political discourse and the immaturity of those that can engage in it.


----------



## Saokymo (Jan 22, 2021)

If your reaction to people trying to hold a discussion about transphobia (or any kind of discrimination/bigotry) is to feel personally attacked by it, then that really says more about your personal views than anything. Rather like someone calling out white supremacy, only for certain political groups to spin that into a personal attack against them when they were never even mentioned in the first place.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 22, 2021)

@contemplationistwolf 
Really couldn’t leave it alone huh?
Gotta come back around to defend the transphobia of the company you keep huh?
The same transphobia you don’t rebuke.
Honestly walk away because tbh you’re seeming pretty sus.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 22, 2021)

Attaman said:


> I'll point out that the issue with offering an out is that it requires (both in assumption and effect) that the offending party is acting in good faith. And the issue with that is, well... despite how some people might be trying to spin things, this thread did not appear out of the blue to stir dreck. Nor was it an attempt to point fingers or start a witch hunt.


Absolutely. Taking up an offer of an out is an implicit agreement not to repeat the behavior. If the behavior is then repeated, it’s a lot easier to say “you were told this was transphobic, and you did it again, so evidently you’re not as not-transphobic as you claim.” I personally see “you may not have known, but...” as a deescalation tactic based on the idea that people are more willing to change their behavior if they don’t lose face in doing so. I also don’t expect everyone else to feel the same way on how to respond to these things.

I want to be very clear that supporting giving people a way to save face does not in any way mean that transphobic content needs to or should be tolerated. If anything, the opposite - point it out every time it happens so that people who _are_ acting in good faith have the chance to better themselves. I want to give people a chance to say “my actions were bad but I will try to do better” - if they respond by defending their actions, instead, they’ve shown their colors and deserve to be treated with caution at best. (There are exceptions, but those are not really relevant here.)

I don’t disagree at all that there were grounds to make this thread and request that staff directly address the issue. I don’t know that I would personally have done it (just in a “different people approach things differently” sense), but you certainly weren’t pulling the circumstances out of thin air.



contemplationistwolf said:


> Don't launch personal attacks! Don't blow things out of proportion! Don't misrepresent past events! Stop ruthlessly bringing up old stuff that the mods have already looked over!


I have done none of these things and would appreciate if you’d refrain from accusing me of it. I literally said that I don’t believe that isolated transphobic statements must mean someone is a transphobe. I am speaking as much about human behavior in general as I am of behavior specifically on FAF and/or in this thread except where explicitly stated otherwise. 

Like... you’re the one who’s hung up on past events, here. All I’m asking of _anyone_ in the post you quote is that they don’t double down on their malicious/derogatory speech.


----------



## Saokymo (Jan 22, 2021)

This entire thread, summed up:
“Hey everyone, let’s be nice and not act like bullies on the forum.”
”ZOMG you’re such an SJW, why do you have to be so MEAN?!”
”What? All we said was be nice and not act like a bully. You weren’t even mentioned until you inserted yourself in the conversation.”
”I am personally attacked by that statement.”


----------



## mangomango (Jan 22, 2021)

People might not have bad intentions but it's not necessarily up to the person in question to decide what the impact of their words or actions are. Things might be said that don't sit well with a particular person, and despite it being easier to say, "That wasn't harmful, transphobic, etc.", people should try and put effort into realizing what exactly is the issue with what someone says and how to fix it in the future. Impact of words doesn't always equal intended impact, and instead of blaming the people who get offended, if you say something that another person is bothered by apologize, don't take it personally, and move on, keeping in mind what to do / not do in the future.


----------



## FlooferWoofer (Jan 22, 2021)

Trans rights ARE human rights. This should not be a controversial statement and it scares me that it is. Does my existence really cause some of you such chagrin and discomfort that this thread became a slapping contest? How did this even happen? I'm genuinely disappointed because I clicked on this hoping to alleviate some level of angst and now it's just compounded. 

We do NOT have equal rights and that is fact.

Being trans literally hurts no one at any stage of your lives. xp Yet there are people who want to spot-inspect my genitals before I can enter a bathroom based on what- traits arbitrarily associated with gender binaries? I would get even funnier looks if I tried to use the men's room... because I don't look masc and that would instantly out me too.

I'll take this a step further. Did you know I was going to join the military and can't now because they can see my prescriptions for spirono and estra and tell I'm trans? I literally can't be allowed to serve our country on my own whims, but I bet they would have no qualms drafting me if they were desperate. So I get the right to be conscripted against my will, but not the right to serve as a woman?

Trans rights ARE human rights and we need help because far too many would willingly deprive us of basic needs.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Jan 22, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> I have done none of these things and would appreciate if you’d refrain from accusing me of it. I literally said that I don’t believe that isolated transphobic statements must mean someone is a transphobe. I am speaking as much about human behavior in general as I am of behavior specifically on FAF and/or in this thread except where explicitly stated otherwise.


I wasn't actually addressing you directly, just pointing out general problems. Sorry if it came across that way.



Lucyfur said:


> @contemplationistwolf
> Really couldn’t leave it alone huh?
> Gotta come back around to defend the transphobia of the company you keep huh?
> The same transphobia you don’t rebuke.
> Honestly walk away because tbh you’re seeming pretty sus.


Got your baseless assertions *_rolls eyes_*

I get involved in whatever I consider important within the context. I don't think this community is under any threat from transphobes. It is however under threat from moral inquisitions built on lies.



Saokymo said:


> This entire thread, summed up:
> “Hey everyone, let’s be nice and not act like bullies on the forum.”
> ”ZOMG you’re such an SJW, why do you have to be so MEAN?!”
> ”What? All we said was be nice and not act like a bully. You weren’t even mentioned until you inserted yourself in the conversation.”
> ”I am personally attacked by that statement.”


That's not what's going on at all. Instead, what's being done is a bunch of false narratives are being pushed. Nothing wrong with discussing societal transphobia. Everything wrong with making making false transphobia accusations towards people/events on this site that aren't such, and then trying to aggressively push those narratives.



FlooferWoofer said:


> Does my existence really cause some of you such chagrin and discomfort that this thread became a slapping contest?


It didn't become a slapping contest because your existence causes anyone here discomfort (it doesn't). It became that because of the false narratives being pushed about things that have been going on in this site.



Attaman said:


> There is no "I _was_ going to support your right to humane treatment, but you were mean to me and so now I'm not." It is not "Well, I *normally* support the right pronouns, but this person is an asshole so I'll specifically misgender them".


Agreed! If a trans individual is behaving bad, you should call out their behavior or the actual bad aspects about them, not use who they are against them. It's a shame some people aren't above it.


----------



## Balskarr (Jan 22, 2021)

Jeez. All this arguing is pointless due to all the bad takes from both sides.

Trans rights are human rights. Simple as that. Good day to all.


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Jan 22, 2021)

Nah... I myself am a genderfluid too, but I go simple: I do me, haters gonna exist no matter how I be. So again, I do me. Cuz I want to, despite the hates and stuffs.

We don't really have to try to 'inform others', especially the 'opposing beings'. It'll be a waste of time, I suppose... And there's a high probability to make yourself more enemies. So I don't really let those negative things waste my time or advance on me. You can do it too, let's chill. UwU


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 22, 2021)

I was refraining from commenting here, but I feel it's time and I'm uncomfortable with the way trans people have been treated on here, especially by those who identify as conservative.

Correct if I'm wrong, because this did happen a few months ago, but there were something like *five *threads set up to express nothing more than transgender pride and possibly LGBT solidarity in a very short span. Those threads weren't demeaning cis people or straight people, just celebrating trans rights and ways to show LGBT pride. The purpose of these threads was also clearly stated in the opening posts, so unless you were illiterate, you knew what the threads were about and should have been aware of how to behave.

Despite all of the above being fairly evident, every single one of those threads had a certain subset of users who were post comments that by general majority consensus were clearly transphobic and meant to maliciously derail the threads.

If this happened once, it'd be unfortunate, but you could maybe chalk it up a misunderstanding, provided you ignored the clear derogatory statements (which I'm going to point out that mods had to remove, so clearly they met some standard of offensiveness and harassment) AND multiple users trying to reason with those making transphobic comments.

If this happened twice, maybe you could call it a coincidence and just say the users making transphobic comment are just slow learners who just had a relapse.

But when we get to five threads about transgender pride being disrupted and disrespected by same set of users making derogatory comments about trans people and the associated gaslighting afterwards, I think is should be clear to everyone who wants to be honest that is a deliberate transphobic trend, not a string of coincidences and misunderstandings.

I think it is reasonable for trans users and others to say enough is enough and demand better at that point.

The fact the mods had delete transphobic material from these threads (including this one) proves that this material violated community guidelines in the first place, otherwise why remove it? The material was offensive and people have a right to be offended by insulted issued to them. Some users, probably with a vested interested in saying so, might what harm do words have and the trans people or anyone is offended should just block the offending parties and be done with it.

Putting aside the corrosive effects of transphobic comments being made freely in the forum community, I think there is the obvious possible outcome some trans user being bullied just enough to harm themselves or even kill themselves. It also has the effect of driving away trans and nonbinary users while serving as a carrion call to users who think it's funny to bully them.

I noticed that there is trend where people like to say there are "sides" involved in this and the problem stems from both of them bickering, then tack on a throwaway statement supportive of trans people.

I don't really see where people arguing against transphobia are just as bad or bear some of the blame for those making transphobic comments. If we were at a trans pride party in real life (I don't know whether this is a thing, just roll with it) and a group of guests started making attack helicopter jokes, calling trans people mentally ill, and jeering at them for being offended, sensible people are not going to say, "This is both sides' fault. They need to stop arguing."

The people being rude and transphobic would be told to stop and if they didn't, they would get bounced.

I think the same principle should apply here and I don't think trans users should have to turn the other cheek when they done nothing wrong.


----------



## mangomango (Jan 22, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I was refraining from commenting here, but I feel it's time and I'm uncomfortable with the way trans people have been treated on here, especially by those who identify as conservative.
> 
> Correct if I'm wrong, because this did happen a few months ago, but there were something like *five *threads set up to express nothing more than transgender pride and possibly LGBT solidarity in a very short span. Those threads weren't demeaning cis people or straight people, just celebrating trans rights and ways to show LGBT pride. The purpose of these threads was also clearly stated in the opening posts, so unless you were illiterate, you knew what the threads were about and should have been aware of how to behave.
> 
> ...


I agree. Being trans is not a choice. Being transphobic and rude to others on the internet is. :3


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 22, 2021)

I will go on the record to say I did not lie about others having been transphobic here and that if anyone believes claims of me lieing they can DM me and I’ll prove I am not a liar.


----------



## Punji (Jan 22, 2021)

This isn't towards anyone directly, just a general post on some of the common thoughts I've seen expressed.

The People
I think the reason why these threads inevitably end the way they do is because of the views expressed _by all parties_. I honestly doubt there are many, indeed if any, genuine transphobes active here on the FAF. If there are, they must be rightfully silent. I personally find myself in these threads from time to time because of the disagreeable conduct of some of the participants, despite being extremely indifferent towards transgender people and its aspects or what have one.

I think some people get a little carried away and here is where the issues start to appear. No one as far as I know has any issue with trans people, I certainly don't. Some of the claims and arguments and even sentiments however become quite sour, as they have here and before. I don't think I have anything new to say regarding these things nor have I seen anything new said about them, so I'll save my piece for another day. However, I feel it is important to point out few to none are truly innocent and both parties must be acting in good faith. It is easy to say "oh person X or group Y isn't trying to be amicable" while regarding them with hostility or negative views and feel like the better one. Slowing things down and thinking about the tone and phrasing alone can help with the arguments I think, but often one forgets to empathize with their opponents. Both parties must act in good faith, often one expects the other to yet will not themselves.

The Morality
Another issue I very commonly see here is trying to establish a moral standard by which a given person is expected to uphold or be vilified and demonized. (Labelled a "transphobe" most often). Often one says something to the effect of "if a trans person says something is offensive to them then it's offensive." The fact of the matter is that what is and isn't offensive is subjective at best. Offence is never given, only taken. Without getting into the _messy_ () details, I call myself a "furfag" fairly often. To some this would undoubtedly be a grave insult, but I think it's kinda funny instead. I'd be quite against labelling someone as a "hateful bigot" because they joking called me or someone else a furfag when the entire insult is practically satire at this point. Some people however would respond extremely poorly.

In turn, this sort of behaviour becomes quite an issue. It's not "let's agree to disagree" or "some people simply feel differently about different subjects, and that's okay." Instead it becomes closer to "Agree with me or you're a bigot." The lack of interest in communication and opposing view points is a poison to any discussion. Any such minor nuance as "transgender_ism_" being in any way wrongful for example. The "ism" isn't a negative addition, or so I personally don't find it as such. Example, I usually use the phrase "furryism" to describe one's furry-ness/involvement in the fandom objectively. "Me and my furryism." It's quite confrontational to attempt to dictate exactly how language is used in such discussions. In my opinion, this is where the majority of problems arise, not because of supposed transphobia. Personal conflicts, not bigotry.

Personal conflicts
_Amazing transition_ aside, here lies the meat of why these threads end up in flames nearly every time. Let's not sugar-coat it, there are some people here who are not interested in being friendly and polite. Some of us here on the FAF, and indeed in other gatherings, don't seem to have hearts in the right places. The majority of conflicts caused here are clashes between people who already don't like each other, I think. Many of the posts in these threads are positively seething. Perhaps it's a combination of things.

It is no secret I'm sure, that everyone has a side and wants something different from this. Quite frankly, if anyone is looking for an echo chamber there are Discord servers for this, if not other sites as well. I'll say it again, there are no innocents in this world. Not everyone who thinks they act in good faith truly is, and not everyone even tries. Transphobia here on the FAF is a marginal to non-existent issue with the worst "bullying" being gang-ups for differing opinions and entirely light attempts at insult given this is in fact the Internet we're speaking over. Some who cry wolf are the villain in another fur's story. _No one is innocent_.

Lastly, two wrongs don't make a right. Let the past be over and give up your grudges, and maybe we'll finally see a happy resolution to things here. Too many of us are harbouring grudges and screenshots while conspiring in the virtual equivalent of a dark backroom over some opinion on the Internet. It's obvious everyone thinks they're the good and right one as one naturally would, but some can do more to better the situation than others, capiche?


----------



## Bluefiremark II (Jan 22, 2021)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Don't launch personal attacks! Don't blow things out of proportion! Don't misrepresent past events! Stop ruthlessly bringing up old stuff that the mods have already looked over!
> 
> Suppose we have a person who's generally supportive of trans people and believed that they deserve equal rights.
> Now suppose said person gets met with relentless and ruthless malice in response to saying something incredibly mild. Do you think they are going to become more or less supportive on trans issues?
> ...


This is EXACTLY me btw. Like, I've been to two lgbt threads, and the *mildest* offense i get harrassed and a warning from a mod and its crazy, now I'm completely against it. I used to be fine with it, i didn't like it but you do you, but now it's just full of hate. Accidentally say one thing they mildly dislike and im harrassed. I'm not going to harrass back, but I'm never supporting them since i only ever get harrassed for trying to be understanding to them.

I don't think this thread needed to be maafe. It was bound to cause issues yet again.

I don't hate anyone for being trans, but stop being so stereotypical mean to everyone, if you want respect its a 2 way thing. You can't ask for trans rights but harrass everyone. =/ be nice, that's the golden rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated!


