this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
610 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Censorship. All the major subreddits became political echo-chambers. Reddit was founded on free speech and open discourse, especially when it was really uncomfortable. I'd love to see the same for Lemmy. Over the years I've seen authoritarianism creep into the moderation policies of most major subreddits. Today, even posting on the wrong subreddit is grounds for being banned from dozens of major subreddits. Even having a polite disagreement about, for example, anything to do with "trans," is grounds for being banned.
So the one thing on Reddit that you wish to leave behind is mods deleting transphobic comments? Lol
Would you please quote where I wrote that?
Can you be more specific about the type of authoritarianisms you wish to avoid?
Many centrist are closet transphobes and often use the verbage of authoritarianism as a dog whistle.
I'm a centrist with a trans kid and no issues beyond worrying how they'll be treated by transphobes
Being a centriphobe is still bigotry
"Being a centriphobe is still bigotry"
Generally it's not bigotry when your critizes peoples choices. It's usually reserved for things people can't change. Like their race.
Example
"Centrist ideas are usually not well thought out"
See this isn't bigotry because you could have better ideas.
I'm glad your good with your trans kid tho.
I definitely get what you mean and I think the idea that you can get away with no censorship is naive. However, they could just as easily be talking about r/conservatives use of conservative only posts and their banning of anyone sharing opposing viewpoints.
Anything to do with "trans"?
I'm sorry I'm not sure how else to describe it. Trans people are those who believe their sex doesn't match how they feel inside.
I am aware of the concept of being transgender I am just wondering what your "polite disagreements" are with it
I'd say that a fairly debated topic related to transgender people, which isn't just transphobes attacking people trying to live their own life, is the presence of transgender athletes in competitions. Some will take it as a personal attack whether you take a side or sit on the fence. I'm not looking to start that conversation here, but yeah. It's definitely possible to hold a polite conversation about this while disagreeing on parts of the question. In a healthy space.
I disagree, that isn't a "polite disagreement" and is, absolutely, "just transphobes attacking people trying to live their own life" as you put it. Every time that "Argument" happens it's openly done in biologically unfounded ways by people who simply don't understand how our bodies actually work- yet those arguments get mass upvoted by people who also don't understand how biology actually works and who believe that trans athletes get some insane, unfair advantage.
If you want to pass laws to restrict trans people from sports, then you want to pass laws to discriminate against trans people. That's not really up for debate IMO, it's a straight up fact; it's what you're doing when you advocate for laws that are not founded in science, that are specifically targeting a tiny minority for the chance that one of that tiny minority might beat cis athletes in an "unfair" way, you're advocating for bigoted laws.
Such arguments are also inevietably filled with people misgendering trans people, deliberately calling trans women "men" and hiding behind the "I'm talking about biology" argument to do so.
Replace the word "trans" with "black" and you'll find that people are making literally identical arguments to those against desegregating professional sports leagues 80 years ago. Literally word for word.
The thing I don't understand around it is that the people who are making the argument "trans people shouldn't be able to participate in sports" are usually also people who are not interested in the sport at all. As in are they upset because someone on the telly told them to, but they really don't care about the sport except in this very niche aspect which impacts a very slight minority of participants. I mean would half the US public be very interested in the deep technicalities of competitive high-school running?
Same with HRT. Why do I even have to know about it? It's a niche medical treatment for a comparatively small amount of people suffering from some very specific conditions. I can barely understand what the difference is between ibuprofen and paracetamol, and I'm sure most people are even less informed. Why is it not the sole interest of people affected by gender dysphoria (IDK if I'm even spelling or saying it right, sorry for my ignorance), and their doctors?
The thing that actually grinds my gears is that this culture war stuff takes over places and trans people have to get defensive over their existence, and a forum on fricking Bionicle gets full of trans memes. Don't get me wrong, if you're a trans person, or a Zulu, or IDK what niche minority, and you've made a Bionicle that uniquely represents you, I'm going to upvote that shit so hard since it's frickin awesome. But having the whole place be full of low effort "trans people are people" memes is about as funny or interesting as having the whole place full of "the sky is blue" memes.
People are getting outraged about what some socially disadvantaged minority is doing with their lives instead of actually contributing to society, because some idiotic grifter TV host told them to. Fucking lemmings.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know how our bodies work, but I think explaining it will be more helpful in the long run than just making the subject taboo and banning everyone who asks it.
At the beginning of the pandemic a common argument against masks was "the virus is too small to be caught in a mask" - which made sense from a layman's point of view. When people started explaining that masks did stop the water droplets the virus needs to be airborne - that argument become a lot less common.
