• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Heart

Small Change to the Terms of Service, Effective Immediately

79 posts in this topic

Is it a gender offense to say that, no matter what anyone says about gender, it's guaranteed that someone somewhere will be upset by it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chair jockey said:

Is it a gender offense to say that, no matter what anyone says about gender, it's guaranteed that someone somewhere will be upset by it?

Well, it could depend on the context. That vague sentence is fine as long as you aren't telling someone their gender is invalid because someone is upset. If it's used as an encouragement (such as "Hey, don't worry about people being upset. Somewhere, someone is upset, so it doesn't matter") then it's fine.

 

I'm guessing you'll have no problems with that sentence, but just wanted to be clear, context does matter ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, chair jockey said:

Is it a gender offense to say that, no matter what anyone says about gender, it's guaranteed that someone somewhere will be upset by it?

This upsets me.

But as Puck says, I think it depends on context. The statement is actually true. If you're pro Trans* you'll upset the anti-trans* people, vice versa, etc etc.

 

However if your point is you say something related to gender as a disagreement, and someone gets upset, does that automatically get translated to transphobic content? No. We look at what the post is says, what they are trying to say (maybe a lapse of judgement with wording), we look at the surrounding situation and we look at past comments/actions made by the poster.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Puck said:

Well, it could depend on the context. That vague sentence is fine as long as you aren't telling someone their gender is invalid because someone is upset. If it's used as an encouragement (such as "Hey, don't worry about people being upset. Somewhere, someone is upset, so it doesn't matter") then it's fine.

 

I'm guessing you'll have no problems with that sentence, but just wanted to be clear, context does matter ;)

 

2 minutes ago, Ricchan said:

This upsets me.

But as Puck says, I think it depends on context. The statement is actually true. If you're pro Trans* you'll upset the anti-trans* people, vice versa, etc etc.

 

However if your point is you say something related to gender as a disagreement, and someone gets upset, does that automatically get translated to transphobic content? No. We look at what the post is says, what they are trying to say (maybe a lapse of judgement with wording), we look at the surrounding situation and we look at past comments/actions made by the poster.

I wasn't referring to any specific population, just people in general. My question was slightly facetious because it involves an absolute, but both my experience and my observation is that, when discussing gender, it seems extremely difficult to say anything that doesn't upset someone or other. I don't know why things are that way, but gender seems to be one of those topics where the best-intentioned people are constantly pissing someone off (and in best-intentioned people I include trans* and non-binary people, because they seem to piss off other well-intentioned people on the topic of gender to the same extent as everyone else does).

 

What assists me is Ricchan's statement that potential ToS violations will be evaluated according to some objective standard rather than on the basis of submissions by complainants and defendants, because all anyone has a right to expect is that members be disciplined for what we actually do rather than what some other members feel we did or we feel we didn't do. The latter approach would likely lead to hundreds or thousands of bans following years of quasi-legal arguments by the parties on each offence. So thanks for making that clear.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is all this a good example of AVEN members' ability to turn a rather simple small block of wood into a huge pile of splinters and question each splinter, or I just too impatient?

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sally said:

Is all this a good example of AVEN members' ability to turn a rather simple small block of wood into a huge pile of splinters and question each splinter, or I just too impatient?

I don't know, but I do have a question. Does this splinter have bird poop next to it or is it paint?

 

splinter.jpeg

 

But joking aside, questions are welcome :) We want everyone to be able to post with the knowledge that they can do so without breaking ToS. So if people need clarification for how to do so, they are welcome to come to the admods to learn how!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Puck said:

I don't know, but I do have a question. Does this splinter have bird poop next to it or is it paint?

 

splinter.jpeg

 

But joking aside, questions are welcome :) We want everyone to be able to post with the knowledge that they can do so without breaking ToS. So if people need clarification for how to do so, they are welcome to come to the admods to learn how!

That's extremely watery bird poop.  Some bird has diarrhea.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally said:

Is all this a good example of AVEN members' ability to turn a rather simple small block of wood into a huge pile of splinters and question each splinter, or I just too impatient?