----------



## mangomango (Jan 22, 2021)

Bluefiremark II said:


> This is EXACTLY me btw. Like, I've been to two lgbt threads, and the *mildest* offense i get harrassed and a warning from a mod and its crazy, now I'm completely against it. I used to be fine with it, i didn't like it but you do you, but now it's just full of hate. Accidentally say one thing they mildly dislike and im harrassed. I'm not going to harrass back, but I'm never supporting them since i only ever get harrassed for trying to be understanding to them.
> 
> I don't think this thread needed to be maafe. It was bound to cause issues yet again.
> 
> I don't hate anyone for being trans, but stop being so stereotypical mean to everyone, if you want respect its a 2 way thing. You can't ask for trans rights but harrass everyone. =/ be nice, that's the golden rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated!


I apologize that that's what you've taken away from the threads. I do believe that there's a fair amount of miscommunication issues that get interpreted wrong. I don't believe that many people on these threads (either side) have malice behind their actions and I think that it would be helpful to get off on a new foot. I think that the negative reactions towards certain words or phrases comes from trauma / negative interactions that have taken place over time. It may be the first time some people have used these phrases and they may not have meant anything by it, but I think often trans people have been exposed to negativity and hate from many different people and over long periods of time that a phrase that means little to you can be taken as a signal of hostility by other people. I'm not justifying the hostility from both sides, just making an observation. Most of these issues do come from miscommunication, which can spiral into arguments once tension rises.

I think the best solution to this is to give people benefit of the doubt despite earlier interactions, and make sure to attack the person's wording or actions, not necessarily the person.


----------



## Balskarr (Jan 22, 2021)

Punji said:


> This isn't towards anyone directly, just a general post on some of the common thoughts I've seen expressed.
> 
> The People
> I think the reason why these threads inevitably end the way they do is because of the views expressed _by all parties_. I honestly doubt there are many, indeed if any, genuine transphobes active here on the FAF. If there are, they must be rightfully silent. I personally find myself in these threads from time to time because of the disagreeable conduct of some of the participants, despite being extremely indifferent towards transgender people and its aspects or what have one.
> ...


Oh look. Someone with their head in the right place. Bravo.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 22, 2021)

I am sorry but like please tell me I read that wrong. did I just read that if people want equal rights they got to be nice? This is to paraphrase. 
Like as in Rights are conditional on being naughty or nice like some Sleigh Bells Santa type rhetoric?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 22, 2021)

Punji said:


> Any such minor nuance as "transgender_ism_" being in any way wrongful for example. The "ism" isn't a negative addition, or so I personally don't find it as such.


Language doesn’t develop in a vacuum. It’s not the addition of “-ism” in itself that makes the word an issue, but where it rose from and what groups predominantly use it. When someone uses it, that is a _hint_ that they _probably_ associate with these (anti-trans* or at best transphobic for the lulz) groups. These same groups are generally the ones pushing that being trans* or supporting trans* people is some kind of ideology, hence (presumably) the choice of suffix. So people have been informed that the roots of the word are unsavory and asked not to use it.

Without the context of it developing among people who act abusive towards trans* people it would not meet nearly as much, if any, pushback. If you (gen) aren’t familiar with that context, that’s fine, you can apologize, adjust your behavior going forward, and move on.

Using the language of abusers isn’t a “minor nuance” to the people victimized, even if it may look that way to you, on the outside looking in. You can find the suffix inoffensive to you, but that doesn’t automatically mean that every use of it is going to be without baggage. Part of being a good ally (and decent fellow human being in general tbfh) is listening when people tell you that something is offensive.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 22, 2021)

This is why I hate these forums. Just leave trans people alone. The "moral standard" is simplyfor you to let us live our lives with the same rights as everyone else. If you can't live up to that then you should feel bad. If you feel attacked by that statement then you should rethink yourself.


----------



## Punji (Jan 22, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Language doesn’t develop in a vacuum. It’s not the addition of “-ism” in itself that makes the word an issue, but where it rose from and what groups predominantly use it. When someone uses it, that is a _hint_ that they _probably_ associate with these (anti-trans* or at best transphobic for the lulz) groups. These same groups are generally the ones pushing that being trans* or supporting trans* people is some kind of ideology, hence (presumably) the choice of suffix. So people have been informed that the roots of the word are unsavory and asked not to use it.
> 
> Without the context of it developing among people who act abusive towards trans* people it would not meet nearly as much, if any, pushback. If you (gen) aren’t familiar with that context, that’s fine, you can apologize, adjust your behavior going forward, and move on.
> 
> Using the language of abusers isn’t a “minor nuance” to the people victimized, even if it may look that way to you, on the outside looking in. You can find the suffix inoffensive to you, but that doesn’t automatically mean that every use of it is going to be without baggage. Part of being a good ally (and decent fellow human being in general tbfh) is listening when people tell you that something is offensive.


Yes, exactly. Language doesn't develop in a vacuum so it's foolish to assume one knows every aspect of the words used, or their implications and associations. The words can come from any number of sources or inspirations, just because one source doesn't use it in a positive light doesn't mean every person using the word must be negative as well. Restricting every day language because one doesn't like someone else who also uses the word is just not very practical or realistic. One might avoid using the phrase in private, but this is an open air.

The notion that one is not only wrong, but ought to apologize for using an innocuous variation of an otherwise totally accepted word is exactly what I mean with this. It may be the "language of abusers" but it's also the language of the common person as well. This is not a racial slur with exactly one intention. It's treated as if it were however, and in a public conversation with strangers it's very conflictive. If you and I were speaking privately and you asked me not to use the phrase with you, that's totally fair. This is not the same setting and shouldn't be restricted in these ways.

If I said I found "trash panda" offensive, should everyone stop calling me that in the forum games? No, I may or may not like it, but it's a common phrase with a number of meanings. It doesn't make a person lesser for publicly saying "trash panda" when looking at a picture of a raccoon even when it could easily be used as a slur towards black people in the way "coon" is.

Furthermore, you imply a "good ally" and decent person will comply. This is exactly my point Mungo! Our conflicts here have nothing to do with identities, we're talking about the words we use.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 22, 2021)

Eh, I'm going to push back on a few things said since my last post without going into specifics just yet.

Some people are trying to make the point that all because they make transphobic comments doesn't mean they're transphobes. Technically, yeah, someone can misspeak and say something transphobic that offends trans people and other without hating trans people. People make mistakes. There is also the valid argument we're not psychic and we don't know definitely that someone making transphobic comments is a transphobe with legitimate animus towards trans people. I can admit that.

That said, if someone has a repeated, consistent history of making transphobic remarks (which have been so offensive that those remarks have been removed, threads have been temporarily or permanently shut down, and or the user who posted those remarks faced disciplinary action) and seemed always be harassing trans users, then I think we need to ask two pragmatic questions:

1. If this person is regularly posting transphobic content (whether that be jokes that make light of trans people in a malicious way like attack helicopter jokes, outright calling trans people mentally ill, referring to their gender as imaginary despite the science and legal status, posting videos airing transphobic views, and material otherwise meant to disparage them), which is allegedly against the rules, and breaking rules generally along with being disruptive in threads meant to affirm trans people but also on the general forum as well, does it really matter if they are a transphobe?

Because, functionally, they are acting consistently in a transphobic and disruptive manner that against the Code of Conduct.

2. If this user is repeatedly making transphobic comments and breaking the rules to the point where staff need to remove their posts, issue infractions, and even temporarily ban them, why should the burden be on the rule-abiding user base to simply ignore them and the damage they are doing to the community and its members?

Because while, yeah, users can block those making transphobic comments and maybe have some peace of mind from the stupidity, consider the damage that does to the community. I'd first point out that even if a trans user decides to finally block someone who has been bullying them, that doesn't necessarily fix the psychological damage to them and they could very well harm themselves, perhaps even kill themselves, because of what was said to them. Consider also that all because older users block the functionally transphobic users, newer users who are trans, older trans users who choose to push back against the transphobia, and even users who simply don't block will still be fair game for the bullies. The bullies will just move onto fresh targets.

Furthermore, like I mentioned before, this will result in users who are trans users being turned off from the forum while those who bully take it as license to harass them further. It also will reflect poorly on the forum community as a whole that we tolerate this poor and bigoted behavior.

Another thing I have noticed is that there is this pattern of users automatically jump into the trans pride threads and begin insulting trans people with gay abandon in unambiguous terms, followed by procession of users who engage in apologetics and "both sides bear blame here and there are no innocents" arguments, with some overlap between the two.

Now this has happened not once, not twice, not even thrice, but *five *times.

Like, I'm conservative, but I'm not offended by sight of a forum thread celebrating trans pride, trans rights, or LGBT progress. I don't think a place becomes a leftist echo chamber by saying it won't tolerate transphobic comments. I don't feel need to say I'm a trans potato, that identify as an attack helicopter, that trans people are mentally ill and need to be treated, or to tell a trans kid to cry more when they are demanding to be treated with respect. I have never been in a dispute with a trans person here over their gender.

There is no good reason for someone to engage in that kind of behavior on the forum, but especially in a thread antithetical to that behavior. Take it somewhere else or nowhere preferably.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 22, 2021)

Punji said:


> Furthermore, you imply a "good ally" and decent person will comply. This is exactly my point Mungo! Our conflicts here have nothing to do with identities, were talking about the words we use.


Are you suggesting that abusive language leads an existence separate and isolated from the people it’s been used against? Because... no. If you enter a conflict based on your perceived right to use language that people are telling you is tied to transphobia, it absolutely has everything to do with identity.

Listening to the people you claim to support is intrinsic to allyship. If you (gen) claim to be an ally, but try to tell trans* people that offensive language isn’t actually offensive, you’re not being an ally at all. It’s not about “complying,” it’s about actually listening to the people whom you claim to support. If you aren’t willing to listen, how will you know what support they need from you?


----------



## KimberVaile (Jan 22, 2021)

Balskarr said:


> Jeez. All this arguing is pointless due to all the bad takes from both sides.
> 
> Trans rights are human rights. Simple as that. Good day to all.


It's hard to believe every single trans thread has resulted in such vicious debate, honestly. Is it really that controversial to say trans people are just as valid and deserving of rights as anybody else?
It's not often I really lean more towards the hivemind but, man, what happened to the mantra of live and let live?
I get that some people are just out to settle personal grudges but I mean, that could easily be saved for another thread, you know. That little bit of courtesy could really go a long way and could remove a few issues. There's a time and place for everything.


----------



## Punji (Jan 22, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Are you suggesting that abusive language leads an existence separate and isolated from the people it’s been used against? Because... no. If you enter a conflict based on your perceived right to use language that people are telling you is tied to transphobia, it absolutely has everything to do with identity.


No. I'm saying the same language can have different meanings in different contexts and from different people. Labelling one phrase as bad no matter the source or context is not an appropriate solution. Again with the example of "'coon." I call myself a 'coon on account of being a racc, but if someone thought or assumed I was black and saw me or a friend of mine calling me a 'coon there'd be trouble without a doubt. Offensive is never given, only taken.



quoting_mungo said:


> Listening to the people you claim to support is intrinsic to allyship. If you (gen) claim to be an ally, but try to tell trans* people that offensive language isn’t actually offensive, you’re not being an ally at all. It’s not about “complying,” it’s about actually listening to the people whom you claim to support. If you aren’t willing to listen, how will you know what support they need from you?


This! This one right here. A very large contributor to the contention for sure methinks. This strongly implies, whether intentionally or not, that in order to be on the same "side" one must follow the rules laid out by the trans people.

If a person claiming to be a supporter of trans issues doesn't tow the line that transgender_ism_ is indeed offensive, they're not really a true supporter. This is compliance or rejection, flat out. "Us and them" mentality.

This demonstrates my point perfectly. You and I aren't disagreeing or at odds because of our stances on the value of transgender people differ, we're talking purely about what common language is and isn't okay and how a person is "supposed" to act.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 22, 2021)

Punji said:


> No. I'm saying the same language can have different meanings in different contexts and from different people. Labelling one phrase as bad no matter the source or context is not an appropriate solution. Again with the example of "'coon." I call myself a 'coon on account of being a racc, but if someone thought or assumed I was black and saw me or a friend of mine calling me a 'coon there'd be trouble without a doubt. Offensive is never given, only taken.


While misunderstanding can arise from ambiguities in the language used, I feel the language used in these threads that has been called transphobic isn't ambiguous at all, negating the need to for this particular debate. 

There is very little to left to interpretation when some says matter-of-factly that a trans person has an imaginary gender, they're mentally ill, or to cry more when they are told to stop. The transphobia is clear cut there. 

As for coon, I would you could use it in the furry context at your own risk, but it can be offensive and you really shouldn't. I expect this to in one ear and out the other. 


Punji said:


> This! This one right here. A very large contributor to the contention for sure methinks. This strongly implies, whether intentionally or not, that in order to be on the same "side" one must follow the rules laid out by the trans people.
> 
> If a person claiming to be a supporter of trans issues doesn't tow the line that transgender_ism_ is indeed offensive, they're not really a true supporter. This is compliance or rejection, flat out. "Us and them" mentality.
> 
> This demonstrates my point perfectly. You and I aren't disagreeing or at odds because of our stances on the value of transgender people differ, we're talking purely about what common language is and isn't okay and how a person is "supposed" to act.


First off, there is some leeway for what constitutes being an ally, but @quoting_mungo laid pretty succinctly why it was offensive to transgender individuals. Part of being an ally is not to offending the people you are supporting and use words that demean them. 

Second, I don't see what the big deal about not using transgenderism is. If this word is so meaningless, why you feel the need to use it?


----------



## Punji (Jan 22, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> While misunderstanding can arise from ambiguities in the language used, I feel the language used in these threads that has been called transphobic isn't ambiguous at all, negating the need to for this particular debate.
> 
> There is very little to left to interpretation when some says matter-of-factly that a trans person has an imaginary gender, they're mentally ill, or to cry more when they are told to stop. The transphobia is clear cut there.
> 
> As for coon, I would you could use it in the furry context at your own risk, but it can be offensive and you really shouldn't. I expect this to in one ear and out the other.


I'm sure there has been some less favourable terms thrown around here and there. I'm purely referring to sticking ism on the end of transgender, if you mean anything else. This is by all means innocuous, such that I didn't think anyone had a problem with it prior to reading so on these forums and suspect most people would feel the same.

You would expect it, wouldn't you? How charming.  Believe it or not I am careful with it, usually using "racc" instead with all the eggshells everywhere on the Internet. People who know me and my intentions well enough I trust to know what I mean. Though, when I do use it here I add an apostrophe to make it clear it's a cute truncation and nothing more.



Miles Marsalis said:


> First off, there is some leeway for what constitutes being an ally, but quoting_mungo laid pretty succinctly why it was offensive to transgender individuals. Part of being an ally is not to offending the people you are supporting and use words that demean them.
> 
> Second, I don't see what the big deal about not using transgenderism is. If this word is so meaningless, why you feel the need to use it?


Mungo gave a justification for her subjective opinion and I gave mine. We don't agree and that's fine. I don't see this as a legitimate reason to restrict its use. If she and I ever have words privately I'd try to remember her feelings on the word but for public use it remains in my vocabulary just the same.

Being an "ally" is a very skeezy concept to me. I don't think it's appropriate personally. If one was in need of support I'd expect all of it would be welcome. Beggars can't be chooses? I don't need an "ally" to be comfortable with being a furfag (  ), people will either take it as it is or they won't. Just my opinion on it anyway.

As for the word itself, for one thing it's irrational censorship. As with "'coon" once again some people use it in a negative way but I came to the same word from a different angle and use it in a different way, even though both uses are referring to an individual as a raccoon.