Not everybody who has questions is "just asking questions", if you catch my drift.
I agree with that statement, context is everything.
I think that in the context of someone starting out going "it's unfair for men to compete in women's sports," the person is "just asking questions." That context poisons the well for questions.
But if someone comes in and makes a thread like "I don't understand how hormone therapy works, can someone please explain it?" that, to me, is a good faith question and 100% should not be bannable.
All good :)
Now that I have your attention though, what would be a good counter argument on why trans women should be allowed to compete in the same league as non-trans women (please excuse my lacking vocabulary)?
Like I mentioned, at first sight as a layman, the argument that trans women would have an competitive advantage makes sense to me. So I'd be grateful if you could take away my ignorance.
First for the vocabulary:
non-trans = cisgender. cis meaning "same," as in "same gender as assigned at birth."
Second, I'm not the best at doing that, but I know of a really good report which has good citations of studies and really thoroughly discusses the issue. PDF WARNING: It can be found here.
Thanks for the former, guess I should have known that, but I'll be sure to remember now. As for the second... I'm interested in the answer, but not 86 pages scientific report interested. Guess I'll just have to wait around for the "water droplet"-size answer, but thanks for your patience nonetheless :)
Okay thanks for the input
I think that after HRT the difference is not that big. Trans athletes may even be at the disadvantage since there are some cis woman that have higher than average amount of testosterone.
In the long shot I think it would be for the best to abolish gender based separation altogether and replace it with something more like weight categories.
Consider two 5'6" 65kg athletes, one man and one woman, are you saying that the man doesn't have an advantage?
I used to believe the same until I saw the recent Women's Premier League in Cricket. They had to reduce the size of field and the weight of ball. Even with that, the fastest bowl in the tournament was 130kmph while that speed is considered a "slower ball" in men's cricket.
Now some of these female cricketers earm more than any Pakistani male cricketers. Which is fair, bigger market, bigger payout. But female cricketers don't stand a chance against the male cricketers
What does an athlete that's a man have to do with trans people
Ok, that's literally completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You just flat out stated in this comment that you think that all trans women are actually just men. You're flat out wrong about that.
We have more than enough science that demostrates conclusively that a person on hormone therapy is athletically more similar to the sex they are transitioning to than the sex they were born in. You're just ignoring all of that and pretending that it doesn't exist. YOU might not like that it exists because it makes it clear that you're just being a bigot, but it does exist, and it demonstrates exactly that.
No, my MMA teacher was female and she'd kick my arse regularly
Now you're undermining your first point, you're not comparing same heights and weight. Physics is real.
Okay.
Ellyse Perry, the fastest bowler in women's cricket is 176cm at 60kg (amazing athlete, represented Australia at both Cricket and Football world cups!). Her fastest ball was 130.1kph
Shoaib Akthar, the fastst bowler in men's cricket is 180cm at 80kg. His fastest was 161kph
Laws of cricket dictate that women should use a ball that is between 415⁄16 and 55⁄16 ounces (139.98 and 150.61 grams); which could be up to 13⁄16 ounces (23.03 grams) lighter than the ball used by the men.
Also made me think, the whole height-weight distinction will only work in purely physical sports like boxing (maybe even some american sports like baseball and nfl). It is not going to work in global sports like Cricket and Football. Think about the greatest footballers of our generation. Cristiano was 183cm (6ft) and Messi 169cm (5ft 6in).
So his mass is 33% more and the ball goes 23% faster? Momentum is mass x velocity iirc.
I only pointed out the difference between the fastest. There’s plenty of shorter, leaner bowlers in men’s cricket who bowl faster than Perry. Kemar Roach for instance is in the same height and weight category as Perry and regularly bowls 150kph
Tbf it’s expected. You know women going below 16-18% body fat is completely unhealthy while top male athletes are perfectly healthy at 6% or so
Edit: wtf mate? Momentum is not mass of propeller times velocity. By your logic a sumo wrestler would easily be the fastest cricket bowler!
Momentum is mass x velocity. Google it.
Would you rather get hit by a featherweight or heavyweight? Mass matters
I'd say the difference between men and women's cricket will reduce as women get more training and money, I don't see any reason why not
Yes dear friend, momentum is indeed mass x velocity. But we’re not talking about the speed at which the bowler runs. It’s the speed at which the bowl is propelled.
(to be clear, the lower mass of cricket ball in women’s cricket is a factor in reducing momentum. But we’re talking purely speed here)
Some women cricketers (outside Pakistan) earn more than Pakistani male cricketers already. And I must say, I’m a huge supporter. Unlike the WNBA in the US, women’s cricket is way more popular in rest of the world.