That's the entire point of this thread?  You know no one is forcing you to read this right?

 

22 hours ago, Puck said:

The line is that if it invalidates/insults/so forth how a person are identifying, it's gender identity relating. If it's just insulting your gender, it's not considered a gender identity related offense.

I thought gender was and identity? People self identify as a gender and if you're insulting them based on gender you're insulting, how they identify no? If you look at gender identity definitions they all say "identify". For example if I identify as a Parrothead and you insult all people who like Jimmy Buffett music and say they are idiots for liking it aren't you insulting how I identify? 

 

22 hours ago, Puck said:

Because it's focused on transphobic and gender identity issues, it's less likely to "protect" cis-gender, though it could.

 

For example, if UserA said to a male cis user that "you aren't cis because you don't like sports like all boys do. You must be a transwoman or non-binary or something" then that would be invalidating of that persons gender identity. Then for this case, if a warning was deemed needed in this case for that invalidation of gender identity, then the ban would be put in place.......

 

It wouldn't because it's not insulting their identity, rather it's insulting their gender. You aren't denying that they are male, you are insulting something about them that is male.

 

Right so the entire point of emasculating a person is to deny they are a man or male. It is invalidating the person's male identity which was said earlier to be one of the things this rule is targeting. Your example given and my example are the exact same thing. Basically if you emasculate someone you say they aren't male they must be something else right? They can't be male that was established. This rule seems to be very randomly applied to me or the wording poorly defining what is being meant to be said. 

 

22 hours ago, Puck said:

Admods have seen a number of transphobic and gender identity related offenses reported, this gives the team the ability to judge when specifically a users gender identity is being judged/insulted/invalidated/so forth. Saying "gender identity related" is meant to be clear that anyone insulting/judging/so forth someone for how they identify, not just what their gender is, is subject to this ban. 

 

I'm sure there is a very good reason for this new rule. I don't mind the rule and what you and Heart has said it is meant to do. I just have issue with wording of it. 



 

I feel like after all these questions it might seem like splitting hairs, but I do hope it makes it clearer so users feel confident they know the guidelines to post by :)

 

The questions are trying to figure out when this is being applied, as the wording implies way more then is being said.

 

22 hours ago, Puck said:

I'm sure I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'll repeat once more for good measure, admods are not changing how they judge reports. Nudges and warnings have been given out for transphobia and gender identity related offenses many times. It's just that from now on, we are adding the ban to these offenses.

 

Yeah I get it it is like a hate crime in America. It is just an added penalty on top of an offense. I have no problem with this part.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally said:

Is all this a good example of AVEN members' ability to turn a rather simple small block of wood into a huge pile of splinters and question each splinter, or I just too impatient?

I think people like to clarify because many of us have been caught out breaking ToS despite having extensive knowledge *of* said ToS, because the way mods and admins interpret something thats written there is different from what it actually says (the words say one thing, the admod team interprets it differently). I still have an active warn for that exact reason and it'll be on my account for months yet, so now I'd rather pick every new change apart to ensure we know exactly how they're interpreting what's written there. That's my motivation behind the questions I asked anyway.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Puck said:

 this splinter have bird poop next to it or is it paint?

 

splinter.jpeg

 

 

That's cookies and cream icecream that dripped off the cone into the wood on a hot day, obviously!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

I thought gender was and identity? People self identify as a gender and if you're insulting them based on gender you're insulting, how they identify no? If you look at gender identity definitions they all say "identify". For example if I identify as a Parrothead and you insult all people who like Jimmy Buffett music and say they are idiots for liking it aren't you insulting how I identify? 

Insulting a group of people as if they are all the same, for their beliefs is a breach of ToS. In terms of is it attacking an identity, if you said "I identify as X" and someone said that it is dumb to do so, then it has turned into an attack of identity. "I dislike Jimmy Beffett music, as it's not my tastes, but if other people like it then I don't mind" is fine.