And secondly, "transgenderism" describes "transgender-ness." Trans/transgender refers to gender identity and trans people is about the people obviously. What word exists explicitly for the concept of being transgender beyond transgenderism? The word exists to describe a concept objectively and by itself. Like I said previously with furryism describing (metaphorical) "furriness," but also commonly used with other things such as Protestantism or functionalism. "Ism" isn't a negative thing. I'm sorry that some don't like the use of the suffix here. However it exists to serve a purpose and is entirely harmless in the contexts which I use it in.

The final point here is once again, conflict here hasn't arisen from friction between values on transgender people, it's because of us attempting to split hairs over common use of language with no offensive nature or intent. I'm sure I don't have to say you probably don't like me very much, and this has most likely influenced your response. Personal conflicts causing friction and spinning our collective wheels.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 22, 2021)

I would like to remind people that the last time we had a 'semantics' discussion in here, it included gems such as...

1) The largest survey of transgender individuals _ever, _with a sampling size greater than is often used in _national surveys_, is not a valid source because ???
2) Official government numbers in regards to verbal and physical harassment, assault, et al are not valid sources because ???
3) Middle School level math is not in effect because ???
4) Even _if_ we presume to treat the above three as valid, it doesn't matter because "There's always going to be crime, violence, etcetera. Suck it up bitches."
5) A jab at how rape statistics are made up and just women being spiteful. Because of _course_ we had to get that in here.

I would like to invite people now to consider that maybe, _just maybe_, when somebody is arguing that *there is literally no point in listening to Trans individuals and their experiences unless you want to*, that they're just trying to stir the pot and cause another multi-page derail with no productive discussion except to fish for things to be wary of and prepare counter-arguments for next time.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 22, 2021)

@Punji  I have a question.
What do you mean or what is the meaning of the word “transgenderism” like what does the suffix here do in the usage as to imply what exactly?


----------



## TyraWadman (Jan 22, 2021)

I feel like this is Spongebob getting Patrick to open the pickle jar, but instead of a pickle jar, it's clicking the ignore/block button.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 22, 2021)

Punji said:


> I'm sure there has been some less favourable terms thrown around here and there. I'm purely referring to sticking ism on the end of transgender, if you mean anything else. This is by all means innocuous, such that I didn't think anyone had a problem with it prior to reading so on these forums and suspect most people would feel the same.
> 
> You would expect it, wouldn't you? How charming.  Believe it or not I am careful with it, usually using "racc" instead with all the eggshells everywhere on the Internet. People who know me and my intentions well enough I trust to know what I mean. Though, when I do use it here I add an apostrophe to make it clear it's a cute truncation and nothing more.
> 
> ...


I would argue that trans pride threads are not the appropriate venue for using the "favorable terms" "here and there" on top of noting the transphobic material redacted from the threads and bans that were handed out as a result. 

Now I freely admit that I don't respect you or what you stand for much of the time, particularly since you do it in the name in conservatism, which casts those of us with extreme view as engaging in the behaviors you do. Acknowledging that, all because I do like you doesn't mean I can't be right about what has transpired here, point out salient areas that need to be rectified, and state facts. 

Facts like how transgenderism is primarily a term used by anti-transgender activists to connote an purported ideology behind transgender identities, trans activism, and trans rights movements, when they are not using it to imply being transgender is a condition to be cured. 

(I dug up that last source just for you, Canadian.)

I'm sure you didn't know any of this already.


TyraWadman said:


> I feel like this is Spongebob getting Patrick to open the pickle jar, but instead of a pickle jar, it's clicking the ignore/block button.


One cis person to another, I think it's easy to say that when you're not the targeted party. It's also a half-solution to a whole problem.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jan 22, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I would argue that trans pride threads are not the appropriate venue for using the "favorable terms" "here and there" on top of noting the transphobic material redacted from the threads and bans that were handed out as a result.
> 
> Now I freely admit that I don't respect you or what you stand for much of the time, particularly since you do it in the name in conservatism, which casts those of us with extreme view as engaging in the behaviors you do. Acknowledging that, all because I do like you doesn't mean I can't be right about what has transpired here, point out salient areas that need to be rectified, and state facts.
> 
> ...



You don't have to be trans to know how strangers/trolls on the internet work.


----------



## Rakiya (Jan 22, 2021)

I always struggle to find my place in transgender topics... since I'm torn into being on both sides of the argument.
On one hand I'm predominantly supportive of the whole transgender thing, people can identify with the gender that they feel suits them, and if I need to change my usage of language (pronouns) a bit to accommodate them, then so be it. It's really not that hard. As a concept, I don't have any issues with people being transgender at all.
But despite this... I dislike the transgender community.

Yes, I'm making a generalization. And while I know it's a statement that's been overused in the dumbest of ways...
"I have a very close friend that's transgender.'
But reading threads like this... more often that not results in my opinion of the transgender community and it's supporters to plummet.

I dislike the attitude that a lot of transgender supportive community have when it comes to their rights.
First and foremost transgender rights are not human rights.
There's no denying that transgender people are human beings too... so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they're just as eligible to fall within the parameters of being treated with decency. That involves being unfairly discriminated against in a significantly detrimental way. While being mocked as an 'attack helicopter' is undoubtedly unpleasant (and frankly stupid), it's probably not significant enough to fall under human rights abuse. While it sucks to admit, they can say that... but it is pretty stupid. And I can't fathom why that'd be funny to anyone transphobic or otherwise.

The biggest issue I have with the transgender community is that an overwhelming number of responses I've seen from them tend to be very hostile. I can understand that being mocked, and socially discriminated against isn't a pleasant feeling. But attitudes like "If you disagree with me you can go eat a pile of feces" isn't really portraying anyone in a positive light. And it's remarks like that which make me (wrongly) see some legitimacy in the way transphobic people treat some transgender people. Simply put, people aren't going to be understanding when the group they're trying to be understanding towards behave in a provocative or outright offensive manner. Again, I understand that there's a lot of frustration, and that it's unhealthy to bottle it all up and "deal with it." But lowering oneself to the same level as the transphobic side isn't productive or helpful at all. Essentially, just because someone is right, that doesn't give them the right to be condescending to others.

Another issue that's displayed immediately above is nitpicking.
There's nothing wrong with the term "transgenderism" as it's a word used to describe the transgender social movement.
Adding -ism on the end of things is a neutral practice, and while words like racism/terrorism are negative, words like tourism/realism/baptism are completely neutral. There weren't any issues with the terminology 'feminism' so I don't see why transgenderism being a similar movement in essence should have issues with it. The link provided above says 'ism' shouldn't be used as it implies a 'condition' probably in a similar sense to autism(?) but autism isn't a word we should be refraining from using in a civilized way either. (Cause we shouldn't be pretending autism is a taboo topic).  English is a complicated language with many applications, avoiding words that have no ill intent out of fear that it may be incorrectly interpreted in a negative light is one of the reasons people feel like their 'legitimate' free speech is being affected.

Additionally, contextual usage and intent matter. Saying that 'transgenderism' usually has negative connotations may or may not be true. But the usage of the word should not be condemned universally if it's not directly offensive. Hell, the term 'furry' is frequently used as a derogatory term outside the fandom, but if I were to call any of you a 'furry' I certainly hope it wouldn't be cause for someone taking issue.

Moving back to the initial post, I certainly agree that transphobia should be enforced if it is being expressed on the forums. (I say "If" because I generally don't check the forums much and haven't seen any of the mentioned posts.) But going with an "in-your-face" approach such as a banner; while satisfying might not yield the desired results. One thing people often forget in these kinds of topics is that 'winning an argument' is pointless if no one has been convinced to change their mind.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 22, 2021)

I will say this and make it clear.
Please don’t speak as if the trans community has equal rights with everyone else. If you don’t know what I mean frankly you should use google because a big one is anti discrimination protections. The trans community lacks that so for example if my land lord wants to kick me out because I’m trans they could that is if I wasn’t in one of the few areas in America where the city//state passed it’s own laws. This is why things like the Equality Act that has been proposed and wound up frozen on the previous majority leaders desk matter.

this is more than attack helicopters and that bs but that also doesn’t mean we should sit idle and turn away from transphobia.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 22, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> I always struggle to find my place in transgender topics... since I'm torn into being on both sides of the argument.
> On one hand I'm predominantly supportive of the whole transgender thing, people can identify with the gender that they feel suits them, and if I need to change my usage of language (pronouns) a bit to accommodate them, then so be it. It's really not that hard. As a concept, I don't have any issues with people being transgender at all.
> But despite this... I dislike the transgender community.
> 
> ...


I stopped reading when you made yourself a bigot by saying you dislike transgender people. You are the problem.


----------



## Punji (Jan 22, 2021)

Hmm, did I miss a post? No, probably not.

I wasn't specifically addressed directly, and nothing else sounds familiar to past events as they happened. 



Lucyfur said:


> @Meeeeeeeeee I have a question.
> What do you mean or what is the meaning of the word “transgenderism” like what does the suffix here do in the usage as to imply what exactly?


As I said previously, it describes the concept of being transgender without relation to an individual.

Like before, "me and my furryism." Wherein furryism is involvement in the fandom, such that the phrase is saying "I and all that I am because of my involvement in the furry fandom." Hope that makes sense!



Miles Marsalis said:


> I would argue that trans pride threads are not the appropriate venue for using the "favorable terms" "here and there" on top of noting the transphobic material redacted from the threads and bans that were handed out as a result.
> 
> Now I freely admit that I don't respect you or what you stand for much of the time, particularly since you do it in the name in conservatism, which casts those of us with extreme view as engaging in the behaviors you do. Acknowledging that, all because I do like you doesn't mean I can't be right about what has transpired here, point out salient areas that need to be rectified, and state facts.
> 
> ...


Hey, you and me both pal. But I ain't drugged up 20 pages worth of bullshit by myself, you know what I'm sayin'? If trans pride was all that was going on we'd hit maybe three pages tops before there was nothing new to say.

Heh, oh, interesting. I'm not a conservative, don't know why you'd assume so. If anything the few things I've ever said about poltics are leftist-leaning. But hey, at least you're not pretending so kudos to that. I'm honestly surprised, most people just ignore when I call them out on that. You disliking me doesn't make me wrong. I only want to point out how you feel about myself so it's quite clear where your biases may lie. Perhaps it may be time to practice what you preach, eh friend? Be the bigger man for once.

Haha, okay, first of all, really? A Wikipedea article? Anyways, "1. The state of being transgender, 2. A purported ideology behind transgender identities, trans activism and trans rights movements." That's actually shockingly close to what I said previously. "Considered offensive by some" but we've already touched on that, haven't we dear? Re: 'coon, FF., context.

This second thing is a joke. I'd actually run a check to see if this was legit if I cared enough. _Homosexual_ is "a dated and potentially offensive term for a person who has emotional and/or sexual attraction to people of the same sex." Yeah, that seems like a good platform doesn't? Next you'll be telling me heterosexual is offensive to the straight minority in our fandom? Don't even get me started on "biologically/genetically male/female," oh brother. Let me just call up the government office and complain that my biological sex is listed on my heathcare card. Are you for real right now man? XD

Many thanks for the efforts, outlander.


----------



## Rakiya (Jan 22, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> I will say this and make it clear.
> Please don’t speak as if the trans community has equal rights with everyone else. If you don’t know what I mean frankly you should use google because a big one is anti discrimination protections. The trans community lacks that so for example if my land lord wants to kick me out because I’m trans they could that is if I wasn’t in one of the few areas in America where the city//state passed it’s own laws. This is why things like the Equality Act that has been proposed and wound up frozen on the previous majority leaders desk matter.
> 
> this is more than attack helicopters and that bs but that also doesn’t mean we should sit idle and turn away from transphobia.



I'm going to quickly point out that I don't live in America, and therefore don't have very much understanding when it comes to the discrimination and frustrations people experience over there. So if my comments below seem ridiculous or a bit off, it's probably my lack of understanding of how things work over there.

I'm not surprised to hear that there are no protections specifically for transgender people.
But are there any broad protections that encompass transgender people?
For example, I've signed a lease and contractual agreement on the house I'm living in at the moment, and the owner can't kick me out unless they have a good reason to do so. (Eg; Unsafe foundations, criminal activity, breach of contractual obligations such as paying rent, etc). And if they were to kick me out they'd need substantial evidence to prove their reasoning. Being transgender (or gay-leaning in my instance) is not a good enough reason, and they'd be stuck with me until the lease expired. I'd have to leave afterwards but.. I think that's fair enough.

If there is no contractual paperwork involved, how do circumstances differ for a cisgender person?
I don't mean to compare being transgender with trivial choices, but could the house owner kick me out for supporting a political party they didn't like? Could they kick me out for having friends that they thought were unsavory, could they kick me out for being a furry?

If they can, that sounds like an issue with a lack of residential protection laws, not an issue with transgender discrimination one (it does encompass it though). If they can't... then I'm confused by why being transgender seems to have been whitelisted as an acceptable reason to dismiss, or has been left as a loophole... in which case it'd most likely be a transphobia issue.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> I'm going to quickly point out that I don't live in America, and therefore don't have very much understanding when it comes to the discrimination and frustrations people experience over there. So if my comments below seem ridiculous or a bit off, it's probably my lack of understanding of how things work over there.
> 
> I'm not surprised to hear that there are no protections specifically for transgender people.
> But are there any broad protections that encompass transgender people?
> ...


Okay so we have this fancy thing in America called the civil rights act and what it did was provides legal protection from discrimination that was previously not an afforded right based on race.

the previously mentioned Equality Act would expand that to that trans community so like everyone else we too would have those same protections and rights meaning recourse for discrimination in healthcare, and housing as an example.

there of course are other issues like bs like that trans panic defense that is still an allowed defense in the courts of many of America’s states.

again please look into the topic


----------



## GentleButter (Jan 23, 2021)

As a trans man IRL and a newly open furry, I have a few very short points to make to transphobes and people who defend transphobic rhetoric.

1. Society doesn't accept you being a furry. You are a a minority in the sense of sharing this interest and being bigoted towards trans folx is not only ironic, but it shows your lack of empathy despite similar experiences in being looked down upon.

2. Language perpetuates discrimination. To apply an example to furry experience again, we all know we aren't dogf*ck€rs, but the more people openly joke about that furry narrative, the more uneducated people are exposed to that idea, and it solidifies this bad reputation whether or not the person says "I'm just joking" or "its just my opinion."

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

(p.s, I'm not equating furry struggles to LGBT ones, these are just examples we should all understand given the forum we are in.)


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 23, 2021)

You know if every trans person is calling you a transphobe then maybe you should rethink what you're saying.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I feel like this is Spongebob getting Patrick to open the pickle jar, but instead of a pickle jar, it's clicking the ignore/block button.


Personally I know that blocking people is not very effective because I have been repeatedly quoted by a user I blocked- who continues to make nasty comments about me.

In any case I think we should reflect on the fact that, rather than asking transgender users to block everybody who sends weirdo comments to them...why can't we just ask people who feel personally targeted by transgender 'meanness' to just block the users they dislike instead of continuing to send them snarky messages?

If they feel personally offended by the existence of a thread saying 'bullying isn't alright', _why are they posting in it in the first place_?



TyraWadman said:


> You don't have to be trans to know how strangers/trolls on the internet work.



Trolling is against the rules of course. I've seen nasty comments directed against users who are 13 or 14, by adult men in their mid or late twenties. 
The staff will be able to confirm that posts in this thread were deleted, because they targetted a 14 year old after the child said they felt they were being bullied. 
So, as adults, we kinda have to recognise that we're not going to be able to blame the 14 year old for feeling upset in that situation and being naive about trolls. Really it's a situation of trying to get those men who are doing trolling to re-assess their lives.