It’s a biological factor that women, generally, aren’t as physically strong as men and as a supporter of female athletes, abolishing gender boundaries is practically killing women’s sports. Here’s some more data you could’ve found out by googling: https://boysvswomen.com/#/
Thanks, done a little googling, I'm not very au fait with the subject
I found this article that reinforces most of what you say, but also makes the comment:
https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1104475/how-far-can-women-s-cricket-go
Here is a surprise for you: HRT actually does things to your body. I don't think this should have been that hard to find on your own, but I can't judge your circumstances.
There are things that don't completely change with HRT (particularly when started after puberty.) Height, bone density, lung capacity, hand/foot/limb size etc. do not vary significantly after HRT and depending on the sport can make a huge difference (eg. Hand and foot size or lung capacity in swimming even where the two swimmers are the same height.)
Then we should allow people to access gender affirming treatment earlier, no?
That could be one conclusion since it may lead to more desirable outcomes. On the other hand, we generally don't allow children to undergo other permanent procedures (eg. Nose jobs, tattoos etc.) because children change their minds. It can be argued that medical transition is necessary medical care (eg. like how we give chemo even though it may have permanent long-term effects.)
However, since dysphoria is a psychiatric diagnosis (there's nothing physical to test like a tumour) we cannot be sure in the same way that treatment is medically necessary. Therefore, I believe that the care providers should have to be extremely sure that the child is not going to detransition before making any medical moves like puberty blockers or HRT. I'm not convinced they can be sure enough or at least that they are being that rigorous (they clearly weren't here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62335665.)
No matter how politely stated your disagreement is, if it boils down to "I don't think I should have to respect trans people's identity"/"I don't think trans people should have rights" then it's transphobic and I'm 1000% fine with that being bannable
A subreddit I moderate, /r/moderatepolitics, has had to do a delicate balancing act around this. There are site-wide rules banning many statements around trans people, and the red lines are not well defined. Reddit's "Anti-Evil Operations" (site-wide moderation team) frequently swoops in and deletes comments that are offensive to trans people, but well within current political discourse in the US. That has undermined our mission of being a forum for diverse voices to hold productive but difficult discussions. At a certain point, we entirely banned the discussion of trans issues because one side was able to speak freely and the other side was walking on egg shells. I'm solidly pro-trans, but that's no way to have a conversation.
This likely was done to try to keep Reddit from becoming a cesspool like the "free speech" sites like Gab, but it has turned out to be a lazy way that short circuits necessary conversations.
There is only one necessary converation around trans people, in which trans people say, Let us exist without being harassed or persecuted, and everyone else says, OK. Anything else is just allowing bigots a platform.
I wish the world worked that way, but in practice there are just too many ignorant people out there. They can walk out their front door and talk to their neighbors who are more than willing to pass on the latest slander about trans people. Our sub's mission is to provide a space where they can try to pass on something resembling the latest slander and get push back. As-is, too much of the US is so segregated by ideology that people may not ever meet an out trans person. We want to foster those human-to-human connections instead of letting them rely on Tucker Carlson's latest Very Concerned mouth diarrhea.
Edit: I value safe spaces for their function as a reprieve for trans people, and I don't think every platform should provide a space for unrestricted speech. But at the same time, I think it's beneficial to have some spaces that require a bare minimum of good behavior so that society can talk about these topics and move forward into a better future. There's too much ignorance of trans people as-is.
See, the correct definition for this here is "no transphobia"
It's cute that you think you can fight back against reactionary BS by arguing with it, but history does not bear this out. What you end up doing is creating another space where people can post Tucker Carlson's latest Very Concerned mouth diarrhea, only distilled into a more toxic form that even Tucker couldn't get away with, as long as they say it politely. Your way has led us here, to a political situation where people are actively trying to eradicate trans people in law.
Our sub's way has largely not been followed in the US. Everyone's retreated into their corner. Trans people have tried to keep safe, both physically and emotionally. Those hostile to them have cloaked their fear and hatred in the usual: family values and "think of the children". The country is rife with tribalism. Different parts of the country have vastly different ways of thinking. There are fewer and fewer spaces dedicated to talking across ideologies, even closely related ones. We frequently hear that ours is one of the few spaces where people can talk over difficult issues without being shouted down.