Basically, just go along the lines of "this broke ToS before, for specific reasons" if one of those reasons is transphobia, then this rule takes effect. The way we actually analyse everything hasn't changed at all.
 

12 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

Right so the entire point of emasculating a person is to deny they are a man or male. It is invalidating the person's male identity which was said earlier to be one of the things this rule is targeting. Your example given and my example are the exact same thing. Basically if you emasculate someone you say they aren't male they must be something else right? They can't be male that was established. This rule seems to be very randomly applied to me or the wording poorly defining what is being meant to be said. 

 

If someone said they are "cis-male" and then someone said "no you aren't" then that ain't cool. 
Again, one of the issues here, is we are trying to blanket every possible scenario. Wording and context is a huge thing in these situations, and where possible, we relate it to similar past incidents and try to make sure we stay even with the action taken. 

 

12 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

I'm sure there is a very good reason for this new rule. I don't mind the rule and what you and Heart has said it is meant to do. I just have issue with wording of it.

You have an issue with the wording, or the current explanations? If there is issues with wording of the rule, please feel free to highlight the specific issue (you may have elsewhere, but I can't see it at a skim). If there are holes/loopholes/issues in the ToS then we do want to patch it up as best we can.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ricchan said:

Insulting a group of people as if they are all the same, for their beliefs is a breach of ToS. In terms of is it attacking an identity, if you said "I identify as X" and someone said that it is dumb to do so, then it has turned into an attack of identity. "I dislike Jimmy Beffett music, as it's not my tastes, but if other people like it then I don't mind" is fine.

You missed the point of what I'm saying.....

 

2 hours ago, Ricchan said:

Basically, just go along the lines of "this broke ToS before, for specific reasons" if one of those reasons is transphobia, then this rule takes effect. The way we actually analyse everything hasn't changed at all.

I have no problem with the Transphobia part of this ToS that makes sense. The issue is "gender identity related offences" is not what seems to be what the Admods mean when answering my question.

 

2 hours ago, Ricchan said:

If someone said they are "cis-male" and then someone said "no you aren't" then that ain't cool. 

 True I'm not saying any of the examples are cool It is whether they have a harder punishment on them.

 

2 hours ago, Ricchan said:

Again, one of the issues here, is we are trying to blanket every possible scenario. Wording and context is a huge thing in these situations, and where possible, we relate it to similar past incidents and try to make sure we stay even with the action taken. 

No the issue here is that the new rule and how it is expected to be enforced aren't the same thing. 

 

2 hours ago, Ricchan said:

You have an issue with the wording, or the current explanations? If there is issues with wording of the rule, please feel free to highlight the specific issue (you may have elsewhere, but I can't see it at a skim). If there are holes/loopholes/issues in the ToS then we do want to patch it up as best we can.

The explanations and the wording used don't match. I don't have an issue with the wording alone or the explanation alone, but the explanations don't match how Admods are applying it. Basically emasculating falls under a  "Gender related offenses" as that is the definition of emasculating someone and invalidates their gender identity, so I am not sure what the admods meant by this part but it doesn't make sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I agree with Sally about splinters, or call it splitting hair or what have you. It's only the consequences of certain transgressions that have changed, not the way rules are applied. If you look at the bigger picture, clearly the question you should ask yourself is not "Does X or Y fall under gender stuff?". It's more like "If X was said and warned for, would keeping this person out of Gender Discussion forum help trans* and non-binary folks feel safer?", 'cause that's what this is about. I'm sorry if this might cause cis people to feel less protected than non-cis people, but hey, be thankful you need no protection in your daily life for being cis! :)  (Well, not really sorry, I guess...)

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ♡ Fitzsimmons ♡ said:

 I'm sorry if this might cause cis people to feel less protected than non-cis people, but hey, be thankful you need no protection in your daily life for being cis! :)  (Well, not really sorry, I guess...)