----------



## Rakiya (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> Okay so we have this fancy thing in America called the civil rights act and what it did was provides legal protection from discrimination that was previously not an afforded right based on race.
> 
> the previously mentioned Equality Act would expand that to that trans community so like everyone else we too would have those same protections and rights meaning recourse for discrimination in healthcare, and housing as an example.
> 
> ...


So I've done a bit of light reading into the topic you've requested... and while I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert on the subject.
I'm very surprised by how backwards/behind America is in this regard... considering discrimination based on gender identity in such circumstances have been unlawful in my country since 2014... and I've always thought of my home country as being a bit dated and on the conservative side of policy making. It's good to read though that things seem to be moving in the right direction though, and you won't have to worry about transphobic landlords kicking you out in the likely event the upcoming government allows the amendment/extension. 

The panic defense thing though, is something I knew of, and I remember rolling my eyes and telling my friend "Only in America" at the time.
----


GentleButter said:


> 1. Society doesn't accept you being a furry. You are a a minority in the sense of sharing this interest and being bigoted towards trans folx is not only ironic, but it shows your lack of empathy despite similar experiences in being looked down upon.
> 
> 2. Language perpetuates discrimination. To apply an example to furry experience again, we all know we aren't dogf*ck€rs, but the more people openly joke about that furry narrative, the more uneducated people are exposed to that idea, and it solidifies this bad reputation whether or not the person says "I'm just joking" or "its just my opinion."
> 
> ...


The problem with your first point is that there isn't really anything ironic or unusual about minorities being hostile or bigoted towards other minorities though. On the contrary it's pretty common even within the LGBT community where I've been called a "chicken-sh*t" for not coming out as gay, and identifying along bisexual lines. I also wouldn't hold the furry community as a gold standard either as there are many cliques and sections of the community that have certain definitions that are required in order to be a "true furry".... whatever that is. Minorities go against each other if their interests don't align, and minorities form all the time within minorities. 
I'm also not very open about the whole furry thing in real life... but those that I have expressed it to don't seem to mind too much. They find it odd, but there's no furor, or looking down that I'm aware of.

As for language, there's no doubting that there are certain types of language that sustain or even encourage discrimination. 
There's no denying that there's negativity involved there, but part of the problem also comes from people looking to complain and ban words that are neutral and unoffensive in nature. 'Transgenderism' for example isn't really perpetuating discrimination at all.... and after @Punji pointed it out, I've come to realize just how nonsensical the earlier link by the Alberta Health Services was. There are multiple words on that list that I find completely unoffensive such as but not limited to; Homosexual, Lifestyle,  Sexual preference, and transgenderism. In fact, I've know numerous clubs and social venues to have LGBT people host events with names like "Dyke Night and Lez Party." In fact, I actually looked up the Alberta Health Group itself, and their website itself has a page dedicated to Alberta's Gender Reaffirming Program... a word they've directly listed as a dated term that isn't preferred.



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> You know if every trans person is calling you a transphobe then maybe you should rethink what you're saying.


For better or worse, I highly doubt I'll ever be able to listen to the opinion of "every trans person."
But putting my snarkiness aside, I've interacted with quite a few transgender people in real life that don't like to associate themselves with the transgender community at all, citing phrases like 'overly-dramatic, misguided, populist movement, victim mentality.'
I've even referred my aforementioned transgender friend to this thread, and their response was "This is why no one takes transgender people seriously."

Personally, I do notice elements of all of the above in the transgender movement, but I like to believe that there's a group of reasonably minded logical people trying to attain proper, significant and overdue change at the movement's core. The equality act mentioned above gives me some hope that I'm right in that sense. But it's hard to main a supportive front when the movement is littered with groups of people that like to make exaggerated comments like "every trans person', claim to not read or care to understand their opponents perspectives, and seem hell bent on being upset. While sensationalism has a place in activism and can be effective when used correctly, I can't help but feel as if the road to equality would have been reached, or have been drastically reduced if both sides attempted to convey their positions, rather than jumping up and down and demanding the other side shut up and just do what they're told.


----------



## BlackDogYodel (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> I am sorry but like please tell me I read that wrong. did I just read that if people want equal rights they got to be nice? This is to paraphrase.
> Like as in Rights are conditional on being naughty or nice like some Sleigh Bells Santa type rhetoric?


Trans rights are human rights because trans people are human beings.

Some human beings act like assholes, if you act like an asshole people aren't going to listen to you and instead will turn against you.

The nobility of your goal is irrelevant in such a situation, if you act poorly it will sour people to you and your cause.

So yes. Be nice, and be a decent human being. Not only will it help you but it will help advance trans equality a lot further than acting like an asshole will.

(Not calling you an asshole btw, i'm making a broader point here)


----------



## Attaman (Jan 23, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> First and foremost transgender rights are not human rights.
> There's no denying that transgender people are human beings too... so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they're just as eligible to fall within the parameters of being treated with decency.


Just off the top of my head for some basic ones:
1) States, Health Organizations, and Judges can and have argued that you can freely deny providing medical services to trans individuals. [1][2][3] , which correlates pretty directly to Article 25 explicitly (and others implicitly)
2) Trans individuals suffer disproportionate abuse and mistreatment by law enforcement (and the penal system) well beyond the general population [1][2] , correlating to Articles 5 and 9 explicitly (and again more implicitly)
3) The numerous iterations of Bathroom Laws are a pretty clear cut violation of Article 12, unless you want to make an argument that forcing people to present ID and suffer attacks / accusations (often including demands to see somebody's private parts) merely for _using a public restroom_ does not count as an interference with their privacy or a lack of protection by law against as much.
4) Emphasis mine in [1],


> The rule, which does not differ much from a proposed version released last year, is part of a broad Trump administration effort across multiple areas of policy — including education, housing, and employment, as well as health care — to narrow the legal definition of sex discrimination so that it does not include protections for transgender people.


Covers violations of Articles 7, 17, 23, 25, 26.

And these are all just off the top of my head, admittedly of a US lean since it's where I live and as such I get inundated with such information much more readily than other nations (Admittedly from what I've been shared and recall things _aren't particularly better_ either north or south of the border).

Trans Rights are Human Rights. The thread has predominantly lingered on matters such as user rhetoric / behavior and whatnot because...
1) Unless somebody here is a sitting Judge, Governor, Congressman, or other prominent judicial / political figure, we can't do much in regards to things like the above outside vote responsibly and call our Judges / Representatives / Governors / et al and apply pressure in the usual (legal) manner (threaten to organize votes against them, withdraw funding, make their choices a PR disaster, etcetera).
2) Because apparently, even with all the above shit flung towards the trans community (which is _far_ from comprehensive, as I could easily dig into the aforementioned Survey if so desired to offer more examples such as the disproportionately high assault rate faced by the community), it's controversial to expect a _basic modicum of decency. _Let alone listen to _multiple_ trans users - of various formal and informal user groups - express their experiences and opinions, instead of telling them they're wrong and that they'll be prettier if they smile more (I may sound snarky saying the prettier example repeatedly, but it's very much a thing that has and is said on here and is about as disrespectfully infuriating as you'd expect every time it comes up unironically).



Rakiya said:


> I can understand that being mocked, and socially discriminated against isn't a pleasant feeling.


Socially, legally. Po-tae-toe, Po-tah-toh. Isn't pleasant, often includes physical violence and / or enough trauma to cause PTSD. Split the difference, eh?

I understand that I am being aggressive here. ... There is no but, though. I'm being aggressive, though I will apologize if this is merely a case of not being your primary language or being misworded in general or whatnot, because "isn't a pleasant feeling" is a _particularly choice_ way to describe repeated harassment, denial of one's identity, disproportionate likelihood of being verbally and / or physically assaulted, et al. I would use "isn't a pleasant feeling" to describe something like "I stubbed my toe against the table getting ice", or "a friend called me to say they're feeling under the weather and will have to cancel movie night". It's... a bit dismissive, of the sum effect of numerous aggressions (micro- and otherwise), dismissals, trivializations, and so-on that the majority of the trans community suffers through daily. Once again, if not your intent (let alone if not your primary language) then I do genuinely apologize. And if not... Yeah.


Rakiya said:


> But lowering oneself to the same level as the transphobic side


To be a bit more blunt than above even: There is no equivalency between "A trans person said something mean to me in a snarky tone" and "Legalizing discrimination up to and including access to employment, housing, medical coverage, and even an education". There is no equivalency between "I was told to get dunked on" and "Inflicts a level of violence approximately eight times the national average _on average_, with some demographics of the Trans community suffering even worse".



Rakiya said:


> Saying that 'transgenderism' usually has negative connotations may or may not be true.


I'm going to be real with you doc: Saying "Trans Rights aren't Human Rights", "The Transgender Community and Transgender Community are Both As Bad", and "We can't really know if transgenderism actually has negative connotations" is... not doing yourself any favors with the "Overall I'm supportive" argument. Like, at all. If you genuinely feel supportive of the community and you'd prefer to be an ally / supportive person for as much, you _may_ want to reconsider some of your rhetoric and arguments as well as educate yourself further on the subject matter. Because one should generally start with their best foot forward, and if _this_ is the best foot... might I suggest spending a few moments on introspection next time you shower?



Rakiya said:


> I'm not surprised to hear that there are no protections specifically for transgender people.
> But are there any broad protections that encompass transgender people?


Nowhere near enough, no. Also, there's parties that are actively working to strip and / or redefine these protections in a manner so that they no longer encompass the transgender population. And lots of wiggle room even when there are explicit - unalienable - rights (for example: Even when local law explicitly says you may not discriminate in hiring based on somebody's sexual identity... good luck proving it was sexual identity that got you turned down / canned). Also law enforcement is disproportionately likely to abuse trans individuals who fall into their 'care' (and good luck proving it after the fact), to say nothing about access to legal services when the transgender community is also disproportionately likely to both be in poverty (thus unable to afford to engage in costly, lengthy legal endeavors) _and_ deprived of the usual support communities (since parental / familial disowning is very much still a crisis faced by our brothers, sisters, et al).



Rakiya said:


> I'm also not very open about the whole furry thing in real life... but those that I have expressed it to don't seem to mind too much. They find it odd, but there's no furor, or looking down that I'm aware of.
> [...]
> But putting my snarkiness aside, I've interacted with quite a few transgender people in real life that don't like to associate themselves with the transgender community at all, citing phrases like 'overly-dramatic, misguided, populist movement, victim mentality.'
> *I've even referred my aforementioned transgender friend to this thread*, and their response was "This is why no one takes transgender people seriously."


So, in the ten hours since you started posting in this thread, you contacted an IRL friend who's trans, linked them to this forum and thread (despite the thread being on a forum about a subject you admit to not being something you're particularly open about), had them read through it (and, presumably, some of the other threads / forum posts that set off this thread), and their conclusion was quite literally and succinctly "This is why no-one takes transgender people seriously"? Specifically because of posts like "Maybe you should listen when somebody's who's trans tells you something about the community and / or rhetoric aimed at it"?

How stunningly convenient!



Rakiya said:


> While sensationalism has a place in activism and can be effective when used correctly, I can't help but feel as if the road to equality would have been reached, or have been drastically reduced if both sides attempted to convey their positions,


Oh. _*Oh*._ "Trans people bring it on themselves". 

Thank you. You've shared everything that needs to be known / said about your opinion, allyship, et al.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 23, 2021)

BlackDogYodel said:


> The nobility of your goal is irrelevant in such a situation, if you act poorly it will sour people to you and your cause.
> 
> So yes. Be nice, and be a decent human being. Not only will it help you but it will help advance trans equality a lot further than acting like an asshole will.


To jump in for a moment on this regard,

I feel like pointing out, since the day celebrating it was relatively recently, that _Martin Luther King Jr_ is often portrayed now as "The most civil of civil men. A model for people to follow for Civil Rights advancement." He is totemically held up by various news groups as "Who modern, loud and disrespectful protestors should emulate". A man who was taken well before his time.

He was literally one of _the_ most hated men in the US at the time of his death, portrayed frequently as a violent and disrespectful thug, and - lest we all forget - was not the target of merely _one_ assassination attempt by a lone radical that against all odds succeeded. Furthermore, one of the reasons he was so idolized and people changed their tune... was that King's death was followed with a _sweeping_ membership boom to the Black Panther movement. Or, more succinctly: His death had the opposite effect intended. It didn't intimidate the community back 'into its place'... it broke the camel's back.

_Existence and not quietly taking everything_ is "acting poorly" for a significant portion of the population. The only point upon which the transphobic community would find Trans existence to be tolerable is "Non-existent, except as a punchline and / or punching bag".


----------



## ConorHyena (Jan 23, 2021)

BlackDogYodel said:


> So yes. Be nice, and be a decent human being. Not only will it help you but it will help advance trans equality a lot further than acting like an asshole will.



Some people don't understand the language of nice. Some people only understand the language they themselves sick upon others. Any civil rights movement worth their salt should be, if need arose, able to speak the language of un-nice.

The nazis didn't go because we asked them politely.


----------



## BlackDogYodel (Jan 23, 2021)

Attaman said:


> To jump in for a moment on this regard,
> 
> I feel like pointing out, since the day celebrating it was relatively recently, that _Martin Luther King Jr_ is often portrayed now as "The most civil of civil men. A model for people to follow for Civil Rights advancement." He is totemically held up by various news groups as "Who modern, loud and disrespectful protestors should emulate". A man who was taken well before his time.
> 
> ...


I understand this. However from what i've seen of the people you're describing, they use MLK's memory to whitewash (funnily enough) the history of the civil rights movement and the violence that occurred for that cause. Using Martin and his eulogized civility to undermine the civil rights problems we're facing today.

This is a completely different topic to the one being discussed, and it doesn't really detract from my point that meeting bigotry with dignity undermines the bigot a lot more than if you drop down to their level.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 23, 2021)

Adding to what @Attaman and @ConorHyena said above:
I personally make a concentrated effort to be nice. I’ve made multiple posts in this thread where I said things like “a transphobic statement does not automatically make someone a transphobe” and “I prefer to give people a way to save face when I call them on something.” That’s just how I interact with people in general.

However, if I ask someone to not do something, because that action is associated with bad actors, and their response is “I’m not a bad actor so I should be allowed to do it,” how many more times do I need to say please before telling them off in order to be “nice enough?” I’m not saying “bite people’s head off at the slightest misstep,” and neither are most (or any, really) people here. By all means allow people to be imperfect and make mistakes! Things like word connotations and language having ties to particular groups are hard!

It’s not simply a mistake when you double down on your behavior, though. And if you double down and then complain that the people who asked you to change your behavior are getting increasingly short with you? You’re in need of some serious self-reflection.


----------



## Saokymo (Jan 23, 2021)

> There’s a term for this sort of bad-faith argument: it’s called the justification-suppression model. The theory is that bigots refrain from directly defending their own bigotry but get hugely riled up justifying the abstract right to express bigotry. So instead of saying, for example, “I don’t like foreigners,” they’ll fight hard for someone else’s right to get up on stage and yell that foreigners are coming to convert your children and seduce your household pets.



No, I Will Not Debate You

One cannot have a reasoned debate with those who refuse to listen or speak in good faith. All of the bad actors in this thread are _*not*_ here to have an open, honest discussion; they are here simply to stir up trouble and muddy the waters for the rest of us who do want to have an open chat. And as with every group of bullies, they continuously contort themselves to be the victim whenever we - _*the marginalized group that this thread was made to support*_ - try to speak out against their manipulation tactics, or act in any less-than-totally-perfect manner to justify their bullying against us.

In an ideal world, we would be able to block & ignore these bullies and carry on unbothered. Unfortunately, *that tactic never works*. Ignoring bullies doesn’t make them go away; they simply change their tactics to find more buttons to push, until their victims inevitably snap and lash out - then they get to cry and whine to the mods and *we* get punished for *their* actions. We’ve seen this play out time and time again, yet nothing ever changes.