I'm under no illusions that reactionaries just need to hear the right words and they'll be enthusiastic supporters. But I have found that when forced out of their zone of comfort, their minds change inch by inch. Even just starting by not allowing the worst slander helps jolt them out of that mindset and filter out people who will never be interested in discussion. Civil rights are gained by winning hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. The LGBTQ rights movement has moved amazingly fast, with under 55 years having passed since the Stonewall Riots. We have moved this fast partially because LGBTQ people are harder to "other" because any family member or friend can turn out to be LGBTQ.
The thing that irritates me about this comment and the ideology your subreddit represents (well, the pertinent thing) is that the popular world "polarization" obfuscates the massive difference there is between radicalism and dogmatism. That is to say, when two people disagree politically, some people like to imagine for various reasons that their level of animosity is a function of how different their political views are plus some ability to compartmentalize. These things are factors, but ones that lead to political illiteracy on their own.
Dogmatism is the common word for having a circumscribed set of "correct beliefs" and being hostile to any deviation from that set. Radicalism is the sheer extremity of one's views. It's entirely possible to be a radical and to be accepting of people, and it's quite easy to be both a centrist and a dogmatist. We know that second one because that describes a huge portion of the Democratic base! They are people with very little commitment to progressivism who nonetheless are deeply hostile to people on both their left as well as their right.
Of course, sometimes the two traits coincide, like in the Republicans, which have a massive portion of their base that is both pretty radical and pretty dogmatic -- though ironically they could be said to be accepting in an extraordinarily cynical way, what with how Evangelicals supported Trump, who is literally the fakest Christian to ever be President ("Two Corinthians").
Anyway, my point for saying this is that hucksters, useful idiots, and some who I'm sure are good people like to characterize American politics as a situation where there has been a sizable shift towards radicalism. There are new radical (QAnon) and "radical" (Bernie socdem) movements today as there are in any age, but overwhelmingly the Democrats have been getting more conservative if you look past their lip-service, while the Republicans have mostly also become more conservative. The world doesn't need more centrists, the Democratic Party has plenty! When Obama said he's "less liberal in a lot of ways" than Richard Nixon, that wasn't his attempt at absurdist humor!
What would actually be useful is functional empathy and -- god forbid -- a political ideology that has some ability to explain why people have political differences beyond some puritanical insinuation about moral failings. That does not mean we need to be nihilistic or appeasing with our actual political ideology as though nothing is true or else the truth is the median of whatever everyone happens to believe right now.
Paraphrasing Lafayette, "If the world is divided between people who say 2 + 2 is 6 and those who say 2 + 2 is 4, that does not make it the most reasonable position that 2 + 2 is 5."
If I was writing it, I'd probably say that the camps in America are "4+4 is 44" and "4+4 is 64", with "4+4 is 54" being the Enlightened Centrist answer (and ironically perhaps the most deeply irrational).
The subreddit was somewhat poorly named. It's not about "enlightened centrism," as the insult from the left goes. The idea is to build a space where people with a fairly wide range of views can discuss those views without personal attacks. There are of course areas where different people will have different definitions of personal attacks, but for the most part we manage to keep a baseline of respect. What we're not doing as moderators is deciding if 4+4 is 44, 64, 8, or a potato. Commenters talk that out and we keep them polite.
Just for a little bit of context, Obama was griping that Fox and other right wing media was doing their usual "X Democrat is basically the avatar of Marxism" shtick. But the comparison with Nixon was not a good one. Nixon was constrained by a heavily Democratic Congress, while Obama was constrained by a lesser Republican House. Since Obama was comparing the outcomes of both administrations, his comparison looked at a Republican administration pushed hard to the left domestically with a Democratic administration push mildly to the right domestically.
That's the same here unfortunately.
It also sucks when you're not American, like Reddit auto-banned a load of Irish and Brits discussing stopping smoking due to the colloquial term there.
Unfortunately all these American-based websites really force the American views and positions on everyone.
Well that explains it. I'm not American either and I really feel like I'm being forced into their weird social war. I just want to talk about cool gadgets without some culture warrior banning me everywhere because I didn't show the requisite fealty to whatever the current thing is.
Yeah, one thing I hope to leave behind with Reddit is every major subreddit farming outrage w.r.t. American politics.
It just became exhausting and made me unsub from a lot of the big subreddits. So far, Lemmy has been quite positive! It's refreshing.
You were banned for transphobia but were jUsT AsKiNg qUestIons, amiright?
Turns out when people complain about being censored and "free speech" it's because they got in trouble for not being able to call people the N word or becasue they want to "politely discuss" why certain people shouldn't be allowed to exist.
We should never tolerate the intolerant.