No, this isn't about "oh poor cis people, trans people having more rights than them to a safe space boo hoo" It's about people (regardless of their gender) not wanting to get a ban from a certain forum over misunderstanding something. It's not about who's protected and who is not, because a transperson is just as likely as anyone else to trip and get a ban now over misunderstanding an aspect of the ToS. That's why its an issue. Because now an immediate temp ban from part of AVEN is involved. And bans from this site really suck when it's your only social outlet which is what it is for a lot of people. ..seriously what you just said about cis people, I can see if you took that perspective a bit further or got upset and stopped watching your wording, then an opinion like that taken too far in the heat of the moment could potentially land you with a temp ban from the gender forum. So yeah, that's why people are picking it apart. They want to avoid a ban.

 

The ToS can be *extremely* tricky to navigate due to the admods interpretations of it being different than what it actually says . For example I got a 6 month active warn and a ban for saying that often cases that people interpret as sexual fluidity are actually someone gaining more life experience and learning more about themselves. So when I realised I was actually sexual, not ace, that wasn't sexual fluidity, I was just learning more about myself through a greater experience level than I previously had. I said actual sexual fluidity (someone literally changing sexual orientations) is actually quite rare. It is common however that people lose interest in sex with age and familiarity after a long relationship and that's a normal part of being human. Anyway that fell under a part of the ToS that is "invalidating people's sexual identities" even though not one person in the thread was identifying  as sexually fluid. Someone in the thread was saying they think their wife is sexually fluid and has turned asexual, even though she herself refuses to identify as ace. I appealed the warn and was told that it definitely stands because I was invalidating the identity of every person who identifies as fluid on AVEN by saying it's quite rare *sigh*. So yeah, the way the admods interpret aspects of the ToS is very important if you don't want to get yourself a ban, but AVEN also shouldn't have to be like an abusive relationship where you literally have to tiptoe around monitoring every word and constantly worried about how you say things for fear of punishment. When AVEN is the only place you have to go (which is the case for many people here, and some people spend a lot of time in the gender forums) it becomes a really fine line between being able to actually speak your mind and being worried about speaking for fear of punishment.

 

Short story is, people are just trying to work out how they can word things and what they can say without getting a ban. Someone is just as likely to get a ban for saying "cis people are scum" or "all cis people are transphobic" as the other way around. So everyone is "protected" (as they damn well should be) but at the same time *everyone* (regardless of gender identity) also needs to watch what they say regarding cis OR trans people so they dont get a ban. There are plenty of cis people who need protection in society for reasons other than gender identity, and there are many cis people who get the same shit as transpeople because said cis person doesnt fit gender norms (that happens all the time, especially to effeminate men) .. So yeah, everyone has a right to protection okay? It's not just trans thing. But they also technically have a right to not have to fear harsh punishment for having an opinion that the far left doesn't agree with, or for wording an acceptable opinion in slightly the wrong way.  However ToS is a very tricky thing and really does need to be picked apart to ensure one doesn't screw up the way I did with the "invalidating sexual identities" comment which to me seemed perfectly okay and reasonable and wasn't even aimed at any specific person present, it was just an observation about sexual fluidity in general.

 

This is about greater protection for cis and trans identities, and harsher punishment for cis and transpeople (and people who aren't "cis" or trans, like me) who commit "gender related offences", okay?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the reports on this thread, I am locking this until the admod team can review it

 

scarletlatitude, mod

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlocking this.

 

Please remember to focus any further posts on the new policy announced. 

 

Puck

Moderator, The Gray Area and The Sex Talk

Temp Moderator for Announcements

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for being absent from this thread for a while. I really do appreciate those who are trying to understand the intricate details of this new policy, and I think it's a good exercise. Heck, it's even good for me; it forces me to really think about my definitions and how I apply them. I want to thank you all for the chance to relate what I consider to be the difference between sexism, transphobia and gender invalidation. I found that very helpful even for myself, to have to take the time to write it out.