----------



## Rakiya (Jan 23, 2021)

@Attaman
I'm going to be frank and say I'm not really sure how you're wanting me to respond to your post.
Cause reading through your post (and others that have replied to me), I can't help but think that you're all wanting me to admit that I'm a horrible person who hates transgender people, and believe they should be completely stripped of their status as human beings until they reconsider.
And judging from some of the other comments I've read and heard on and off this forum... I'm not the only one.
I mean, I say I'm supportive of transgender people being encompassed within the breadth of human rights, and that they deserve to be treated with decency. And the response I get is that my attitude and rhetoric is all wrong. I'm not really left with much to work with am I?
The only response I can come up with in response to most of what you've posted is.
"Wow, America is a really shit country"

I probably won't go into depth with the links you've provided as I'm taking your points at face value, and assuming you know what you're talking about. My interest regarding the matter has been piqued in an alternate direction which would be the treatment of transgender people in other western democracies similar to America. As I've noticed how an overwhelming majority of transgender people with issues seem to come from the United States. (Not saying it's perfect everywhere else though).

Final word of advice though, is that it's probably not a good idea to accuse someone of lying unless you have some sort of basis to make your accusation on. I know it must be hard for you to believe, but not all transgender people are crying out for sympathy and unconditional understanding from the general public. Some... just want to live their lives in peace, and are actually managing pretty well.
I don't really need to justify to you whether my aforementioned friend is imaginary or not. But I'm not entirely sure how it's difficult to believe that I managed to make contact with a friend in 10 hours. If it helps my case, I used the internet to contact them, not pen and paper + postal.



quoting_mungo said:


> I personally make a concentrated effort to be nice. I’ve made multiple posts in this thread where I said things like “a transphobic statement does not automatically make someone a transphobe” and “I prefer to give people a way to save face when I call them on something.” That’s just how I interact with people in general.
> 
> However, if I ask someone to not do something, because that action is associated with bad actors, and their response is “I’m not a bad actor so I should be allowed to do it,” how many more times do I need to say please before telling them off in order to be “nice enough?” I’m not saying “bite people’s head off at the slightest misstep,” and neither are most (or any, really) people here. By all means allow people to be imperfect and make mistakes! Things like word connotations and language having ties to particular groups are hard!
> 
> It’s not simply a mistake when you double down on your behavior, though. And if you double down and then complain that the people who asked you to change your behavior are getting increasingly short with you? You’re in need of some serious self-reflection.


Thank you for being patient with us, and I'm sorry to say this, but your patience is probably wasted on quite a few people.
Some people have made up their minds when it comes to transgender issues, and there really isn't any way to convince them otherwise.
A personal observation I've made is that there's three type of people you'll encounter on the opposing side;
- People who believe transgender people are crazy, and they should just stick to the gender assigned to them at birth.
- People that think transgender people are demanding special privileges that somehow detract from everyone else.
- People who agree with the concept of transgender rights, but don't like the way in which the transgender community go about trying to obtain it.

I'll unashamedly admit to being the last of those three, and at times probably a bit of the second one too.
But with the first one, all the patience in the world probably won't make a difference.

The problem I've noticed on both sides of the issue however is that there is a very prevalent "All or nothing" attitude.
While I'm not all that familiar or fond of Biden, I think he spoke well when he said recently that "We may be opponents, but we are not enemies" (or something to that effect). I don't like the transgender community as a whole (generalizing), but I do agree with the principles they're advocating for most of the time (I mean it's near impossible to legitimately argue that people deserve to be abused and discriminated against) and do wish that equal rights be implemented as soon as possible.

I would note though that 'doubling down' is not always as simple as you make it sound. While there are instances when people are just being stubborn, a lot of other times the point being made simply hasn't gotten through or been persuasive enough. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that your patience is finite, and you should probably pick who you exert your patience on. Since convincing one person to stop being transphobic is a lot more valuable than winning online arguments and turning people away from acknowledging that the transgender movement is more than just a trending topic.



Saokymo said:


> No, I Will Not Debate You
> 
> One cannot have a reasoned debate with those who refuse to listen or speak in good faith. All of the bad actors in this thread are _*not*_ here to have an open, honest discussion; they are here simply to stir up trouble and muddy the waters for the rest of us who do want to have an open chat.


That's a bit hypocritical don't you think?
It's kind of hard to have a conversation of good faith, when side of the conversation has decided to allocate their oppositions a convenient intent, purpose, and manner of behavior. 

But again I reiterate what I said to Attaman, it sounds like you'd rather people turn against transgender people that partially support it. So... I guess I'll forever be a transphobic bigot to you. That's okay I guess...


----------



## Saokymo (Jan 23, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> But again I reiterate what I said to Attaman, it sounds like you'd rather people turn against transgender people that partially support it. So... I guess I'll forever be a transphobic bigot to you. That's okay I guess...



Thank you for proving my point directly! I did not call out any specific people, only pointed out the type of manipulative debate tactic that has been used to derail this thread at every turn. That you infer that to mean I am calling _you_ a bigot says far more about your views and motivations here than anything.

And frankly? As a trans man, I don’t want your support if that’s all it takes to turn you against my community, cos you were never really an ally in the first place.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> Hmm, did I miss a post? No, probably not.
> 
> I wasn't specifically addressed directly, and nothing else sounds familiar to past events as they happened.
> 
> ...


Cutting directly to a few things, there was a general consensus among the gay community that homosexual was offensive them in the manner that negro is offensive to much of the black community. Both communities broadly rejected those terms and people with honest intentions respect that.

To my knowledge, heterosexual hasn't met with the same resistance in the straight, partially because it'd be very hard to demonize us straight people since tend to be in the majority. 

I also think there is little relation to those issues and listing biological sex on healthcare cards.


----------



## ConorHyena (Jan 23, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> I probably won't go into depth with the links you've provided as I'm taking your points at face value, and assuming you know what you're talking about. My interest regarding the matter has been piqued in an alternate direction which would be the treatment of transgender people in other western democracies similar to America. As I've noticed how an overwhelming majority of transgender people with issues seem to come from the United States. (Not saying it's perfect everywhere else though).



The treatment of transgender persons in european democracies ranges from ... eh to _bad. _

Most countries east of the 15th meridian east are outright dangerous places to be if your trans - so things can get worse.


----------



## Rakiya (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Cutting directly to a few things, there was a general consensus among the gay community that homosexual was offensive them in the manner that negro is offensive to much of the black community. Both communities broadly rejected those terms and people with honest intentions respect that.
> 
> To my knowledge, heterosexual hasn't met with the same resistance in the straight, partially because it'd be very hard to demonize us straight people since tend to be in the majority.
> 
> I also think there is little relation to those issues and listing biological sex on healthcare cards.


I'm surprised to hear that the term homosexual was rejected there, as the term "gay" was generally perceived as the derogatory term here, (in line with other words like faggot). Homosexual was more of a descriptor, though "Homo" was used with negative connotations too.



ConorHyena said:


> The treatment of transgender persons in european democracies ranges from ... eh to _bad. _
> 
> Most countries east of the 15th meridian east are outright dangerous places to be if your trans - so things can get worse.



Thanks for the very general summary xD
...Eh doesn't sound too bad though.
And with countries eastward being outright dangerous... I'm not so sure.
What little I've heard in the past make it undeniably dangerous.
But the American points raised above seem pretty on par from what I can tell.
(Eg; Living in constant fear of abuse/assault/murder/etc, needing to conceal identity, not having legal recongition as a human being, etc)


----------



## ConorHyena (Jan 23, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> ...Eh doesn't sound too bad though.
> And with countries eastward being outright dangerous... I'm not so sure.


Research about the situation of trans individuals in places like poland/czechoslovakia ... Italy also isn't overly pleasant.. 

Eh only doesn't sound too bad if your looking at alternatives that are far worse - it's not unreasonable for trans people to expect to be treated like everyone else, therefor there's work to be done. I'm pretty sure that being trans in, say, Germany for instance isn't exactly super pleasant either.


----------



## KD142000 (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Cutting directly to a few things, there was a general consensus among the gay community that homosexual was offensive them in the manner that negro is offensive to much of the black community. Both communities broadly rejected those terms and people with honest intentions respect that.
> 
> To my knowledge, heterosexual hasn't met with the same resistance in the straight, partially because it'd be very hard to demonize us straight people since tend to be in the majority.
> 
> I also think there is little relation to those issues and listing biological sex on healthcare cards.


I think you mean the term 'homo'. Homosexual is an accurate descriptor of same-sex attraction. Just like homoromantic if someone is not interested in sexual relations with someone of the same gender as them.

I don't think 'homosexual' is or should be rejected. But there are many terms that have been rejected and reclaimed by the gay community. If anything, having the word 'homosexual' be recognised as a legitimate thing was a major step forward.

(You know I'm in the gay community, so just giving you my take on that. I don't find homosexual to be a slur. I can think of many others that are taken offensively or have been reclaimed by the community, itself)


I'd like to add, I'm not back here to argue with anybody. I'd rather that be dealt with by the proper authorities on the site.


----------



## Troj (Jan 23, 2021)

Cis people never have to justify or explain why they are cis, and why they _deserve _to be, and society's willingness to recognize their rights or humanity do not hinge on their ability to craft such arguments.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 23, 2021)

Rakiya said:


> @Attaman
> I'm going to be frank and say I'm not really sure how you're wanting me to respond to your post.
> Cause reading through your post (and others that have replied to me), I can't help but think that you're all wanting me to admit that I'm a horrible person who hates transgender people, and believe they should be completely stripped of their status as human beings until they reconsider.


Alternatively: You aren't the ally you think you are, you should probably treat the suffering the transgender community suffers with the level of respect and severity deserved, one should _never_ - barring fringe groups like "The Leopards Eating People's Faces" or "Stab Everyone You. Meet" Parties - put blame on the victims of socio-economic and legal oppression that they face (let alone put _equal share_ on them), and overall probably shouldn't consider "You have baggage" as synonymous with "You're the worst person ever and will suffer for eternity in Hell when you die".

Because, like, what I'm about to say is literally 101 level stuff re:Studies on Socio-Economic Privilege, Behavioral Sciences, Civil Rights, et al. _Everyone's _sexist_. Everyone's_ transphobic. _Everyone's _racist. Yes, everyone. Including me. Including you. Including the minorities here. Including the moderation here. Everyone. We live in a society. We all have baggage we've picked up, conscious and unconscious, from said society. Part of acknowledging and confronting as much is understanding this, doing your best to actively curb the conscious instances that crop up, and listening when somebody points out your unconscious (or unknown conscious too, for that matter) behaviors to try and adjust them as best you can. If one's first response to hearing "This thing you're doing is -ist" is "HOW DARE!", you're effectively stumbling at the starting line.

And this presumes that, when somebody says these things, they genuinely don't mean any hostile intent and do express a desire to change / be better. Let's just say on here that, so far, this presumption has... rarely been worth the mental effort.


Rakiya said:


> And judging from some of the other comments I've read and heard on and off this forum...


It's okay, you can share names. The people who you've likely heard this from have been quite vociferous on here - in public threads, @ing mods no less - about how it's a wonder that I'm not banned and surely I must have one or more moderation member wrapped around my hand like a glove. You're also, like, the fourth user to pop up in the last year in one of these threads to word-for-word give the "other comments I've read and heard on and off this forum about you" spiel. Subtly is a lost art.


Rakiya said:


> I mean, I say I'm supportive of transgender people being encompassed within the breadth of human rights, and that they deserve to be treated with decency.


Literally your first post specified that trans rights are not human rights. You specified it as the foremost thing to say in your post. Followed more recently by,


Rakiya said:


> I probably won't go into depth with the links you've provided as I'm taking your points at face value, and assuming you know what you're talking about.


There is literally nothing to debate about the links. No hidden depth to it. No contextual "Gotcha" in the nitty-gritty. In the US there is a literal push to actively exclude the transgender community from fair or equal access to medical care, housing, employment, et al. Unofficially police are allowed to get away with a disproportionately high amount of abuse towards transgender individuals who fall under their 'care' / jurisdiction. To make somebody's plumbing _everyone's_ business and justify legal (as well as 'self-defensive') measures when said business does not meet the general public's satisfaction.

These are, point blank, human right violations.

With this context, and with further added context of there having been multiple pages of users who have subtly and not-so-subtly argued the "special privileges" angle on top, I invite you to consider why people in here (particularly after multiple pages of users - trans and CIS, general forum users and moderation alike - endorsing "Trans Rights are Human Rights") might be suspicious and hostile towards the stance "First and foremost trans rights are not human rights".


Rakiya said:


> Final word of advice though, is that it's probably not a good idea to accuse someone of lying unless you have some sort of basis to make your accusation on. I know it must be hard for you to believe, but not all transgender people are crying out for sympathy and unconditional understanding from the general public.


What I find hard to believe is that you showed a random trans friend a random thread on a random furry forum (after admitting you generally _don't_ share your Furry status / connections publicly), hours after jumping into it, they read the thread for full context (potentially reading the other threads related to it for a fuller picture), that their response was "This - a one-off thread on a Furry forum - is why nobody takes transgender people seriously" just adds to the "Convenient!'.


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Cutting directly to a few things, there was a general consensus among the gay community that homosexual was offensive them in the manner that negro is offensive to much of the black community. Both communities broadly rejected those terms and people with honest intentions respect that.
> 
> To my knowledge, heterosexual hasn't met with the same resistance in the straight, partially because it'd be very hard to demonize us straight people since tend to be in the majority.
> 
> I also think there is little relation to those issues and listing biological sex on healthcare cards.


Very well then, let's focus on this. Homosexual is the most neutral and accurate term available. One would have to be trying to be offended by it. I agree with KD's opinion, the fact that a neutral and appropriate word even exists to describe it without negative connotations ought to be enough.

And if "homosexual" is offensive then why isn't "heterosexual?" "Homo" and "hetero" are terms which exist outside of sexuality as well, where they were originally taken from. As I'm sure you know they simply mean "same" and different" respectively.

The healthcare card is silly, because if the terms used to describe what is listed are bad, why is my sex listed at all? It's a foolish double standard where the information is important and needs to be listed, yet the most accurate and neutral phrases to describe my biological sex are supposedly deemed inappropriate. Comical!


----------



## Troj (Jan 23, 2021)

"Homosexual" rubs a lot of people the wrong way because it's the favored term of people who want to make being gay sound like something alien and/or diseased. That's a problem because queer folks are still a vulnerable minority group whose survival, safety, and rights still largely depend on the cishet majority not perceiving them as a problem or a threat.


----------



## Saokymo (Jan 23, 2021)

Language evolves, and context matters. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the term “homosexual” because it’s a scientific/medical descriptor of sexual attraction - but if some rando came up to me on the street and started screaming it at my face I’d be pretty offended by their use of it.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

Saokymo said:


> Language evolves, and context matters. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the term “homosexual” because it’s a scientific/medical descriptor of sexual attraction - but if some rando came up to me on the street and started screaming it at my face I’d be pretty offended by their use of it.


Yes~
Language evolves heck look at the word swag and how it changed meanings over the centuries from being an adornment around windows to being a nice or treasured item to being an adjective semi-synonymous with cool.
Gay is another one for a more rapid look where due to the speed of change in use in part to reclamation it really means all things and depends on context and actual inflection.


----------



## Saokymo (Jan 23, 2021)

“Queer” is another good example of reclaimed language. I use the term for myself (*very* important context) a lot cos it’s a much more succinct way of describing myself rather than listing every point on the GSRM spectrum I happen to fall under, even though the word is still very much used as a slur.


