-92
These mods on their power-trips really need to stop
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
-92 points (15.2% liked)
Fediverse
28518 readers
108 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Generally, and I can only speak for myself, but GENERALLY, the way it works is someone takes offense at your comment and reports it.
That report goes to the mods of that community along with the Admins of your instance, in your case programming.dev.
Any action taken by the mods or admins is then recorded in the modlog.
In your case, you got a 3 day ban:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=7110660
"Rule 1 - No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct."
And, yeah, your comment hits that rule. I would have removed it from my communities as well.
Ban-worthy? Not for a single comment for ME at least. If it looked like you were engaging in a pattern of behavior or trolling, then yeah, that's a ban.
Transphobic leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Let's take islam as an example... btw, I'm a muslim.
If I'd say something along these lines "It's absurd that we live in a society where people feel the urge to tell me to greet them with 'sallam alleykum'".
Would that be islamophobic?
And yes, I agree, If I were to go around and just write these types of comments on every occasion, sure, that'd be a rightful ban.
There's already a huge difference between what happened and your example here. Your example is "people saying you must do X" . What happens when it comes to gender is people asking, "please do not do X".
They're not saying you must refer to them as, for instance, she/her, but rather asking that you do not refer to them as he/him/they/them/whatever. You're free to just not use pronouns to refer to them at all if that suits you better - you can refer to them by name instead. You're left with plenty of options and only a handful of restrictions.
Your example, on the other hand, is completely restrictive; you must take this single course of action, and there are no alternatives.
For what it's worth, I do think we're in a fairly transitional stage (ha) of how we as society deal with transgenderism. I think people being made to change their pronouns in order to feel comfortable is silly. Not because those people are silly - they're just doing what they can to feel comfortable with the restrictions society has placed on them - but because society and language are silly.
Why do we refer to people by gender at times when it's completely irrelevant? Someone having a penis, or male hormones, or whatever other "masculine qualities", is irrelevant 99% of the time when I refer to them as he/him. If I say, "Donald Trump? Yeah, he's a corrupt idiot," then why does him having a penis have any bearing on the language I use there?
And why do we have such gendered roles in society? Why can't men just wear dresses and make-up and link the colour pink and still identify as men? Why can't women cut their hair short and wear baggy clothes and like engineering projects and lifting weights at the gym and still identify as women? I guarantee that if we could remove all those kinds of gender associations, you'd see a lot less trans people.
People transition because who they are and what they like, and what society says they have to be (based on their gender) are at odds with each other, and it's literally easier for them to change gender in order to be allowed to be themselves than to change society. Being trans isn't some kind of personal failing; it's a failure of society to accommodate people who deviate even slightly from its rigid roles and expectations.
The ideal future, such as I see it, is for there to be no trans people because no-one feels a need to transition - they can just feel comfortable and accepted as they are. But until then, you need to recognise that there's a societal issue and stop being a part of it. It takes such a small amount of effort on your part to use the pronouns someone requests, or to avoid using pronouns at all, and it makes such a huge difference to them to be gendered properly. So just be a decent, respectful person and accommodate their wishes and stop making their life worse.
This is certainly an interesting topic. There are men who are comfortable wearing dresses and wearing makeup and all that, just as there are women who are comfortable with cutting their hair short and wearing baggy clothes and all that. It's also true that those people are sometimes harassed and called "eggs" by people who are ostensibly trans-friendly (especially fem-presenting guys).
But I don't think that that is equivalent to the trans experience. I assume you're not trans, correct me if I'm wrong, but dysphoria is a real thing that for many people is very deeply related to physical body parts, and your theory just doesn't account for that at all. I don't think that your average fem-presenting guy wants to take HRT to get breasts, let alone go to the extra length of getting bottom surgery and get vaginoplasty. There's clearly something more about dysphoria than it just being a matter of what they like differing from what's socially acceptable, unless you broaden it so wide as "liking having breasts or a vagina" or "liking having a penis", and even that is a stretch because dysphoria is a very visceral sense of wrongness in one's body that goes much deeper than just preferring a different body part.
Not all dysphoria is physical, either. It can relate to misgendering, or any number of societal things that aren't necessarily related to just what we're "allowed" to do. Frankly, unless gender is outright abolished and there are no longer distinctions between genders or even societal differentiation between sexes, I don't see it going away. And even in a post-gender world, I imagine there would still be trans people (perhaps by another name) who experienced physical dysphoria.
Your theory also doesn't account for trans people who present as would be socially acceptable for their assigned gender at birth, and have interests that are similar to their AGAB, but still identify as trans and even may experience dysphoria.
All in all, while I appreciate your conclusion to support trans people, I disagree with your reasoning. I don't think that being trans is merely a result of one's likes not being in line with societal norms. I think it goes much deeper than that, and can't be reduced to such a simple cause.
The islamic example is a 1:1 representation of the comment I made, which I was banned for, as a reply to the previous OP talking about "false equivalence"
Actually, when I read your comment you're exactly saying what I meant to say, but admittedly in a much more polite manner.
I fully agree with you... everyone should be able to do what fulfils them and makes them happy no matter their gender, without being judged by society.
And this class is called, say it with me, a false equivalence argument. A false equivalence being when an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false logic.
Oh come on, seriously? ... false equivalence? would you at least dare to explain why?
User loobkoob@kbin did so in their comment. You can simply not use pronouns. Your hypothetical doesn't include a "just don't say the thing" option.