 

I'm sorry to those who are expressing frustration at how we apply the terms of service. I know it's tricky, and I wish I knew how to convey my attitudes and values more efficiently. If I could, I would word the terms of service better. Or at least suggest amendments. Until then, all I can offer is to answer as many questions as I can in the meantime, and to continue to do my best to apply them in the fairest way I know how. Communication is never perfect, especially via text, but I will always do my best.

 

As for emasculating, I had not considered that previously. It is a really good example of a grey area that I don't think anyone had thought of when making this policy. In any example I can think of in the past of an emasculating comment being brought up for review and given a disciplinary action, it has been under the category of personal insults and/or sexism. If this had not been brought up specifically, I personally would have left it at that and called it a personal insult for implying that the person is somehow weak for crying. To me, emasculating comments read more as an appeal to sexism than an invalidation of gender; someone is telling another to stop being weak when they say "grow a pair", or "man up", or comments similar to that. To me, these comments are sexist because they imply that people who are not men (probably women) are weaker or more fragile.

 

Having said all that, emasculating comments like "man up" can be invalidating as well as sexist, as has been brought up. The thing about nasty hurtful things is that they can be combo attacks.

 

Since no one had this conversation about emasculation when making this policy, I'd like to ask the members what they think. Should we block someone's access to Gender Discussion if they make a comment like "man up" in a mean way? Should emasculation be covered under this clause?

 

To be clear, I am asking from a perspective of data collection. I am not going to run a poll, or take these comments as binding, since this is not a thread in site comments nor is it exhaustive. But I am interested, and this is indeed relevant to the policy.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heart said:

I'm sorry for being absent from this thread for a while. I really do appreciate those who are trying to understand the intricate details of this new policy, and I think it's a good exercise. Heck, it's even good for me; it forces me to really think about my definitions and how I apply them. I want to thank you all for the chance to relate what I consider to be the difference between sexism, transphobia and gender invalidation. I found that very helpful even for myself, to have to take the time to write it out.

 

I'm sorry to those who are expressing frustration at how we apply the terms of service. I know it's tricky, and I wish I knew how to convey my attitudes and values more efficiently. If I could, I would word the terms of service better. Or at least suggest amendments. Until then, all I can offer is to answer as many questions as I can in the meantime, and to continue to do my best to apply them in the fairest way I know how. Communication is never perfect, especially via text, but I will always do my best.

 

As for emasculating, I had not considered that previously. It is a really good example of a grey area that I don't think anyone had thought of when making this policy. In any example I can think of in the past of an emasculating comment being brought up for review and given a disciplinary action, it has been under the category of personal insults and/or sexism. If this had not been brought up specifically, I personally would have left it at that and called it a personal insult for implying that the person is somehow weak for crying. To me, emasculating comments read more as an appeal to sexism than an invalidation of gender; someone is telling another to stop being weak when they say "grow a pair", or "man up", or comments similar to that. To me, these comments are sexist because they imply that people who are not men (probably women) are weaker or more fragile.

 

Having said all that, emasculating comments like "man up" can be invalidating as well as sexist, as has been brought up. The thing about nasty hurtful things is that they can be combo attacks.

 

Since no one had this conversation about emasculation when making this policy, I'd like to ask the members what they think. Should we block someone's access to Gender Discussion if they make a comment like "man up" in a mean way? Should emasculation be covered under this clause?

 

To be clear, I am asking from a perspective of data collection. I am not going to run a poll, or take these comments as binding, since this is not a thread in site comments nor is it exhaustive. But I am interested, and this is indeed relevant to the policy.

The way the rules are written and if I was basing my decision off the rules I would say it should be considered an attack on gender as that is what it is doing. However I personally don't see any need to restrict that person's access from gender discussion. I don't see a need for this to effect Cis-gender member's and if it isn't to cover cisgender member's it should have been left at transphobia, which covers members who are nonbinary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say in general.. I get a lot of hate online for being gender fluid (not here yet :)) It is nice to see that this is a safe place! :):D :cake::cake:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now