----------



## KD142000 (Jan 23, 2021)

Saokymo said:


> Language evolves, and context matters. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the term “homosexual” because it’s a scientific/medical descriptor of sexual attraction - but if some rando came up to me on the street and started screaming it at my face I’d be pretty offended by their use of it.


Basically this. Context is important.



Punji said:


> Very well then, let's focus on this. Homosexual is the most neutral and accurate term available. One would have to be trying to be offended by it. I agree with KD's opinion, the fact that a neutral and appropriate word even exists to describe it without negative connotations ought to be enough.
> 
> And if "homosexual" is offensive then why isn't "heterosexual?" "Homo" and "hetero" are terms which exist outside of sexuality as well, where they were originally taken from. As I'm sure you know they simply mean "same" and different" respectively.
> 
> The healthcare card is silly, because if the terms used to describe what is listed are bad, why is my sex listed at all? It's a foolish double standard where the information is important and needs to be listed, yet the most accurate and neutral phrases to describe my biological sex are supposedly deemed inappropriate. Comical!


I can't speak on the healthcare card matter.

But I can say that I'm not personally offended by homosexual being used to describe me or my attraction to men. To me, the term offers a sense of scientific validation. If someone decided to use it offensively, I'd probably just respond with 'yes, I am, thanks for noticing'. That's just my take and of course, context matters, as said above.

The fact someone cared enough to make my sexuality a term used by science is enough to tell me someone at least understands it is a legitmate thing and not a choice I consciously made. That's something anti-LGBT people normally don't understand.



Lucyfur said:


> Yes~
> Language evolves heck look at the word swag and how it changed meanings over the centuries from being an adornment around windows to being a nice or treasured item to being an adjective semi-synonymous with cool.
> Gay is another one for a more rapid look where due to the speed of change in use in part to reclamation it really means all things and depends on context and actual inflection.


Let's not forget the many words that have had ameliorative and pejorative changes over the years, whose modern-day definitions don't match the ones of days gone by. I often find myself being proud when I say the word 'gay'. Feels empowering to me, for some reason. Don't know why.


Saokymo said:


> “Queer” is another good example of reclaimed language. I use the term for myself (*very* important context) a lot cos it’s a much more succinct way of describing myself rather than listing every point on the GSRM spectrum I happen to fall under, even though the word is still very much used as a slur.


A very good example, indeed. Though there are examples of reclaimed language I *could* use but choose not to. That's mostly on the matter of race, though.


----------



## Skittles (Jan 23, 2021)

Here supporting my fellow enbis and trans friends <3 What a roller coaster of a thread though.

You would think the simple idea of a a person, is a person, no matter their beliefs/orientation/gender. Would make sense. 

But sadly not to some.. :/

Hopefully this will change in time!


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

I'd like to point out just one last time, none of the conflicts and discussions here are because any of us think lesser of a trans person on the basis of them being trans.

Contentions surrounding language preferences and the like are the problem, not the transgender people.


----------



## KD142000 (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> I'd like to point out just one last time, none of the conflicts and discussions here are because any of us think lesser of a trans person on the basis of them being trans.
> 
> Contentions surrounding language preferences and the like are the problem, not the transgender people.


Would like to say actions speak louder than words (especially in the year 2021). So actions should also come under scrutiny, as well as language used. One isn't more important to analyse than the other, though. Both should be taken into account.

In the age of the internet, I can only say I hope you don't think lesser of anybody based on their identity and hope what you say rings true. I just have trust issues...mostly permeating from experiences in this fandom.


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

KD142000 said:


> Would like to say actions speak louder than words (especially in the year 2021). So actions should also come under scrutiny, as well as language used. One isn't more important to analyse than the other, though. Both should be taken into account.
> 
> In the age of the internet, I can only say I hope you don't think lesser of anybody based on their identity and hope what you say rings true. I just have trust issues...mostly permeating from experiences in this fandom.


Well words seem to be more moving than anything else right now, might as make sure we're all on the same foot.  What more can one do now anyway, beyond words?

I sure don't, you yourself might even know that. Or perhaps have an inkling of it. However there are a lot of people guilty of this in other ways we're not necessarily talking about right now.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jan 23, 2021)

Troj said:


> Cis people never have to justify or explain why they are cis, and why they _deserve _to be, and society's willingness to recognize their rights or humanity do not hinge on their ability to craft such arguments.



That's because they can't. For the US at least, you're asking a bunch of retail workers, truck drivers, and food service personnel to articulate well-defined and researched justifications for why they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, why they "deserve to be cisgendered" (whatever the fuck this even means), or why their humanity should should be honored due to their gender identity. 

As far as they're concerned, every person that they run into is either a man/boy or a woman/girl due to the various physical markers that denote the female and male human sex. That's how it is in their local communites and workplaces, that's how it was for their ancestors, and that's likely how it's going to at least be until they die.

Have you ever attempted to strike up even the most generic "intellectual" conversation with some of these people? They're going to look at you like you're from an entirely different planet the very moment you open your mouth. 

This is what I mean when I say that FAF is packed to the absolute rafters with socially maladjusted people. Many of you are so incredibly solipsistic and detached from everyday mundane reality that you legitimately think that Joe Davis the local Walmart deli clerk actually gives two flying fucks about the evolution of language or gender pronouns.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 23, 2021)

KD142000 said:


> I think you mean the term 'homo'. Homosexual is an accurate descriptor of same-sex attraction. Just like homoromantic if someone is not interested in sexual relations with someone of the same gender as them.
> 
> I don't think 'homosexual' is or should be rejected. But there are many terms that have been rejected and reclaimed by the gay community. If anything, having the word 'homosexual' be recognised as a legitimate thing was a major step forward.


I think it’s context-dependent, and the document linked (which appears to be a “how to approach queer people as a member of the health care system” document of some sort) isn’t going very deeply into context for _any_ of the terms. Using “homosexual” as a noun doesn’t seem to be popular among the gay people I’ve seen mention it, for instance, and it’s definitely the kind of term whose loading may vary widely from country to country.

(Moving away from specifically addressing KD’s point from here on)
Another important point in regards to language that hasn’t much been touched on in the thread is that “it’s acceptable in academic language” doesn’t say much about loading in common parlance. Academia has a spoken ideal of objectivity (which is sometimes so much bullshit, but that’s a different matter), and as such words that in other contexts would have fairly heavy loading can be relatively neutral.

It’s a sad fact of life that language semi-frequently gets co-opted by bad actors who proceed to twist the meaning of words in ways that often have pretty far-reaching consequences. Sometimes it’s possible and reasonable to push back and say “no, you can’t have this word,” but a lot of the time that’s varying degrees of impossible. Ignoring who has dragged a term into more common usage and what their motivations for doing so are/may be is bound to make you look like an ass. Doesn’t have to mean you are one, but that’s why listening is important.

There’s also a lot of things that sound like supportive or equal at first blush, that really aren’t. Sweden used to require that trans* people get sterilized before they could change their legal gender marker. It didn’t really seem like a big deal to me when I first learned of it; “these people will be getting rid of their gonads anyway in the process of surgical transition, right?” Except it’s not the government’s call to make. Except there’s a (world) history of forced sterilization for, among other people, queer folks. So in the end something that to someone who hasn’t thought a lot about it seems innocuous was actually... not so much.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

ASTA said:


> That's because they can't. For the US at least, you're asking a bunch of retail workers, truck drivers, and food service personnel to articulate well-defined and researched justifications for why they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, why they "deserve to be cisgendered" (whatever the fuck this even means), or why their humanity should should be honored due to their gender identity.
> 
> As far as they're concerned, every person that they run into is either a man/boy or a woman/girl due to the various physical markers that denote the female and male human sex. That's how it is in their local communites and workplaces, that's how it was for their ancestors, and that's likely how it's going to at least be until they die.
> 
> ...


I think it's a canard to frame this as having started on over mere misunderstandings about the evolution of language and gender pronouns. Looking at the transphobic comments made at the beginning these threads, the comment concerned nothing so high-minded. Centrally, it's about why a small subset of users seem to constantly feel the need to stick noses into trans pride and make comments that are, by the objective measure of the mods, transphobic. 

As an aside, I know people who are and have been retail workers, truck drivers, and food service workers; they have brains and can understand the concept of being polite to trans people along with basic gender theory. Most of the country does in fact, especially people in our generation. It is disservice to cast these as not being understanding these concepts and as ignorant.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 23, 2021)

ASTA said:


> This is what I mean when I say that FAF is packed to the absolute rafters with socially maladjusted people. Many of you are so incredibly solipsistic and detached from everyday mundane reality that you legitimately think that Joe Davis the local Walmart deli clerk actually gives two flying fucks about the evolution of language or gender pronouns.


Fun fact: When I worked retail (Grocery, specifically), there was a stretch for about two years where the store manager was transgender individual.

The manager never shared as much out loud. We all knew because, when the previous manager announced they were changing stores and who their replacement was to be, the Meat Manager (having heard it from _other_ Managers, elsewhere in the company) threw a _giant fit_ and loudly proclaimed that they "Cannot and will not" work with [I leave what they called said manager to your imagination]. The previous store manager, presented with as much, spilled the beans about this immediately (_also_ having been made aware, with again the person in question _not being the sort who makes public knowledge of as much_). The _Deli_ Manager, a woman old enough to be my mother (with a decade or two to spare) butted in to say "This literally does not matter anything whatsoever about our jobs, grow up." Shortly after the meeting, _another_ department manager shared their opinion that the validity of somebody's trans- status depends entirely on whether they're pre- or post-op.

This was around, approximately, 2017. And again: All of the above was set off by others _elsewhere_ in the company blabbing. It was a multiple store thing. And it continued on and off in the background every couple of months when one bothered to listen.

The general public has more formulated thoughts on the matter and its nuances than many people want to give credit. Enough to have opinions on things like the importance of transitional surgery, whether somebody being trans - in and of itself - is a mark against their character, whether a coworker / manager being trans has any relevance _whatsoever_ to performing one's job or any of the workers' business to dig into, to discuss it on and off like a well beaten horse over a span of multiple years without prompting, etcetera.


----------



## Troj (Jan 23, 2021)

ASTA said:


> That's because they can't. For the US at least, you're asking a bunch of retail workers, truck drivers, and food service personnel to articulate well-defined and researched justifications for why they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, why they "deserve to be cisgendered" (whatever the fuck this even means), or why their humanity should should be honored due to their gender identity.
> 
> As far as they're concerned, every person that they run into is either a man/boy or a woman/girl due to the various physical markers that denote the female and male human sex. That's how it is in their local communites and workplaces, that's how it was for their ancestors, and that's likely how it's going to at least be until they die.
> 
> ...



That these admittedly-complicated concepts could indeed be conveyed more clearly and more simply than they often are and that ignorance is too often read as hostility are valid points. Ditto the observation that some people dive too deeply into their own navel, and can get too obsessed with every little facet of their identity.

_My_ original point remains that cis-het people can, if they choose, go their entire lives without reflecting on these things, and they'll be no worse for wear. Most LGBTQ people don't have that luxury.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2021)

We should remember that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people exist everywhere. 

It's a normal part of human variation. Just watch Tiger King on Netflix and you'll see that there's gay and trans folk living their lives even in the middle of 'bum-fuck Oklahoma'.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> Very well then, let's focus on this. Homosexual is the most neutral and accurate term available. One would have to be trying to be offended by it. I agree with KD's opinion, the fact that a neutral and appropriate word even exists to describe it without negative connotations ought to be enough.
> 
> And if "homosexual" is offensive then why isn't "heterosexual?" "Homo" and "hetero" are terms which exist outside of sexuality as well, where they were originally taken from. As I'm sure you know they simply mean "same" and different" respectively.
> 
> The healthcare card is silly, because if the terms used to describe what is listed are bad, why is my sex listed at all? It's a foolish double standard where the information is important and needs to be listed, yet the most accurate and neutral phrases to describe my biological sex are supposedly deemed inappropriate. Comical!


Not to butt up against @KD142000 , whom I mostly agree, but he may not be familiar with the derogatory connotations homosexual can have here in America; he is English and UK has been somewhat better about gay rights than the US. The "homosexual agenda" is immediate example that comes to mind about how the term is used negatively, particularly in conservative media. 

As for the healthcare card issue, people's biological sex tends to be noted public and private health system databases in most Western countries, which negates the need for biological sex to displayed on the healthcare card or benefits card. As you should, legally in the United States and other developed countries, gender is a distinct status separate from sex, so it is a little facile to sweat having the biological sex of someone on the card in the first place. Most medical professionals don't really object to not having on the healthcare card; they can refer to the patient database and most likely a patient will tell them their biological sex to avoid procedural mistakes. Your government adopts and outlines this approach, medical professionals approve of this approach, and experts more qualified than you and I have recommended this approach, so your objections don't really have a leg to stand on.

Not this is central to the core issue here in any way.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 23, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> We should remember that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people exist everywhere.
> 
> It's a normal part of human variation. Just watch Tiger King on Netflix and you'll see that there's gay and trans folk living their lives even in the middle of 'bum-fuck Oklahoma'.


Hey I live in bum-fuck Oklahoma!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2021)

Regarding the whole 'ism' thing, politicians often slap 'ism' on the end of something to make it sound like it's a scary ideological movement. 
It evokes something of the same feeling people have towards 'Bolshevism', 'Communism'

If a politician referred to 'Homosexualism', then I'd be like 'Oh brother here we go'.
You'll often also see politicians who want to pass laws unfriendly to gay people will describe our sexuality as a 'lifestyle choice', because a lot of anti-gay people think that being gay is a choice that people can reverse.



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Hey I live in bum-fuck Oklahoma!



I think they should try to make this the state's official name. ;D


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Not to butt up against KD142000, whom I mostly agree, but he may not be familiar with the derogatory connotations homosexual can have here in America; he is English and UK has been somewhat better about gay rights than the US. The "homosexual agenda" is immediate example that comes to mind about how the term is used negatively, particularly in conservative media.
> 
> As for the healthcare card issue, people's biological sex tends to be noted public and private health system databases in most Western countries, which negates the need for biological sex to displayed on the healthcare card or benefits card. As you should, legally in the United States and other developed countries, gender is a distinct status separate from sex, so it is a little facile to sweat having the biological sex of someone on the card in the first place. Most medical professionals don't really object to not having on the healthcare card; they can refer to the patient database and most likely a patient will tell them their biological sex to avoid procedural mistakes. Your government adopts and outlines this approach, medical professionals approve of this approach, and experts more qualified than you and I have recommended this approach, so your objections don't really have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Not this is central to the core issue here in any way.


Meh. Not like the term "straight agenda" hasn't been used before as well. Trying to "convert" or suppress homosexuality in media and whatever not. It's the "agenda" part that is the problem here, not the homosexual.

I disagree. The listed sex helps protect my identity, should someone come to Canada for free healthcare and steal my card. They at least have to be male to not instantly set off some alarms. Same thing why sex is listed on various licences as well.

Tisk tisk Miles, there's that tone again. I'm no fan of yours either but we can at least be polite.

And if this isn't a big deal to you either, why are you addressing it specifically then, and nothing else I've said, hmmm? The behaviours and attempts to dictate neutral language is the problem here. My healthcare card is just an example of the hypocrisy on display when people try too hard to appease.


----------



## Troj (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> Meh. Not like the term "straight agenda" hasn't been used before as well. Trying to "convert" or suppress homosexuality in media and whatever not. It's the "agenda" part that is the problem here, not the homosexual.



The straight agenda has historically been the default societal agenda, and has also historically been far from benign or neutral, as evidenced by the countless efforts to actively suppress all knowledge and recognition of LGBTQ people and their concerns. LGBTQ people asking for that basic recognition, respect, and decency has been referred to darkly as "The Gay Agenda" or "The Trans Agenda."

As for ID cards, medical files, and the like, it behooves us to ask ourselves:

What pieces of information are important or necessary
Why they are important or necessary
The pros and cons of including or excluding certain pieces of information, or organizing or presenting them in certain ways.
If there are other signifiers or pieces of information that can do the job equally well, or even, do it better.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

If a word is used in a negative connotation by those who oppress or would seek to oppress the minority then it doesn't matter if you the speaker from outside that minority view it as a neutral word.
You as the speaker if not a bigot or holding phobic sentiments towards that group should be able to swallow that word down and pick a new one.

This is to say when many people say "transgenderism" is not the best word to use when speaking on a topic if you arent a transphobe because it is a red flag and is used predominantly by transphobes to make being trans into sounding like a belief rather than the scientifically backed reality that it is.

TLDR;
Listen to the minority group that you are talking about.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

I'll play along here, though Troj has framed my thoughts about the "heterosexual agenda" better than I could. I would note that you will hear far more complaining about the "homosexual agenda" than the "heterosexual agenda" and only one of those credibly can be claimed to exist. 


Punji said:


> And if this isn't a big deal to you either, why are you addressing it specifically then, and nothing else I've said, hmmm? The behaviours and attempts to dictate neutral language is the problem here. My healthcare card is just an example of the hypocrisy on display when people try too hard to appease.


I mean, the disrespect to the trans users here is a big deal to me.  Truthfully too, I'm kind of fed with people who style themselves as hard-nosed pragmatists trying to get trans people to tone their rhetoric and accept the disrespect thrown at them along with diminished rights when in actuality they are cultural warriors worse than the social justice warriors they decry and are so wrapped with beating up on trans people and other minorities, they'll let the demagogues they follow run the country into the ground. 



Punji said:


> I disagree. The listed sex helps protect my identity, should someone come to Canada for free healthcare and steal my card. They at least have to be male to not instantly set off some alarms. Same thing why sex is listed on various licences as well.


Putting the aside the absurdity the scenario, your sex would be confirmed when your healthcare card number was validated by your healthcare provider at the time of service ... by the database I mentioned previously. 

It also follows that if sex is not listed on your card, but can validated independently, that would be make your information and access to healthcare more secure, not less. 


Punji said:


> Tisk tisk Miles, there's that tone again. I'm no fan of yours either but we can at least be polite.


I am mostly , but now is a little late to be panning for politeness.


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Troj said:


> The straight agenda has historically been the default societal agenda, and has also historically been far from benign or neutral, as evidenced by the countless efforts to actively suppress all knowledge and recognition of LGBTQ people and their concerns. LGBTQ people asking for that basic recognition, respect, and decency has been referred to darkly as "The Gay Agenda" or "The Trans Agenda."
> 
> As for ID cards, medical files, and the like, it behooves us to ask ourselves:
> 
> ...


I honestly just doubt society overall gives enough of a shit about sexuality to make it a priority. Maybe once everyone ran out of things to complain about they realized gay people exist and complained about them. The "gay agenda" is obviously not just about being fairly treated and you know it. Those who use the phase genuinely aren't the ones who want legal marriage. It's the ones fretting about homosexuality in media.

As above it is already important. And if there are other pieces of information to be included, they should be. On my licences it lists my birthday, height and weight, sex, and hair and eye colour. Sex is one of the most stable and constant things for the vast majority of people and can't overlooked as an identifying quality. Thus it's listed in spite of the stupid thing saying biological sex is inappropriate.

Man these goalposts sure did shift, huh? Anything to attack me with I guess.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'll play along here, though Troj has framed my thoughts about the "heterosexual agenda" better than I could. I would note that you will hear far more complaining about the "homosexual agenda" than the "heterosexual agenda" and only one of those credibly can be claimed to exist.
> 
> I mean, the disrespect to the trans users here is a big deal to me.  Truthfully too, I'm kind of fed with people who style themselves as hard-nosed pragmatists trying to get trans people to tone their rhetoric and accept the disrespect thrown at them along with diminished rights when in actuality they are cultural warriors worse than the social justice warriors they decry and are so wrapped with beating up on trans people and other minorities, they'll let the demagogues they follow run the country into the ground.
> 
> ...


This honestly depends entirely upon who one spends his time with, no? Surround yourself with pissed off people and you'll hear a lot about what it is they might not like. I've heard both phrases enough. Neither is at all credible.

Yes, exactly my point! The disrespect here is entirely aimed at the people for their behaviours and not because of their trans status. Act in an unpleasant way to strangers on the Internet and they'll not show respect in turn. It has literally nothing to do with idenities or any of the nonsense you're pulling out for your ears. You're defending the people and ideologies you like blindly and your slippery slope would have us all believe not putting up with toxic behaviours on the Internet in a place where transgender people are totally supported by close to if not literally everyone will result in allowing violence and demeaning behaviours against them. _Insanity_.

Yes, as would my name and birthday. Why would they put anything on that card at all when they only need the number? Because it's much more difficult to fake them when the information is written in both places. With just a number one can replicate a card much easier, but if they come in and that card doesn't say exactly what is listed in the database they won't get access to the healthcare.

Is it really so absurd? Canada, a nation with free healthcare paid for by the citizens' taxes, shares a vast border with a nation which routinely bankrupts its citizens through healthcare costs. You can easily see the motive here.

I have been polite and nice to you this entire time, joking in response to your attempts at insult. Responding in kind would not be unexpected and isn't saving you any face by refusing. I'm, how you say, "offering an out."



Lucyfur said:


> If a word is used in a negative connotation by those who oppress or would seek to oppress the minority then it doesn't matter if you the speaker from outside that minority view it as a neutral word.
> You as the speaker if not a bigot or holding phobic sentiments towards that group should be able to swallow that word down and pick a new one.
> 
> This is to say when many people say "transgenderism" is not the best word to use when speaking on a topic if you arent a transphobe because it is a red flag and is used predominantly by transphobes to make being trans into sounding like a belief rather than the scientifically backed reality that it is.
> ...


Big red flag is right. Censoring entirely accurate and neutral language just because some people don't like it is foolhardy and morally dubious.


----------



## mangomango (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> Big red flag is right. Censoring entirely accurate and neutral language just because some people don't like it is foolhardy and morally dubious.


I'm sure this has already been said so I'll keep it pretty brief.  A few things:
1. It's not really censorship, it's asking to refrain from using certain words or use a synonym in place of them. 
2. Just because language may seem neutral or accurate to you doesn't mean that others are okay with it - everyone has their own opinions and experiences.
3. Even if you don't see the point of using one word over the other, it takes next to no effort to switch to the words that people prefer you use. Obviously you can't be forced to do it, nor should anyone force you, but it's just a kind thing to do. Having respect for people and their preferences after they've asked you multiple times to respect them is a decent way to treat people.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 23, 2021)

I would like to, once again, remind people that when somebody crawls out of their pit to spew "dEbATe mE", and has already shown that *even if decisively, undeniably beaten* they will simply go


> We cannot ever prevent all crime, while we should still try and no, it's obviously not good to have even a 2% rate, the reality of the situation is that there is always going to be a baseline.


AKA "So what? There will always be some level of crime / violence / oppression / intolerance, we just have to accept that it'll happen"

That the proper response is to slap them on ignore and let them scream at clouds until the end of times. Particularly relevant when they start turning their arguments, once again, into "You're prettier more fun to talk with when you smile more use nice words".


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

@Punji I don’t know if it is your inability to grasp what was said and that it wasn’t censorship but a recommendation that when a marginalized oppressed group says “hey that word is used in this manner so it isn’t actually neutral like you think so maybe choose a different synonymous word” that maybe you should reconsider and think “well dang I don’t want to opt the language of their oppressors and sound like a bigot maybe I’ll use different words.”

though I don’t know what I honestly expect from you tbh considering you claim leftist views but based on your views in the thoughts on drugs thread you definitely curve quite right, and well the company that you keep and defends you also doesn’t really help your case in being obtuse and stubborn on this topic.


----------



## KD142000 (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Not to butt up against @KD142000 , whom I mostly agree, but he may not be familiar with the derogatory connotations homosexual can have here in America; he is English and UK has been somewhat better about gay rights than the US. The "homosexual agenda" is immediate example that comes to mind about how the term is used negatively, particularly in conservative media.


I'd like to let you know, I've read this. And I read similar, last night. When you're ready to speak to me about the issues I might face as a member of the gay community in the UK, amongst other things, I am here.

For right now, I'll let the US people talk about it, since it seems I'm not quite wanted in this conversation and it only seems to be about the American side of LGBT rights cos apparently, we Brits got it all sorted out.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Jan 23, 2021)

Ah, so now I am an enemy of lgbt people if I use the word "homosexual" because somehow someone somewhere might get offended.

You know, I come from a country where the word "gay" is used as a synonym of "faggot" and both are almost always used to humiliate and insult people regardless of their sexual preference. In my mind, "homosexual" sounds like a perfectly fine word to use instead of the one mentioned above. I guess I should have known that no world exists outside of the US.

I mean... Well done. You have defeated homophobia and transphobia. The world is safe now. You can go and get some well deserved rest.


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

mangomango said:


> I'm sure this has already been said so I'll keep it pretty brief.  A few things:
> 1. It's not really censorship, it's asking to refrain from using certain words or use a synonym in place of them.
> 2. Just because language may seem neutral or accurate to you doesn't mean that others are okay with it - everyone has their own opinions and experiences.
> 3. Even if you don't see the point of using one word over the other, it takes next to no effort to switch to the words that people prefer you use. Obviously you can't be forced to do it, nor should anyone force you, but it's just a kind thing to do. Having respect for people and their preferences after they've asked you multiple times to respect them is a decent way to treat people.


1. Censorship is perhaps a strong word for it. However it's still trying to restrict vocabulary on the basis of opinion.

2. This is absolutely fair. However, this is often held at a double-standard, where it's okay with some but not okay with others, but is expected to be removed at the whim of those who don't like it.

3. Again, that's totally fair. The problem with "transgenderism," assuming this is the word in question, is that there isn't really a synonym for it. What it describes is  concept, with all our other similar words relating to individuals or similar concepts. Trans/transgender refers to the gender identity but not the concept of it.

I've been asked to respect other's opinions on the word through disrespectful ways. As I've said previously if in a private conversation one asked me not to use the word that's easy enough, but it's not practical to avoid it's use in public discussions when no harm is meant by it.



Lucyfur said:


> @Meeeeeeeee again I don’t know if it is your inability to grasp what was said and that it wasn’t censorship but a recommendation that when a marginalized oppressed group says “hey that word is used in this manner so it isn’t actually neutral like you think so maybe choose a different synonymous word” that maybe you should reconsider and think “well dang I don’t want to opt the language of their oppressors and sound like a bigot maybe I’ll use different words.”
> 
> though I don’t know what I honestly expect from you tbh considering you claim leftist views but based on your views in the thoughts on drugs thread you definitely curve quite right, and well the company that you keep and defends you also doesn’t really help your case in being obtuse and stubborn on this topic.


You and I both know it's meant as something _a little bit stronger_ than a "recommendation."

As above there are no feasible synonyms for "transgenderism." Any word can be used in harmful ways, we can't just stop using them whenever someone gets upset with it when the base meaning of the word is not harmful.

No politics allowed, judging me off of an incorrectly inferred political belief is mighty hypocritical of you Lucy. I don't think you know much of the company I keep, only with whom I expressly don't. Please refrain from the personal attacks, unless you'd care to make it a date and take things elsewhere.



Attaman said:


> I would like to, once again, remind people that when somebody crawls out of their pit to spew "dEbATe mE", and has already shown that *even if decisively, undeniably beaten* they will simply go
> 
> AKA "So what? There will always be some level of crime / violence / oppression / intolerance, we just have to accept that it'll happen"
> 
> That the proper response is to slap them on ignore and let them scream at clouds until the end of times. Particularly relevant when they start turning their arguments, once again, into "You're prettier more fun to talk with when you smile more use nice words".


CoC 2.4 says "hello." I'm not going to report anything here, yet, but I'm pretty confident it'd be a safe bet.

If you're willing to be reasonable with me for a few posts we can actually talk about a few things. If not, let's just agree to leave each other alone.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> This honestly depends entirely upon who one spends his time with, no? Surround yourself with pissed off people and you'll hear a lot about what it is they might not like. I've heard both phrases enough. Neither is at all credible.
> 
> Yes, exactly my point! The disrespect here is entirely aimed at the people for their behaviours and not because of their trans status. Act in an unpleasant way to strangers on the Internet and they'll not show respect in turn. It has literally nothing to do with idenities or any of the nonsense you're pulling out for your ears. You're defending the people and ideologies you like blindly and your slippery slope would have us all believe not putting up with toxic behaviours on the Internet in a place where transgender people are totally supported by close to if not literally everyone will result in allowing violence and demeaning behaviours against them. _Insanity_.
> 
> ...


I think you shouldn't try to condescend when you are clearly in the wrong and don't what you're talking about.

Punji, the healthcare card serves as initial identification for you, which you may be to use to identify yourself in other legal contexts like if a law enforcement officer asked for identification or you needed to provide several piece of identification as points of identification for a legal document like a passport. 

The number on your healthcare card provides a reference for your file in the medical database, which has all of the identifying information (birth date, sex, gender, address) and your medical history. As long as information is the database, they can verify who you are, probably more so than with your card since they can ask you to verify information about your medical history, which an improbable imposter is unlikely to know. 

Also, think about what you said for a moment. If your healthcare card just had your verification number on it, it would be harder for an imposter to assume your identity for healthcare services, wouldn't it? Just like how it would be harder for this imposter to impersonate you if your sex isn't listed, though you could have an obviously masculine name. 

Furthermore, foreigners have access the Canadian healthcare system, though depending on the services it may not be fully covered and prescreening would out anyone trying to engage in fraud. This is your healthcare system, so you should be familiar with this.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

@Punji lol okay if you want you can use the language of transphobes like the company that has defended you that you consort with I won’t stop you but it does the opposite of dispelling the perception that you like them are a transphobe.


----------



## mangomango (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> 1. Censorship is perhaps a strong word for it. However it's still trying to restrict vocabulary on the basis of opinion.
> 
> 2. This is absolutely fair. However, this is often held at a double-standard, where it's okay with some but not okay with others, but is expected to be removed at the whim of those who don't like it.
> 
> ...


I feel like a suitable synonym could be something like "being transgender" or just refer to gender identity, "trans people" could also fit in some of the situations. Also something like "the trans community"

For example, instead of something like "Transgenderism is...", you could say "Being transgender is..." or "Trans gender identities are..."
I'm sure other people on the forums also have usable alternatives and synonyms they would be willing to share.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Rimna said:


> Ah, so now I am an enemy of lgbt people if I use the word "homosexual" because somehow someone somewhere might get offended.
> 
> You know, I come from a country where the word "gay" is used as a synonym of "faggot" and both are almost always used to humiliate and insult people regardless of their sexual preference. In my mind, "homosexual" sounds like a perfectly fine word to use instead of the one mentioned above. I guess I should have known that no world exists outside of the US.
> 
> I mean... Well done. You have defeated homophobia and transphobia. The world is safe now. You can go and get some well deserved rest.


I can freely acknowledge that the word homosexual carries different levels of offense here as opposed to elsewhere, I feel other also know better as well. That isn't main crux of the issue here, though, as I've said respectfully.


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I think you shouldn't try to condescend when you are clearly in the wrong and don't what you're talking about.
> 
> Punji, the healthcare card serves as initial identification for you, which you may be to use to identify yourself in other legal contexts like if a law enforcement officer asked for identification or you needed to provide several piece of identification as points of identification for a legal document like a passport.
> 
> ...


Condescend? I honestly don't mean to. If I'm trying to condescend I'd do it comically exaggeratedly.

It doesn't have a photo so usually doesn't work as government ID. It serves entirely to provide me access to healthcare no matter how major or minor.

Again, yes. But if my card has some of the information in the system on it, they can be more sure my card is legit.

It would be harder yes. But they'd need to know that information already to fabricate a healthcare card, and more information is usually asked than is what is listed on the card.

I am intimately familiar with it. I've been to the emergency room twice. Both times I was taken in immediately upon telling them why I was there and received attention before they even took my card. The last time one nurse checked my vitals and took a blood sample as the other entered my number in before I was brought to a bed. They're going to check but if I was bleeding to death they'd try to save me first. They ask for basic information routinely to ensure they give proper treatment to the right person once things are stable, but it's not hard to miss things in the beginning. Why exactly do you think these measurements and precautions are in place?

This has gone way beyond the scope of what the thread is about, because you shove the goalposts further every time to have something to attack me with. Might we actually get back on track? I'm sorry I even let this go so far out of court.



Lucyfur said:


> @ MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (Quote me please so I know you're not trying to hide my posts to attack me easier) lol okay if you want you can use the language of transphobes like the company that has defended you that you consort with I won’t stop you but it does the opposite of dispelling the perception that you like them are a transphobe.


Again deary, you don't know the company I keep. In fact, the people I talk to and spend time with the most are either A) Not furries, B) Not on FAF at all, or C) Not active on FAF.

Who has defended me? The only ones mentioning my name here are your lovely self and those who more or less support the same positions as you.

Lastly when I asked you or anyone at all to show me something where I was being transphobic I get crickets and raindrops. You just don't like me and are using a personal grudge to fuel blatantly false accusations.



mangomango said:


> I feel like a suitable synonym could be something like "being transgender" or just refer to gender identity, "trans people" could also fit in some of the situations. Also something like "the trans community"
> 
> For example, instead of something like "Transgenderism is...", you could say "Being transgender is..." or "Trans gender identities are..."
> I'm sure other people on the forums also have usable alternatives and synonyms they would be willing to share.


I don't really agree. "Being transgender" is exactly that, being transgender. With my past examples, "being a furry" and "furryism" aren't quite the same thing, though they're similar.

"Furryism" is perhaps intimate involvement in the furry fandom while being a furry is simply being fond of anthros. Similar but they don't quite mean the same things.


----------



## mangomango (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> I don't really agree. "Being transgender" is exactly that, being transgender. With my past examples, "being a furry" and "furryism" aren't quite the same thing, though they're similar.
> 
> "Furryism" is perhaps intimate involvement in the furry fandom while being a furry is simply being fond of anthros. Similar but they don't quite mean the same things.


I don't believe there's enough of a difference to continue using one term over the other despite objections of many of the users on here. They're similar enough to substitute.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> Mmmmm Well I think I may just know the company you keep, or more accurately I have someone else who does.
> 
> TW//CW: Transphobia
> 
> ...


Welp. Now I know who to cut contact with. Everyone in that chat should burn.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jan 23, 2021)

A very sophisticated primate: "Why is it that every single trans-positivity thread ends with it being locked due to several problematic users habitually having the need to shit it up with their senseless "debates"? It's always the same users doing the shit-flinging too! God, these transphobes!"

A certain silly yeen: *posts multiple inflammatory screencaps depicting multiple users entertaining non-sanctioned opinions on gender in an effort to defame them on FAF*

Flamingo: *dances all over the thread*

The rest of the crew: "wHy CaN't wE HaVe tRaNs tHreaD!??!?! :[[[[["


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jan 23, 2021)

I'm upset at the fact that I know or mutual follow some of those people for quite a while, and they set up a discord and didn't even consider inviting me in it, even after asking a few months ago....Yet, everyone loves to accuse me of being this or that, or paranoid, and wonder why I feel overly distrustful and misanthropic when people fucking ditch me and set up their "secret groups". Fuck, I didn't need to see that.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

ASTA said:


> A very sophisticated primate: "Why is it that every single trans-positivity thread ends with it being locked due to several problematic users having the need to shit it up with their senseless "debates"? It's always the same users doing the shit-flinging too! God, these transphobes!"
> 
> A certain silly yeen: *posts multiple inflammatory screencaps depicting multiple users entertaining non-sanctioned opinions on gender in an effort to defame them on FAF*
> 
> ...


So are you trying to say that the individuals who have been claimed to be transphobes with content that displays them as being such as well as outlining the fact that I do and am aware of the company they keep as well is somehow too much or too far?

Not my fault I didnt make them say it nor did my informant. I am merely a collector of intelligence.




Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> I'm upset at the fact that I know or mutual follow some of those people for quite a while, and they set up a discord and didn't even consider inviting me in it, even after asking a few months ago....Yet, everyone loves to accuse me of being this or that, or paranoid, and wonder why I feel overly distrustful and misanthropic when people fucking ditch me and set up their "secret groups". Fuck, I didn't need to see that.



Ah not being in their group is what breaks your heart and not that theyre a group of rather toxic transphobic fellows?
Noted and not very metal of you~


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> Ah not being in their group is what breaks your heart and not that theyre a group of rather toxic transphobic fellows?
> Noted and not very metal of you~


No, it proves you all are just two-faced af. And, don't pretend I fit into your far-left worldview and you wanted my fucking company anyway, as if it concerned you.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> No, it proves you all are just two-faced af.


How am I the you all that is two faced?


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> How am I the you all that is two faced?


Because you have people leak shit from private chats, and, you fucking showed me people who I learned want nothing to do with me after all.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

@Lucyfur , @Lupus Et Revertetur wasn't in that chat, apparently. I think it is a little weird he feels he missed out, but he isn't the problem here. For this, he is blameless. 

@Lupus Et Revertetur , I feel you dodged a bullet, but you actually weren't involved in a transphobic chat so I'd take that as a credit to you.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> Because you have people leak shit from private chats, and, you fucking showed me people who I learned want nothing to do with me after all.


That doesn't make me two faced. It means I said what I said about people because I knew about them thanks to theat information.

I wasn't aware that these were people you thought yourself kin to that had you on the outside.
I am sorry that you are upset by that but I find that you have misdirected your anger and frustration towards myself when I am simply the one providing receipts to claims made by myself that had been disputed.

I do think you are better for not having fallen in with them based off the communications I have seen since they are a rather concerning bunch.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> @Lucyfur , @Lupus Et Revertetur wasn't in that chat, apparently. I think it is a little weird he feels he missed out, but he isn't the problem here. For this, he is blameless.
> 
> @Lupus Et Revertetur , I feel you dodged a bullet, but you actually weren't involved in a transphobic chat so I'd take that as a credit to you.


No, I was just accused of various other shit by you people for years that it made my stay feel so welcome here. Man, I really dodged a huge one there. Now I know I'm in the right company this time around. lol


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> Mmmmm Well I think I may just know the company you keep, or more accurately I have someone else who does.
> 
> TW//CW: Transphobia
> 
> ...


It's a public server you specifically used to be a part of before you rage quit when a certain someone joined, so don't pat yourself on the back too hard!

Well you can't say I never warned him.  I don't necessarily defend the statements in the screen caps. I didn't even defend them _in_ the caps. However do note it's from the venting channel where people are notably not going to hold back and are generally saying things they don't mean. As for my own involvement, all I said was it wasn't a good idea to be saying such hurtful things and that nature mostly dictates sexual attraction.

The final three are from political sections which you can plainly see I'm never active in.

You call me a transphobe and have screenshots of some public conversations there and yet can't come up with even a single thing I've said that's in any way transphobic?

And lastly, this is exactly one of the furry servers I'm a part of. Even then, if you read through my posts most of it is completely irrelevant to the FAF talking to people not on the FAF. The company I keep in this one server I mostly chat about nothing with as literally anyone with a Discord account can see. Did ya' check out all the gay furry porn I've posted in there too?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Lupus Et Revertetur said:


> No, I was just accused of various other shit by you people for years that it made my stay feel so welcome here. Man, I really dodged a huge one there. Now I know I'm in the right company this time around. lol


You did stuff that has been pointed out and you admitted to, more accurately. Just not anything in this instance.

I'll drop this if you want , but I'm not trying to fight you here, yeah?


----------



## KD142000 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> That doesn't make me two faced. It means I said what I said about people because I knew about them thanks to theat information.
> 
> I wasn't aware that these were people you thought yourself kin to that had you on the outside.
> I am sorry that you are upset by that but I find that you have misdirected your anger and frustration towards myself when I am simply the one providing receipts to claims made by myself that had been disputed.
> ...


Everyone in there is getting an insta-block from me.

Should all be ashamed of yourselves, but I guess we're past that now, aren't we?
Fuck the lot of you.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 23, 2021)

I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that...

1) Publicly posting screenshots of chat logs on FA(F) can and has lead to people being infracted on here before, specifically under CoC 2.1. It has even lead to threads being closed. Yes, even when somebody has directly invited you to share as much. Yes, even if / when a chat log doesn't involve anyone on the website and / or forum. Yes, even when the chat logs are contained off-site within a link published by a journalistic / news medium. If it's a chat log, period, publicly post / link it on FA(F) at your risk (especially since anybody who's _in_ the chat log is likely to report it with the fury of ten thousand suns, then promptly deny the existence of said logs once they're removed and the person with access to them is incapable of sharing them).

2) While keeping the above in mind for publicly posting chat logs, _also_ keep in mind that chat logs are _directly admissible evidence_ in reports to moderation when it comes to "an incident that is imminent or occurring on Fur Affinity" and "irrefutable" in their nature. So, for example, if a user is dancing around saying "There's nothing transphobic about not using the right pronouns  People make mistakes sometimes" the fifth 'mistake' in a week, and you have chat logs of them explicitly going "They're fucking fakers and delusional, though you can't say it to their faces", you _can_ submit as much alongside your report to provide context to help moderation determine if the posts - in context - are in fact transphobic. Though bear in mind that the second qualifier, "irrefutable", does some heavy lifting: If you cannot conclusively prove that the person in the logs is the same as the one making the posts on FA(F), your mileage may vary (or even qualify as abuse of the Report Ticket system, particularly if it's the only evidence in your report and the connection is tenuous).

Now, having got the legal and CoC stuff out of the way, I'd like to say... thank you for some _damned fine and *exquisite* tea_.


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Ah, one little comment before the thread gets locked and everything's deleted:

Since the cards are on the table, I have screenshots of people talking about myself and others in a less than positive light as well.

Remember, _no one is innocent_.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> It's a public server you specifically used to be a part of before you rage quit when a certain someone joined, so don't pat yourself on the back too hard!
> 
> Well you can't say I never warned him.  I don't necessarily defend the statements in the screen caps. I didn't even defend them _in_ the caps. However do note it's from the venting channel where people are notably not going to hold back and are generally saying things they don't mean. As for my own involvement, all I said was it wasn't a good idea to be saying such hurtful things and that nature mostly dictates sexual attraction.
> 
> ...


I was actually removed from those sections of the server because I was the only one who was left of center there which made it ripe to speak out against a lot of their BS like some racism some xenophobia some transphobia. You know that nice melting pot of alt-lite to right points time and again.
I left because I realized I had nothing to do there. But initially my existence had been one of opposition. Unlike yourself who was like 'heh transphobic remarks I hope this doesnt get out' I actually spokje out against such things and provided the scientific facts to the matter.

That is the big difference you are one of a silent compliance.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> Ah, one little comment before the thread gets locked and everything's deleted:
> 
> Since the cards are on the table, I have screenshots of people talking about myself and others in a less than positive light as well.
> 
> Remember, _no one is innocent_.


I disagree, but perhaps some are more guilty than others.


----------



## Lucyfur (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> Ah, one little comment before the thread gets locked and everything's deleted:
> 
> Since the cards are on the table, I have screenshots of people talking about myself and others in a less than positive light as well.
> 
> Remember, _no one is innocent_.


Do it~
Please do it I invite you to I want you to show all my shame mmmmm~


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jan 23, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'll drop this if you want , but I'm not trying to fight you here, yeah?


I don't care, you are *all* the same in my eyes, and you, specifically the left-wing people have tried to make lowkey Nazi implications toward me in the past, and tried to slander for being that nasty "*Republican trump loving fuck*", and I've stood up for some of those people in that discord a while back when they had accusations by you people before that chat, but you all acted like friends on here, probably washed away your wounds for a while, it's simply amazing.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jan 23, 2021)

@Lucyfur 
No dirt on me though? I feel discriminated against.


----------



## BlackDogYodel (Jan 23, 2021)

This sure escalated quickly...


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jan 23, 2021)

KD142000 said:


> Everyone in there is getting an insta-block from me.
> 
> Should all be ashamed of yourselves, but I guess we're past that now, aren't we?
> Fuck the lot of you.



*Been *passed it. I'm shocked it took _this _long for you lot to finally smash that block button.

You've learned! Good!


----------



## Punji (Jan 23, 2021)

Lucyfur said:


> I was actually removed from those sections of the server because I was the only one who was left of center there which made it ripe to speak out against a lot of their BS like some racism some xenophobia some transphobia. You know that nice melting pot of alt-lite to right points time and again.
> I left because I realized I had nothing to do there. But initially my existence had been one of opposition. Unlike yourself who was like 'heh transphobic remarks I hope this doesnt get out' I actually spokje out against such things and provided the scientific facts to the matter.
> 
> That is the big difference you are one of a silent compliance.


I only know what I was told when I saw you leave the server. I expressed surprise that you were there since you never posted anything (why didn't you welcome me? ) and was told you were blocked from the politics section because of all the fights you caused, and had since pretty much stopped posting completely.

Silent compliance, hah. A conversation was going on and I actively tried to stop it by subtly suggesting it should be stopped, then tried to steer it to another subject. Do you comply and support every single thing said here on the forums if you don't directly comment on them?



Lucyfur said:


> Do it~
> Please do it I invite you to I want you to show all my shame mmmmm~


Hey, you know my Discord. 

For what it's worth, we can just talk.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I disagree, but perhaps some are more guilty than others.


Haha, that's rich. You disagree that no one is innocent? You of all people know exactly why that's wrong.

But regardless, I can't defend the statements and did not at the time.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jan 23, 2021)

Well we've seen the screenshots of the transphobes. Let's see if the mods take action on the users involved.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jan 23, 2021)

Punji said:


> I only know what I was told when I saw you leave the server. I expressed surprise that you were there since you never posted anything (why didn't you welcome me? ) and was told you were blocked from the politics section because of all the fights you caused, and had since pretty much stopped posting completely.
> 
> Silent compliance, hah. A conversation was going on and I actively tried to stop it by subtly suggesting it should be stopped, then tried to steer it to another subject. Do you comply and support every single thing said here on the forums if you don't directly comment on them?
> 
> ...


I don't want this to overshadow the scummy chat you had with your buddies in bigotry, but I feel there were a few innocent people on these threads. 

One that struck me was an acquaintance I don't really know too well, but I have seen them talk publicly about their struggles being non-binary. 

This person has never been involved in any kind of drama here and the only posts they make are thoughtful insight and amazing art. 

This person did raise objections about how people need to air their negativity on trans threads and got rude remarks they didn't respond to in return. 

I'd call them innocent along with all the trans users who feel intimidated on here by the persistent bullying that certain subset of users like to engage in.


----------



## Flamingo (Jan 23, 2021)

Locking this while I catch up.


----------

